[dosxtres]

Hi all,

Playing 2/1 Abolute Game forcing.

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2/3♠

1.- what are the use of 2♠ and 3♠ here?
3/4 trump support/extras/other meanings?

2.- "Absolute Game forcing" rather than "except rebid", it is game forcing in a major and at no trump, but is Game forcing in a minor too or forcing until level 4 of a minor, or that is something that needs another label? Does it has sense?


thanks all.

[Gerben42]

3♠ sets trumps and asks partner to cuebid.
2♠ also shows 3-card fit, but no direct slam interest. Partner should continue to look for the best game.

[ArcLight]

Using the Mike Lawrence version of 2/1:

Jump raising openers first suit shows GOOD trump support (2 of the top 4) and a good hand, say 16+ points (or a king better than a normal opener). Its a gentle slam try.
You probably only have 3 trumps because with 4 you usually bid Jacoby 2NT.

[pclayton]

2♠ sets trump, so 3♠ is redundant.

Many west coast players use 3♠ as a splinter for opener's 2nd suit.

[helene_t]

I think I would bid 2♠ with Jx-AJx-xxx-AQJxx. It's the cheapest bid and is therefore a catch-all. I would normally have three spades, though. The strength of 2/1 is that I don't have to bid 3♦ (FSF) with this hand. So 3♦ could show 5-5. Or you could agree to play it as a very strong heart raise.

4♠ should show something like KJx-xx-xx-AKJxxx. It's a picture bid, showing good trumps, good clubs and no control in the other suits. Could have 4-card spade support though. Could have a red queen. Maybe I could have a heart singleton (not sure).

3♠ is very strong. So 2♠ can be any hand with 3-card support which isn't strong enough for 3♠ and isn't pure enough (bad trumps, bad clubs, red control) for 4♠.

[sceptic]

I thought 2 spades just agrees trumps at the lowest level, and as you are in a game force you can cue bid to where you need to be.

I cant seee an advantage of using 3 spades unless it is to deny a card suitable to cue bid (I could be talking out my back side here) but then you can bid 4 spades if you want to stop the auction, so I would think you would have to create yor own meaning for the bid

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Jul 12 2007, 11:30 AM, said:

2♠ sets trump, so 3♠ is redundant.

Many west coast players use 3♠ as a splinter for opener's 2nd suit.

Those West Coast players are smart....

[kenrexford]

As an initial note, I can assuredly say that 2♠ as non-slammish support and 3♠ as slammish support is about the most ridiculous thing I can possibly imagine. Why not simple reverse these, if you are not going to collapse them together like a sane person?

In any event. For me, 2♠ agrees spades as trumps. All other jumps, with the sole exception of 4♠ (Picture Jump -- five clubs with three of the top four honors, spade support with two of the top three honors, and no diamond or heart control), agree the most recent suit, as it is the least convenient to support (3♥ instead of 2♠).

3♠ would be a splinter, but a Picture Splinter as I play it. Stiff in spades (not the Ace or King), HHxx in hearts, HHHxx in clubs, and no diamond control.

Whether 3♠ as a Picture Splinter is the best or not, it surely outshines a Lawrence-style self-preemptive slam try.

[awm]

My understanding of this was always that:

3♠ shows four trumps and a very slammish hand. Typically this involves a strong side suit in the original 2/1 suit (else jacoby 2NT) and also at least one first or second round control outside the original suit and spades (else picture jump to 4♠). The 3♠ bid requires a cuebid of 1st or 2nd round control from partner.

2♠ usually shows three trumps, but is occasionally honor doubleton. This carries a fairly wide range of values, anywhere from a minimum game-force on a balanced hand with three trumps to serious slam interest with three trumps. The original 2/1 suit could have been just a convenient bid (i.e. 3244 game force) and need not be a strong source of tricks. Opener is expected to continue to describe his distribution, as it's quite possible that 3NT is a better game than 4♠ or that our best slam is a 4-4 fit in some side suit. If responder rebids 3♠ at next turn, that will firmly establish spades as trump and start cuebidding.

[mikeh]

I have always failed to understand how it is playable to use the preference to 2♠ after 1♠ 2minor 2♥ as 'setting trump' or as 3 card support.

Whenever this subject comes up, I always pose a responding hand such as Kx Axx xxx AQJxx.

Just what do all you '2♠ sets trump' propose to bid on this hand?

Surely 2N is best seen as idiotic?

Surely no one in their right mind bids 3♣? If they do, then make it Ax AJx xx KJxxx.

Anyone who thinks that 3♥ is the best bid need not apply to me for a partnership.. a more space-consuming pseudo-raise is tough to imagine.

3♦? A fourth suit stall? Really? Nice start to the auction. When partner bids 3N, does that show a ♦ stopper? Does it deny 3♥? Does it really show the degree of major support we hold? Does it at least promise some (non-existent) ♦ length such that opposite xx or xxx, they rate not to run 4+ tricks in the suit?

Any answer you give seems to me to create a lot of problems... and it is naive to argue that these hands don't come up very often. I agree they don't, but we're not talking a freak hand here: we are talking about our unimpeded, gf or better constructive auction. Why are we driven to inflict these contortions upon ourselves?

Why not use 2♠ as a preference.

We could, if we felt the need (which I don't) use a jump to 3♠ to set trump... based on real support, and use 2♠ to show a preference, or at least doubt.. maybe xxx AJx in the majors, where maybe ♥s is the better spot.

But, for my money, there is nothing wrong with 2♠ as ambiguous.

Heck, we are at the 2-level in a forcing auction. Just how tough is it going to be to clarify our respective holdings?

Does every gf auction HAVE to have slam connotations? If not, then WHY use 2♠ sets trump?

2♠ is the cheapest, and hence most flexible, call there is. It affords maximal room for opener.

He can bid 2N on 5431 or some 5422s.

He can bid 3♣ on 5413

He can bid 3♥ on 55 majors (or better)

He can bid 3♠ SETTING trump, with a 6+ suit

He can bid 3N... presumably we have an agreement as to the meaning of this bulky bid.

And so on.

After all of the bids below 3♠, we will be able to make an intelligent, descriptive call that will clarify the nature of our hand and the degree of support.

Now, even on this scheme, some hands will hit the seams of the method, but we will have far more chance of involving partner in a meaningful discussion of the correct contract using this approach.

Thus with my 2=3=3=5 hand, with no ♦s:

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2♠
2N We can bid 3♥ if we choose, showing 2=3=3=5 with good majors
and interest in a contract other than 3N
We can bid 3♠ to confirm real support
We can bid 3N

We could jump to 4 red suit to splinter in support of spades

Similarly:

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2♠
3♥ 4♣ cue in support of ♥s, 2=3=3=5 is classic
3♠ agrees trump

and so on.

What puzzles me, given the propensity of most posters here to respond with justifications of their choices, is that I have never seen anyone post an answer to the concerns I have (now and earlier) raised about this odd 'preference sets trump' usage.

Maybe I am just hopelessly old-fashioned. Maybe some one will post a coherent scheme for dealing with the problem hands. If so, I promise to pay attention, because, if it were not for the problem hands, 2♠ agreeing trumps has some advantages. But my point is that those advantages do not sufficiently offset the problems on the hands I identified above.

[awm]

Mikeh's post makes a lot of nice points, but I don't get his objection to 3♦ as a fourth suit stall. Note that this bid is extremely descriptive; it shows:

(1) Less than three spades, else 2♠.
(2) Less than four hearts, else 3♥.
(3) Less than six clubs, else 3♣.
(4) No stopper in diamonds, else 2NT.

This almost has to be 2-3-3-5, although one supposes that 2-2-4-5 or 1-3-4-5 with four very weak diamonds might be a possibility. In order to have GF values with nothing in diamonds, this sequence has to promise some major suit cards as well.

At this point opener can bid:

(1) 3♥, virtually setting trump opposite partner's assumed 3-card holding.
(2) 3♠, virtually setting trump opposite partner's assumed 2-card holding.
(3) 3NT, showing a diamond control and fairly minimum values, likely 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2.
(4) 4♣, agreeing clubs, inferentially promising "working shortage" in diamonds.
(5) 4♦, asking partner to pick a major, likely 5-4-2-2 with weak diamonds.
(6) 4NT, quantitative, a diamond stopper and something like 18-19 hcp.

The benefit of 4th suit forcing is that you get to play 2♠ showing 3-card support. The cost is that you can't use 4th suit as a natural bid, which may not be that big a deal. After all, with 4♦ there is no strong reason to introduce them (no real fit there) and you may as well rebid 2NT, and even with 6♣+5♦ you can often get away with 2NT expecting partner to pattern out (rebid 3♦ with 5-4-3-1).

[the hog]

Agree with Mikeh and Helene - 2S is a catch all bid, waiting for further information. 3S sets trumps otoh.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jul 12 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Mikeh's post makes a lot of nice points, but I don't get his objection to 3♦ as a fourth suit stall. Note that this bid is extremely descriptive; it shows:

(1) Less than three spades, else 2♠.
(2) Less than four hearts, else 3♥.
(3) Less than six clubs, else 3♣.
(4) No stopper in diamonds, else 2NT.

This almost has to be 2-3-3-5, although one supposes that 2-2-4-5 or 1-3-4-5 with four very weak diamonds might be a possibility. In order to have GF values with nothing in diamonds, this sequence has to promise some major suit cards as well.

At this point opener can bid:

(1) 3♥, virtually setting trump opposite partner's assumed 3-card holding.
(2) 3♠, virtually setting trump opposite partner's assumed 2-card holding.
(3) 3NT, showing a diamond control and fairly minimum values, likely 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2.
(4) 4♣, agreeing clubs, inferentially promising "working shortage" in diamonds.
(5) 4♦, asking partner to pick a major, likely 5-4-2-2 with weak diamonds.
(6) 4NT, quantitative, a diamond stopper and something like 18-19 hcp.

The benefit of 4th suit forcing is that you get to play 2♠ showing 3-card support. The cost is that you can't use 4th suit as a natural bid, which may not be that big a deal. After all, with 4♦ there is no strong reason to introduce them (no real fit there) and you may as well rebid 2NT, and even with 6♣+5♦ you can often get away with 2NT expecting partner to pattern out (rebid 3♦ with 5-4-3-1).

We can well argue that most openers would be very, very quick to bid 3N over 2N with 5=4=3=1 and 5=4=2=2... I doubt that many would feel any need to pattern out with a moderate opening hand and that shape. From their point of view, why not bid what's in front of their nose?

And, should you say that opener SHOULD pattern out with 11-14 hcp and that shape, my reply is that the patterning out should show doubt... usually about level, not strain.

In other words, the 3♦ call should suggest extra values. I would bid 3♦ over 2N with AKxxx AJxx AQx x as an example. If I also do it with KQxxx AJxx Kxx x, responder's choice of bids becomes a guess. Yes, with the first, I can raise 3N to 4N, but what if he has a good hand? A hand that makes slam opposite 15-16 5431 but needs to be in 3N opposite 5431 12 counts? Does he bid 3N SLOWLY with extras? Or, playing udca, bids 3N quickly with doubt?

And when opener raises 2N to 3N and responder does have 5=6 in the minors (rare but not impossible), he ain't ever finding the minor unless he is prepared to pull 3N... which can easily be wrong when both are minimum range and the best fit is a 5-3 or 6-2 minor.

But there are other problems.

One that may not be real for some is opener's choice of rebid over 2♣ when holding 5=4=4=0. Do we bid 2♦?

We might say: of course... why not.... responder can bid 2♥ with 4.

But, for the people who like 2♠ to set trump, responder's 2♥ is 4th suit... maybe hearts, maybe denying hearts. Now we have real problems. Opener raises to 3♥...utterly unlimited as to strength... 11 hcp to 19 hcp. Now responder, with hearts... does he raise to 4♥? Is a bid of 4♣ a cue bid? Is 3♠ now a cue or a belated preference? How good a hand does he show by a cue-bid?

We have found the fit (if there is one) at the 3-level, with only one level of bidding below game, and neither side has ANY idea of how strong or weak partner is beyond the fact that they each hold at least opening strength.

And what about 1♠ 2♦ 2♥?

Now use 3♣ as 4th suit?

After all, while 5-6 in the minors is rare, 5+ - 5 is far more common. So we have more of a need for the 4th suit to be natural.

And when it isn't, opener is really, really stuck with 5=4=0=4 and poorly placed with 5=4=1=3.

The greatest strength of 2/1 gf bidding is the conservation of bidding space. 2/1 is great for slam bidding and pretty good at game bidding. But it has some issues, especially when both partners are looking at moderate extras and the slam is in the 4th suit, and sometimes when it is in the 3rd suit. These issues are difficult to solve at the best of times, but when we start eating up our constructive auction bidding space by dealing with ambiguity by using 4th suit rather than a cheap preference, we are compounding the problem.

Read the MSC in the BW... especially the past 10-15 years. The repeated expert choice of the 'flexible' call lead to 'flexible' becoming known as the 'f' word.

The WC experts who comprise the panel didn't, as a group, become enamoured of flexible bidding by chance

The simple, ambiguous 2♠ preference is cheap, flexible and I still haven't seen any persuasive argument that it is less effective than using 4th suit as a 3-level stall.

EDIT: sorry to seem to be riding a hobby-horse here, but of all the more common propositions I have seen advanced by a lot of posters, this is one that frankly puzzles me.

[Fluffy]

sceptic, on Jul 12 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

I cant seee an advantage of using 3 spades unless it is to deny a card suitable to cue bid (I could be talking out my back side here) but then you can bid 4 spades if you want to stop the auction, so I would think you would have to create yor own meaning for the bid

The main advantage is that you don't allow opener to bid 4♠ even if he is ultra minimum.

3♠ is bid on very strong hands.


About the 2♠ bid, I will not surpise anyone when I say that it shows 100% real support for me . I sue 2NT as a catch all, and bid it even with singletons.

[mike777]

2s=slam try, very very often only 3 card support.
3d =MikeH problem hand.
3s=confusing, will just try and avoid it until discussed in full.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 12 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

2s=slam try, very very often only 3 card support.
3d =MikeH problem hand.
3s=confusing, will just try and avoid it until discussed in full.

But why???

This is what puzzles me. So many posters here say 2♠ sets trump... but why?

Because that's the way I learned it is not an answer

Because that's the way so-and-so does it is not an answer

Discussing the theoretical pros and cons is an answer... with an emphasis on the cons... all too many posters focus on the hands on which their style works, but real theorists worry about those on which the proposed method causes problems. Not just in the sequence, but in other sequences as well. I tried to do that.. but I don't see anyone else trying, apart from Adam.

Since no method is perfect, the final choice is a personally-mediated weighing of cost/benefit.. but every '2♠ sets trump' post is either non-analytical or fails to recognize cost as part of the equation. Is this too difficult a subject? Are we, collectively, too rigid in our thinking to actually think?

As for Fluffy... rebidding 2N with a stiff in the 4th suit or xx in that suit... don't that with or against real players

[joshs]

There are a couple of interesting points of bidding theory here.

Lets Consider 1S-2C-2H-?

First what is 3S? This depends a little bit if you are also playing strong jump shifts. If you are not playing SJS, this shows the hand that used to be shown with a SJS and then support. Good minor (usually 5+ cards, but on rare occasion can be an excellent 4 card suit) 4S spades, and slam interest. If you are playing SJS's this should be only 3 card support (but good trumps) and definitely a strong 5 card minor and real slam interest.

Its possible to play this as 3 or 4 card support and slammish
although I think distringuishing 3 trumps and 4 trumps is a good thing.

Next what is 3D? In classic 2/1, since we are in a game force bidding is natural. So 3D showed 3+D and a hand that doesn't want to bid 2N or 3N. The problem here is that people were bidding this with
a. Qx Axx xxx AKxxx
b. x Axx KJxx AKxxx
c. x x KJxxx AKxxxx

It was impossible to sort out what to do next, since opener had no idea if responder had a suit, a flexible hand with no stopper, or a freak.
Consequently its no longer mainstream to bid 3D on hand b (just bid 2N or 3N, 3N shows extra values and is typically played as 15-17, but its usually a balanced hand, so what to do with 15-17's with a stiff is far from universal). Opener assumes hand a, but bids cheaply. If opener bids 3N, responder can bid the 4'th suit a second time, and this time it shows a 5 card suit. Of course it still might be right to pass 3N. If opener bids 3H or 3S over 3D, opener bids 3N next.

But there are three other important hands: responder can be 2335 with Axx or Qxx or Jxx of D. Here you have doubt about NT and are doubtful if NT is right from your side but do not want to rule out the contract. Its nice to be able to bid 3d and then 3N to mean "I would like to play 3N if you have some help in diamonds, but run like the wind with a stiff, or with a weak doubleton and someplace else thats playable". Of course if you want to bid that way on this hand, you can' bid that way on hand c above. So the the other style is that, strange as it may as it may be, the practicle thing is to rebid 2N on both B and C. If partner is 5431, partner will often pattern out over 2N (everything is always natural after a NT bid) and you can find your 5-3 diamond fit that way. Also, partner will sometimes make a 3'rd round bid in your 2/1 suit on Hx.

Finally there is the false preference issue. take a hand like Qx Axx Axx Axxxx. This hand really doesn't want to play NT, and especially not from your side, so there is a strong case to be made for overloading the 2S bid. Partner will often be able to bid a natural 2N showing wasted diamond values over 2S and you can raise. If partner bids 3C, 3H or 3S next you probably don't belong in NT. Remember, after a 2 level suit agreement in 2/1, the next bid is natural, not a cue bid, so opener would almost always make the exact same bid if 2S promised 3 cards as if it can be made on Hx and a flexible hand. The main difficulty is in some auctions you can not tell partner that you only had 2 card support, so it occasionally hurts slam bidding (for instance if partner bids 3S next, you have no way of slowing partner down, but your cards are pretty slamish here). Anyway, this is an alternate way to play but not mainstream at all.

Note: If the 4'th suit is available at the 2 level its vastly superior to use that as the punt bid and have the bid of partner's suit guarantee 3. But when the 4'th suit is at the 3 level, saving space allows opener to show pattern or bid 2N with a moderate holding. (you are always much safer to bid 2N in a forcing auction on Qx since it doesn't end the auction then to guess to bid 3N on Qx later). So if you bid 3D with the Kx Axx Axx Axxxx hand partner will have to guess what to do with AQxxx Kxx Qx Kx or similar hands (if partner has Kx of spades and no D card you belong in spades, if partner has Axx of diamonds you have to get to 3N from your side). Over 2S partner can bid 2N as long as it doesn't promise really strong diamonds.
Also if 2S can be made on a strong doubleton, when you bid 3D partner will know to bid 3N on very moderate holdings unless he has extra shape or a super strong major.


Anyway, like I said there is a slam bidding disadvantage of bidding 2S on doubleton's since opener can have a pretty strong hand, but requires a 3'rd trump for a good small or grand slam.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Jul 12 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 12 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

2s=slam try, very very often only 3 card support.
3d =MikeH problem hand.
3s=confusing, will just try and avoid it until discussed in full.

But why???

This is what puzzles me. So many posters here say 2♠ sets trump... but why?

Because that's the way I learned it is not an answer

Because that's the way so-and-so does it is not an answer

Discussing the theoretical pros and cons is an answer... with an emphasis on the cons... all too many posters focus on the hands on which their style works, but real theorists worry about those on which the proposed method causes problems. Not just in the sequence, but in other sequences as well. I tried to do that.. but I don't see anyone else trying, apart from Adam.

Since no method is perfect, the final choice is a personally-mediated weighing of cost/benefit.. but every '2♠ sets trump' post is either non-analytical or fails to recognize cost as part of the equation. Is this too difficult a subject? Are we, collectively, too rigid in our thinking to actually think?

As for Fluffy... rebidding 2N with a stiff in the 4th suit or xx in that suit... don't that with or against real players

Mike: those that play 2 major 'sets trump' have considered the problem that a 2335 creates, and we haven't glossed over it like you imply.

We bid 2N which implies the same flexibility that your 2 major shows. 2N simply: denies support, denies the ability to rebid responder's suit, and denies a 2nd good suit. A 5332 seems to be the most common pattern. Opener is encouraged to further describe his hand. Responder can continue with secondary support over 3 minor if necessary.

Im not sure this method gives up a whole lot. I suppose we might play 3N when a 4-3 heart or 5-2 spade (per the OP) might be superior, but thats about it.

On the other hand, when 2 major may or may not have support, many complications develop. How can opener possibly intelligently investigate slam when he doesnt have a clue of the degree of fit?

[the hog]

"On the other hand, when 2 major may or may not have support, many complications develop. How can opener possibly intelligently investigate slam when he doesnt have a clue of the degree of fit? "

As you are in a gf situation, you have many ways of diagnosing the fit. Not the least is to use 2NT as a pivot so that resp can describe her hand.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Jul 12 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 12 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 12 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

2s=slam try, very very often only 3 card support.
3d =MikeH problem hand.
3s=confusing, will just try and avoid it until discussed in full.

But why???

This is what puzzles me. So many posters here say 2♠ sets trump... but why?

Because that's the way I learned it is not an answer

Because that's the way so-and-so does it is not an answer

Discussing the theoretical pros and cons is an answer... with an emphasis on the cons... all too many posters focus on the hands on which their style works, but real theorists worry about those on which the proposed method causes problems. Not just in the sequence, but in other sequences as well. I tried to do that.. but I don't see anyone else trying, apart from Adam.

Since no method is perfect, the final choice is a personally-mediated weighing of cost/benefit.. but every '2♠ sets trump' post is either non-analytical or fails to recognize cost as part of the equation. Is this too difficult a subject? Are we, collectively, too rigid in our thinking to actually think?

As for Fluffy... rebidding 2N with a stiff in the 4th suit or xx in that suit... don't that with or against real players

Mike: those that play 2 major 'sets trump' have considered the problem that a 2335 creates, and we haven't glossed over it like you imply.

We bid 2N which implies the same flexibility that your 2 major shows. 2N simply: denies support, denies the ability to rebid responder's suit, and denies a 2nd good suit. A 5332 seems to be the most common pattern. Opener is encouraged to further describe his hand. Responder can continue with secondary support over 3 minor if necessary.

Im not sure this method gives up a whole lot. I suppose we might play 3N when a 4-3 heart or 5-2 spade (per the OP) might be superior, but thats about it.

On the other hand, when 2 major may or may not have support, many complications develop. How can opener possibly intelligently investigate slam when he doesnt have a clue of the degree of fit?

Thanks for the post, Phil.

I did not mean to suggest that those who espouse 2♠ sets trump all glossed over the problems inherent in the method.. i meant to suggest, and maintain, that until the last few posts, the posters who espoused the method failed to provide any meaningful or useful justification.

I may be deluding myself, but I think that there is a place in this forum for a reasoned debate.. all too often we see postings about pet theories, idiosyncratic treatments that the posters present as if their ideas are mainstream or should/could be adopted by other posters.

Some of these ideas have a core of interesting concepts, but most of them are unuseable or unplayable.

However, here we have a common auction, and now we are getting a real discussion about alternative treatments that are actually in common use.

So I hope that there are those who haven't thought about their bidding structure in this way who now realize that there are ways to logically build a method... and who realize that making one choice influences so many more.

But, getting back to the actual debate:

Phil, are you really happy with a method that gets you to 3N rather than 4 of either major on AQJxx KQxx xx xx opposite Kx AJx xxx AQxxx?

I wouldn't be. But that is your announced style... and you say that this isn't much of a downside?

I respect your views.. even when I disagree with you, I usually recognize that your viewpoint makes a lot of sense...I even sometimes admit, if only to myself, that your post makes more sense than mine... and my wife will tell you that my admitting to a mista.... I can't say it.... is rare.

But not here, sorry. Surely we should...surely we must so design our system that we preserve at least a chance of bidding 4♠?

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2♠


I like 2N here as a punt by opener. Note: there is little downside because if responder has a ♦ stopper, he has genuine ♠ support, else he'd have bid 2N last time. So we will get to 4♠ on a 5-3 a few times when 3N from responder's side is better, but that is a low frequency issue.

So

2N 3♥

shows 2=3 in the majors with no ♦ stop.

Note that with slam interest, responder can bid 3♠ setting trump or red suit splinter, etc


And I very much doubt that there is a player who, on a minimum hand such as the one I gave for opener, wouldn't raise 2N to 3N, ending the auction.

Heck... make it AQJxx Kxxx Kx xx opposite Kx AJx xxx AQxxx: which hand do you think should be declarer?

In my methods, opener declares 3N

In yours, responder does.

I like my methods....