[jillybean]

Hello )

Playing 1m:2m as game forcing typically denies a 4 card major.
I am wondering if anyone plays it as "may have a 4cM", and your experience if you have played it that way.

Thanks.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2021-February-07, 15:46, said:

Hello )

Playing 1m:2m as game forcing typically denies a 4 card major.
I am wondering if anyone plays it as "may have a 4cM", and your experience if you have played it that way.

Thanks.

Unless I am using artificial continuations over 2m, I've never played it as denying a four-card major. It works fine - 2M by opener can show either a suit or a stopper, and responder can raise that. You can wind up in difficulty in an auction like 1D - 2D; 2S - 3S when responder wants to play 3NT or 4S if there is a fit, but I generally solve that with:
1D - 2D
2S - 3NT

showing a choice of games with four spades. Of course, that means you can't use 2NT as non-forcing in that auction, but I strongly prefer 2m to force to 3m if it's not already forcing to game.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2021-February-07, 15:46, said:

Hello )

Playing 1m:2m as game forcing typically denies a 4 card major.
I am wondering if anyone plays it as "may have a 4cM", and your experience if you have played it that way.

Thanks.

Very system dependent, we actually play it not game forcing and can include 4M but you can only do that sensibly in a system where you play a weak NT and 4 card minors, I think you can do either of those 2 things if you play strong NT with potentially short minors but not both. I recommend playing 1♣-2♣-2♦ as the enquiry, which allows partner to bid 4 card majors and means you can use 1♣-2♣-2M as "weak no trump with 4 of the major bid", so you can distinguish the hands with shape easily at lower level than if you have to show NT first.

[TylerE]

It's a treatment I would pay my oppoenents if they agreed to play it.

[mycroft]

The standard set of responses to 1m-2m is stopper-showing, because we're looking to see if 3NT is in the picture 90% of the time.

If you have to try to find a 4=4 major fit as well as stoppers for NT, I've never seen a system with enough responses to pull that off.

I play a weird 0 or 2 stopper system, but even that doesn't allow me to find the major fit, except I guess if we decide we can't play NT and magic into where we should have been in the first place.

[nige1]

jillybean, on 2021-February-07, 15:46, said:

Playing 1m: 2m as game forcing typically denies a 4 card major. I am wondering if anyone plays it as "may have a 4cM", and your experience if you have played it that way.

Welcome back, jillyBean . I like to play 1m-2m as F/1 not G/F; Especially when 1m is natural (usually 4+ cards) I think you should agree that 1m-2m (and even 1m-3m) can contain a 4 card M.. I haven't encountered a problem with that treatment. After 1m - 2m - om can be ART NT probe. This convention follows the Robson principle of showing fits as quickly and pre-emptively as possible..

[mikeh]

Indeed, welcome back

Let me say that I very much doubt that it’s a good idea to put 4card majors into an inverted structure.

Firstly, you don’t need it. Just respond 1M.

You may need to play something like xyz and/or 2way new minor so as to get back to a game force in the minor, but I’d expect all advanced or better players to be doing that anyway.

Meanwhile, when you do have a 4-4 major suit fit, your auctions will be a lot easier if you can find it, and agree on it, as soon as possible...best done by responding 1M and having partner raise.

Further meanwhile, for inverted raises to be worth playing, one needs a decent structure. The standard structure of showing stoppers is pretty poor,imo. Just as few experts play old-fashioned Jacoby 2N over 1M, few expert pairs play old-fashioned inverted either. There are far more powerful methods available. But no method is going to be very efficient, for the minor suit, if one has to waste precious bidding space seeking or denying a major suit fit

Btw, I play a fairly simple (well, not really esoteric, anyway) inverted structure, invented by Michael Roche that, imo, is extremely good. I’d be happy to share it.

It does include limit raises, but that’s another point I feel strongly about. Bidding theory is, or should be, about bidding space. Good methods conserve space in constructive auctions, and allow for a maximal number of hand-types to be shown at an efficient level.

There are only so many bids available in any auction, and a great many hand-types to show. That’s why all bidding systems use wide-range initial openings (other than notrump openings) and responses, and use later rounds to refine the hands shown,

When one uses 1C 2C as gf, one has to use another bid as limit. That bid would be available for another hand type were 2C to be limit or better.

Given that 1m 2m, limit or better, has lots of bidding space still available below 3m (or 2N), it’s easy to have a good structure that involves defining strength and general shape (balanced or unbalanced) with limit and gf responding hands. This has the benefit of giving you the calls you used for limit raises for other hand types

For example, we use 1C 2D to show 5+S 4+ H with a weak hand. Many use 2H as this hand, but we have another use for 2H.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-February-08, 00:32, said:

Indeed, welcome back

Let me say that I very much doubt that it’s a good idea to put 4card majors into an inverted structure.

Firstly, you don’t need it. Just respond 1M.

You may need to play something like xyz and/or 2way new minor so as to get back to a game force in the minor, but I’d expect all advanced or better players to be doing that anyway.

Hi, and thanks.

One of the first things I learned in these forums was to bid my shape. (see the quote in my signature) If I hold a 4252 type hand and bid my Major over partners Minor, how do I ever convince partner we also have a minor fit if they raise my major? Experimenting with 1m 2m not denying a 4 card Major, I believe having both partners know we have the double fit has enabled us to find slams when others haven't. Of course I haven't been disciplined enough to record the hands or recreate the auctions had they started 1m !M. Obviously being the only one playing this way creates some doubt and I wonder what expert standard is.

Let me digest the responses some more and I'll no doubt be back with more questions.

For anyone who is interested, I returned to NZ last year to shelter from covid and assist my aging parents. NZ is covid free and bridge is alive and well here.
I am finding I have the time and interest to improve my game again so I'm very happy to see the BBO Forum crowd is still active and willing to help.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2021-February-08, 00:32, said:

Btw, I play a fairly simple (well, not really esoteric, anyway) inverted structure, invented by Michael Roche that, imo, is extremely good. I’d be happy to share it.

I play stopper-showing, and would love to learn better alternatives.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2021-February-08, 01:44, said:

One of the first things I learned in these forums was to bid my shape. If I hold a 4252 type hand and bid my Major over partners Minor, how do I ever convince partner we also have a minor fit if they raise my major? Experimenting with 1m 2m not denying a 4 card Major, I believe having both partners know we have the double fit has enabled us to find slams when others haven't. Of course I haven't been disciplined enough to record the hands or recreate the auctions had they started 1m !M. Obviously being the only one playing this way creates some doubt and I wonder what expert standard is.

On a typical auction 1m-1M; 2M-? having some agreements will help. Personally I allow opener to raise with only 3-card support and an unbalanced hand, which is fine at IMPs and (in my opinion) really good at matchpoints. However, this has some downsides for the subsequent auction, in particular I use the cheapest available bid as an artificial shape-asking bid. Anything else promises either a 5-card major or willingness to play 4M in the 4-3 fit.
Without such an agreement, I think it is relatively standard to play:

• 2oM (only spades over hearts)/3X (new suit below 3M): A help suit trial for 4M, asks if partner to bid game with values in the bid suit, or an advanced cue.
  
• 2NT: Forcing game try, suggests 3NT despite the major suit fit.
  
• 3m: Any other game try - promises support by negative inference, so typically a double fit. Forcing.
  
• 3X/4Y (new suit between 3M and 4M): Splinter for M.
  
• 4m: A double fit and slam-going hand.

If you are slammish despite opener only being able to give a simple raise you could jump to 4m, showing a big double fit. But there is no real downside to bidding 3m first and then making a cue bid on the second round, which is what I personally prefer.

[Stephen Tu]

DavidKok, on 2021-February-08, 03:13, said:

On a typical auction 1m-1M; 2M-? having some agreements will help. Personally I allow opener to raise with only 3-card support and an unbalanced hand, which is fine at IMPs and (in my opinion) really good at matchpoints. However, this has some downsides for the subsequent auction, in particular I use the cheapest available bid as an artificial shape-asking bid. Anything else promises either a 5-card major or willingness to play 4M in the 4-3 fit.
Without such an agreement, I think it is relatively standard to play:

• 2oM (only spades over hearts)/3X (new suit below 3M): A help suit trial for 4M, asks if partner to bid game with values in the bid suit, or an advanced cue.
• 2NT: Forcing game try, suggests 3NT despite the major suit fit.
• 3m: Any other game try - promises support by negative inference, so typically a double fit. Forcing.
• 3X/4Y (new suit between 3M and 4M): Splinter for M.
• 4m: A double fit and slam-going hand.

It would be rather non-std in America. Here, I think standard without agreement is:
3M/2nt - NF GT, natural
3m - forcing GT with fit, maybe slammish
4m - splinter (NOT double fit)
3nt - choice of games

But with agreement a lot of players play 2nt as a forcing inquiry, either simple 3344 convention or more complicated "spiral" variants. (It is unclear to me whether 3344 is "spiral" or not, I have heard people call it spiral but IMO spiral should refer to more the more complicated response sets)

Quote

If you are slammish despite opener only being able to give a simple raise you could jump to 4m, showing a big double fit. But there is no real downside to bidding 3m first and then making a cue bid on the second round, which is what I personally prefer.

It's rather useful to be able to splinter in openers minor when opening on xxx suits is possible.

The homebrew scheme I prefer is non-standard, after 1m-1M-2M:
2nt/3m/3M - all non-forcing, natural game tries. (If 2M can be 4-3 fit, I don't see why have to be forced to play 3M if responder can have huge minor fit and it's just safer to play 8/9/10 minor fit in a cozy 3m instead of Moysian)

cheapest new suit = GF shape inquiry, either looking to relay out opener's shape to evaluate slam or choice of games, or 4cd M stopper only in this suit. This route to possibly get back to 5m/6m/7m.

higher new suit = 4cdM only, stopper, no stop in other suit, choice of games.

[pigpenz]

I have played it that way with one of my partners and it really isnt a problem, automatically sets up a game forcing situation.
we play jump in other minor shows limit raise 9-10hcp....new suits after forcing raise are 4 card majors check back style.

[apollo1201]

One of the best French players and bidding « theorician » actually plays this and bids the same on 1C-2C, 1D-2D and 1D-2C sequences. In a 5cM strong NT context where the opening suit could be 3 small, and could just mean no more than I have 12 HCP and at max 4H and 4S, his motto is:
- bid naturally your suits when you have opening strength (and therefore a GF after partner opens)
- balanced + balanced when no M fit exists should play 3NT (even with a suit « wide open »)

He therefore bids naturally over 2M, 2NT being the balanced 12-14 (or 18-19), and you can find the M fit over that.

But I guess if you don’t play the inverted minors as GF, and just invitational or better, then you can’t have 4cM allowed. Could lead to awkward situations like 1m-2m, 2M (stopper, maybe a real suit) and now you’re scr*** with 4M, 5m and 11 points...