[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-01, 17:03, said:

You create a gf and identify a fit at the 2 level, I don't understand why that is cramped.

1♣:2♣ 2♥:3♥ we have a double fit

1♣:1♥ 2♥:3♣?

in the first one, how much does responder know about opener's shape and range? Hint: not much

Compare 1♣ 1♥ 2♥

He knows a little more, but (more importantly) he has an entire level of bidding space to find out. My long-held belief is that most players underestimate the value of bidding space in uncontested auctions.

In your second one, if responder is interested in slam, he has a better hand than opener and can assume captaincy. most serious partnerships have a way to force and ask for opener to describe his hand...you can use 2♠ over 2♥, or 2N over 2M as obvious examples.

I have no idea why so many posters see an analogy between 1♦ 2♣ with 4 card major, 5+ clubs and the inverted auctions. More accurately, I think I see what they are saying, and it seems, with respect, mistaken.

When we bid 2♣ over 1♦, we intend to embark upon showing our hand. When we bid 2m over 1m, as inverted, we intend to embark upon finding out about opener's hand. While captaincy will not always be fixed, the tendency is that no captaincy is established early on in the 1♦ 2♣ sequence, while (generally speaking) the inverted responder has at least temporarily estalished captaincy.

[CSGibson]

I play that 1m-2m denies a 4 card major (though in context of 1m-2m being invitational+). This is because A) I feel like I have a very good xyz structure, so that I can easily handle hands with 4M-5m, and B) because it gives opener more room to define their hand type. If opener rebids 1N, for instance, I have a very good definition of her hand and I'm still at the 1 level - and if opener does anything else, then she is unbalanced, and I can use that information also (this is also by agreement, and while it is not an uncommon agreement, it is also far from standard).

While I feel all that is valid, I certainly don't feel like establishing a fit and a game force cheaply at the 2 level is bad; It's probably just as good, but I'm unfamiliar with the method and unfamiliar with the follow-ups it would require, so I'd lose out in the short run for something that I don't have any reason to believe is substantially superior, which is just not a good use of my time. I suspect that you, Katherine, have the same thing going with your treatment, just in reverse.

[straube]

I realize that we're talking about standard methods here, but I thought I'd give examples of why MAFIA (majors always first in answering) has more potential. We play 1D is artificial 10-15 and we relay.

1D-1H, (artificial, natural or bal)
1N-2C, (11-13, forces 2D)
2D-2N, (forced, forces 3C)
3C-3S, (forced, GF 3-4-1-5 or similar shapes)

1D-1H, (artificial, natural or bal)
1S-2D, (natural, artificial GF)
2N-3C, (5 clubs, asking)
3D-3H, (4135, asking)

There is far far more room after 1D-1H than 1D-2D.

[1eyedjack]

Much is said about how 2m raise cramps bidding space compared with 1M. In isolation, it does. But the true measure of how much bidding space is consumed by a method is not the space consumed by the first bid to start describing your hand, but rather by the last bid that you make on completing the description of your hand. To take a simple analogy, we are taught to open 1S rather than 1H with normal opening values and 5-5 in the majors. 1H is actually a cheaper opener than 1S. But by the time you have shown both suits, you end up cheaper by having opened 1S and rebid 2H than by having opened 1H and rebid 2S.

Furthermore, if you have already found, and in particular expressed, a forcing raise at the level of 2m, you can afford to have consumed more bidding space than where one partner is unaware of a fit and has to bid on the assumption that a fit has yet to be located.

Both methods are playable, but in my experience responding 1M adds dramatically to the complexity of the follow-up sequences on which you need to agree in order for responder subsequently to describe his hand accurately (contrasted with the raise), not least because you have to cater for several possible rebids that opener might make, including (for example) raising your major on 3 cards, or various reverses. Even simply rebidding his minor can create problems in the "catchup". They are not insurmountable problems, but purely natural followups will leave a number of grey areas that become more black-and-white via a direct minor raise.

I think it unusual that the "standard" method should be the one that promotes complex followup continuations, but perhaps in standard methods you are content with grey followups.

[Zelandakh]

Any reason why we could not use the first step for all balanced hands (or unbalanced if you prefer) with the 2 level for fit-showing and the 3 level for stopper-asking? It seems that this way we would get the advantages both sides are talking about (mostly good shape information from both hands) without giving up very much. Over 1♦ - 2♦, if 2♥ shows any balanced hand then we need (i.a.) an inversion with 2NT showing hearts and an unbalanced hand. I daresay most pairs could remember this sort of thing though.

[32519]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-01, 15:58, said:

The style around here is that you respond 1M holding a 4M,5m gf hand after partner opens 1m. No one has been able to tell me the advantage of responding 1M rather than a gf 2m.

The advantages of showing the major suit earlier are quite simple:
1. It allows you more room to explore for a major suit game
2. A major suit game requires only 10 tricks versus 11 tricks for a minor suit game
3. 11 tricks for a minor suit game is only one trick short of slam
4. Majors score more than minors
5. 3NT scores the same as 5m requiring 2 tricks less if that is where you belong
6. With more room you may find yourself in a double fit (MM + mm) allowing you to use 6-card Blackwood in a slam try
7. Bidding space is a very scarce resource and should not be wasted at any cost.

I have pulled out Paul Thurston’s Pocket Guide on 2/1 to see what he had to say on this. Guess what? It’s not covered at all. It covers everything else except your question.
1. If you are playing 2/1 Game-Force, after a minor suit opening, the only time a true 2/1 auction occurs is after 1♦-2♣. This may have a 4-card major.
2. 1m-2NT = 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major
3. 1m-3NT = 15-17 HCP, balanced, no 4-card major
4. 1♣-2♦ or 1♦-3♣ = 12+ HCP sometimes referred to as Criss-Cross Minors

So what do we do with a 4M5m GF-hand? 1♥/1♠ responses are a 1-round force over 1m. So start there. If responder has a GF hand there are plenty of sequences available to get the message across. Don’t consume your own bidding space!

 jillybean, on 2012-May-01, 15:58, said:

What is the advantage of 1m:2m denying a 4cM?

My own methods on deciding whether to bid 1m-2m or 1m-2NT depends on responders holding in the majors. With responders HCP concentrated in the majors e.g. AQx and KJx, I want any major suit lead coming up to responders hand to protect those honours in a 2NT or 3NT contract.
With the HCP concentrated in the minors I bid 1m-2m for opener to play 2NT or 3NT from the other side of the table. Now I want to protect openers major suit holdings.

[fromageGB]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-01, 23:39, said:

... (I'm sure that there are lots of holes in this idea)

There may be a lot of holes but it's simple and workable. To me the key is whether 2♣ is GF or invitational. I have it as invitational so I need to show a major first if I have four, and can then bid 3♣ invitational, because otherwise there is no room to distinguish between genuine suits and stoppers.

If 2♣ is GF I would be very happy to bypass a major initially. I am sure you can use available bids better for esoteric purposes if you have both the memory and the partner, but on a natural basis I think it's OK.

[Cyberyeti]

It is much easier to disentangle inverted minor sequences when you know the minor is real (ie 4+ cards). As such it is not difficult to devise a structure where 1m-2m is not GF, 10+ ish and may include 4M. I would not like to try to do this in a short minor system.

If your club is short and diamond 4+ (and if it isn't, but more important if it is), I would strongly recommend 2♦ as your artificial ask over 1♣-2♣ to give you more space.

I think the fashion for not allowing 4M is because of this problem where you know so little about a 1♣ opener that you have to limit the shape/strength of responder's inverted raise to be able to bid sensibly.

[gnasher]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-01, 23:43, said:

When we bid 2♣ over 1♦, we intend to embark upon showing our hand. When we bid 2m over 1m, as inverted, we intend to embark upon finding out about opener's hand. While captaincy will not always be fixed, the tendency is that no captaincy is established early on in the 1♦ 2♣ sequence, while (generally speaking) the inverted responder has at least temporarily estalished captaincy.

That might be what you intend, but why do you assume that everyone else wants to do the same? Personally I find that bidding works better if you treat it as a conversation rather than an interrogation, especially when the strength is fairly evenly divided and both hands have a wide range of shapes.

I don't think it's difficult to devise methods to deal with four-card majors in the responding hand after an inverted raise, certainly if it's a 1♣ opening. For example, without trying hard at all:

1♣-2♣
2♦ = balanced
2M = natural unbalanced
2NT = unbalanced with diamonds
3♣ = one-suited, minimum, NF
3♦/♥/♠ = splinter

After 1♣-2♣;2♦:
2M/3D = four-card suit and a game-force
2NT = balanced invitation with only four clubs
3♣ = invitation with five clubs
3NT = balanced game-force
3M = splinter

After 1♣-2♣;2M or 1♣-2♣;2NT, everything except 3♣ is game-forcing. Bidding proceeds naturally.

After 1♦-2♦ it's sligtly more challenging, because we have one fewer bid available. A simple solution is to play 1♦-2♦;2♥-2♠ as either major.

Edit: Corrected nonsense in last sentence.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-May-02, 06:44

[gnasher]

Also, if the responding hand has denied a four-card major, it's rather more well defined than the opening hand. If you're going to put one hand in charge, shouldn't it be opener?

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-02, 04:55, said:

It is much easier to disentangle inverted minor sequences when you know the minor is real (ie 4+ cards). As such it is not difficult to devise a structure where 1m-2m is not GF, 10+ ish and may include 4M. I would not like to try to do this in a short minor system.

It's easy enough if it's a weak-NT system, so that a 2NT rebid is now GF and then a return to 3m is Staymanic.

[jillybean]

For clarification, currently I play 1m:2m 100% gf and I don't open a short club.

[mikeh]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-02, 05:12, said:

That might be what you intend, but why do you assume that everyone else wants to do the same? Personally I find that bidding works better if you treat it as a conversation rather than an interrogation, especially when the strength is fairly evenly divided and both hands have a wide range of shapes.

I don't think it's difficult to devise methods to deal with four-card majors in the responding hand after an inverted raise, certainly if it's a 1♣ opening. For example, without trying hard at all:

1♣-2♣
2♦ = balanced
2M = natural unbalanced
2NT = unbalanced with diamonds
3♣ = one-suited, minimum, NF
3♦/♥/♠ = splinter

After 1♣-2♣;2♦:
2M/3D = four-card suit and a game-force
2NT = balanced invitation with only four clubs
3♣ = invitation with five clubs
3NT = balanced game-force
3M = splinter

After 1♣-2♣;2M or 1♣-2♣;2NT, everything except 3♣ is game-forcing. Bidding proceeds naturally.

After 1♦-2♦ it's sligtly more challenging, because we have one fewer bid available. A simple solution is to play 1♦-2♦;2♥-2♠ as either major.

Edit: Corrected nonsense in last sentence.

Andy: you have firstly disagreed with my observation that the 2m bidder has (often temporarily) assumed captaincy and then gone on to propose a rebid structure that shows that captaincy has, again perhaps temporarily, been assumed by responder.

When one partner makes a forcing bid and the other bidder is constrained to describe his had artificially, that, to me at least, smacks of a captaincy auction. If you disagree, it may be because we ascribe different meanings to captaincy.

I find it ironic that we are having this discussion, because I must have posted, in other threads, countless arguments to the effect that bidding is usually best viewed as a conversation. Of course, we all use methods that convert the conversation into an interrogation at times, and relayers frequently have little conversational element in their constructive sequences.

Compare 1♦ 2♣ 2♥: to almost all of us, this is a conversation...the precise message sent by 2♥ will vary from partnership to partnership, but virtually everyone uses these 3 calls naturally.

1♦ 2♦ 2♥: in your structure, 2♥ is a coded response, and presumably responder will have a way of asking opener to clarify...iow, responder will often NOT converse with opener...responder will interrogate opener.

FWIW, in my view, an efficient inverted minor structure, especially when 2m is gf, will use artificiality. This is especially true for diamonds, where as you concede, space is constrained.

One last point: I think all would agree that 1♣ 2♣ is an easier start than 1♦ 2♦.

Yet many of us open 1♣ on a doubleton, if 4432 (I'm not saying that that is the only shape on which some posters choose to open on a doubleton, but it is a common one).

Now bidding 2♣ with 5 card support seems even more misguided than usual. We are establishing our 7+ fit by bypassing the 1-level, leaving finding our 8 card major fit to the 3 level. The arguments for diamonds are different, in that when we hold 5 diamonds as responder, we know we have a playable fit. But, as noted above, we are now limited in bidding space. I suggest it was no coincidence that you gave a fairly complete club structure yet very little about your proposed diamond structure.

That isn't to say that including a major in your inverted is impossible or unplayable...I've never said that. I just think it is a lot of effort that detracts from other, better options, and addresses a problem that is usually a non-issue.

[gnasher]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-02, 09:29, said:

Andy: you have firstly disagreed with my observation that the 2m bidder has (often temporarily) assumed captaincy and then gone on to propose a rebid structure that shows that captaincy has, again perhaps temporarily, been assumed by responder.

When one partner makes a forcing bid and the other bidder is constrained to describe his had artificially, that, to me at least, smacks of a captaincy auction. If you disagree, it may be because we ascribe different meanings to captaincy.

I was interpreting the word "Captaincy" as meaning "Having responsibility for deciding the final contract". If you meant it as "Initiating an exchange of information where some of the informative bids are artificial", then we are indeed talking at cross purposes (and possibly also two different languages).

Edit:
(just in case we really are talking two different languages)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-May-02, 11:24

[mikeh]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-02, 11:18, said:

I was interpreting the word "Captaincy" as meaning "Having responsibility for deciding the final contract". If you meant it as "Initiating an exchange of information where some of the informative bids are artificial", then we are indeed talking at cross purposes (and possibly also two different languages).

Edit:
(just in case we really are talking two different languages)

I am reminded of a saying attributed to George Bernard Shaw, albeit in the context of US - UK relations: he said either directly or to similar effect that the US and the UK were two nations divided by a common language. Of course, I was born in the UK and educated there until age 14, so I am surprised by our differences....especially since I expressly stated that captaincy can change (it can be abandoned and the auction becomes purely conversational or it can be exchanged, sometimes more than once)...thus an early assumption of captaincy doesn't contain the inference that captain will place the oontract...it merely asserts that for now captain wants to get info rather than to exchange info. If maintained to the end of the auction, as sometimes happens, then it does include the placement of the contract.

[gnasher]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-02, 12:01, said:

I am reminded of a saying attributed to George Bernard Shaw, albeit in the context of US - UK relations: he said either directly or to similar effect that the US and the UK were two nations divided by a common language. Of course, I was born in the UK and educated there until age 14, so I am surprised by our differences....especially since I expressly stated that captaincy can change (it can be abandoned and the auction becomes purely conversational or it can be exchanged, sometimes more than once)...thus an early assumption of captaincy doesn't contain the inference that captain will place the oontract...it merely asserts that for now captain wants to get info rather than to exchange info. If maintained to the end of the auction, as sometimes happens, then it does include the placement of the contract.

But even that definition of captaincy doesn't apply to what I suggested. I was suggesting a conversation of the lines of:

Opener: I have a 1♣ opening
Responder: I have club support, at least invitational
Opener: I am balanced
Responder: I have four hearts, FG
Opener: I have [heart support | no heart support but stops in both unbid suits | concentration in this side-suit | good clubs]

I don't understand how you can describe this as responder "assuming captaincy", or as asserting that he "wants to get info rather than to exchange info". Each bid added to the description of the player's own hand, without issuing any command to the other player.

[Cyberyeti]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-02, 08:31, said:

For clarification, currently I play 1m:2m 100% gf and I don't open a short club.

Then you should be able to handle 4 card majors without too much of a problem.

[Statto]

 awm, on 2012-May-01, 18:42, said:

... but things can get a lot more awkward in competition. To give a simple example, suppose you have 4♥/5+♣ and a game force. If you start 1♣-Pass-1♥-2♠ Pass-Pass ... then presumably 3♣ would just be competing. You can double ...

You missed out 3♠ as a next bid with a GF hand...

[blackshoe]

Jilly, in your system, is 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♣ game forcing?

[Cthulhu D]

Doesn't it make more sense to open a short club with transfer responses as well, because then the auction 1D-2D is very powerful? It seems like the more likely your 1m is to have a real suit, the more powerful 1m-2m is.