[hrothgar]

Free, on Jun 12 2004, 02:57 PM, said:

I'm used to play 1m-1♥-1NT with possible 4 card ♠, since the chance is indeed not thàt big to miss a ♠ fit, and NT range is more important to us! This also means 1m-1♥-1♠ is unbalanced!

I was deliberately refraining from introducing the 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT case.
it probably comes as now surprise that I agree with Free that opener should bypass Spades with a balanced hand.

[luke warm]

i bypass spades if balanced when i open 1C, and i used to do so when i opened 1D.. someone convinced me not to though, don't remember who and don't remember the reasons..

priorknowledge ignores the posts that show his partner bidding again with hands *worth* another bid.. if pard passes 2H, i doubt in the long run much is missed... and i think this is true at MPs or IMPs

if i understand the purpose of richard's script, the 17.4% shows how often responder has 4 spades AND 4 hearts at the same time opener holds the exact distribution catered to.. so, for example, responder hand shapes 4441, 4450, 4414, 4405, 4522, etc will occur 17.4% of the time opener is 4342 or 4351

to me the 17.4% seems high

[mikestar]

luke warm, on Jun 12 2004, 02:06 PM, said:

i bypass spades if balanced when i open 1C, and i used to do so when i opened 1D.. someone convinced me not to though, don't remember who and don't remember the reasons..

priorknowledge ignores the posts that show his partner bidding again with hands *worth* another bid.. if pard passes 2H, i doubt in the long run much is missed... and i think this is true at MPs or IMPs

if i understand the purpose of richard's script, the 17.4% shows how often responder has 4 spades AND 4 hearts at the same time opener holds the exact distribution catered to.. so, for example, responder hand shapes 4441, 4450, 4414, 4405, 4522, etc will occur 17.4% of the time opener is 4342 or 4351

to me the 17.4% seems high

About 2/3 of the 17.4% there will be a 4-4 spade fit and a 4-3 heat fit--the other 1/3 of the 17.4% there will be a 4-4-spade fit and a 5-3 heart fit, hwich may be inferior but the difference is slight.

[Free]

luke warm, on Jun 12 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

to me the 17.4% seems high

Perhaps, but from the moment my partner is invitational or better we WILL find our ♠ fit, so a new question here raises: "How many hands will opener have 4m-4♠ and minimum, while responder has less than invitational and 4♥-4♠?"...

I think that percentage will lay a lot lower (perhaps around 8-9%). And that's quite acceptable. Don't forget these days opps intervene a lot, so if they bid 1♥, p has a simple negative Dbl, and again our ♠ fit has been discovered. I actually can't remember when we played 1NT with a 4-4 ♠ fit...

[Fluffy]

nikos59, on Jun 11 2004, 09:04 AM, said:

Well, where I play (France) it is considered almost an
aberration to raise with three cards only. Very seldom
I have done it myself.

What I find really weird is the suggestion to raise pard to
2H with a tripleton (after 1C-1H) even when holding four spades.
You risk missing a 4-4 in spades this way, which in my
opinion is unacceptable even if the odds are not so high.

n.

Hi mate, we spaniards have adopted most of your bidding theories, , and let me say I am quite happy with it.

[Fluffy]

Dwayne, on Jun 11 2004, 07:55 AM, said:

I think it's a poor bidding philosophy to assume partner is asking "do you have 4 cards in the suit I bid" when they respond to your opening bid. On the contrary, they are making a statement "I have at least 4-cards in the suit I have just bid".

The question the response should pose is "Now that you know a bit about my hand, what do you think?".

Dwanyo-mite.

Think what you wish, the reason why responder only 'asks' and opener 'shows' is because you want the responder to make decisions when possible, Do you often see a 1NT opener to reopen after 1NT-2♦-2♥-4♥ (not playing texas)?, of course not, because NT opener has given exact info about his hand, the same philisophy is applied when opener opens anything else.

A quick example:

1♣-p-1♥-p
2♥*-X-p-3♦

2♥*= often 3 cards.

Now tell me who is to decide if pass/double or bid 3♥:
-opener bids 3♥ because he has 4th 'unbid' ♥, resulting on a poor level 3 contract with 8 trumps.
-responder bids 3♥ because he has 5th, again resulting on a poor level 3 contract with 8 trumps.
-responder bids 3♥ because he has 4♥+5♣ resulting on a stupid level 3 contract with 7 trumps.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Jun 10 2004, 01:46 PM, said:

I operate under a general principle that with a distributional hand and 3 card support for partner's 1-Suit response, raise immediately with a minimum and give delayed support with extras.

This is the principle espoused by Robson/Segal in their outstanding book, partnership bidding. They give a general rule in the section on "uncontested auctions" that states:

"when you have a minimum unbalanced hand with three-card support for partner’s 1 ♥ or 1 ♠ response, show your support immediately"

This is a rule I live by -- especially at imps, since you will occassionally play in a 4-3 fit with a better 5-3 or 5-4 fit in the minor you opened (thus, the direct raise on those hands could lead to a bad matchpoint score on a partscore hand). On the ohter hand, in game and slam hands, the direct raise (which also limits your values and makes your partner the captain), can certainly simplify the auction. Misho and I play this, and after 1m-1M-2M. we use a raise of the minor by responder now as non-forcing, and 2NT as a forcing bid to find out the quality (legnth) of the support.

A second key here is if you fail to support your partners major, you will lack three card support and a minimum. This means, if you show support later, you have more than a minimum.

If you haven't read Robson/Segal's book, you owe it to yourself to read it now. If for no other reason than the discussion of the very issue oneeye raises here. You can find it free in PDF format on Dan Neill's webpage. Type Robson/Segal and notes into google and have a look.

Ben

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jun 14 2004, 05:00 PM, said:

Misho and I play this, and after 1m-1M-2M. we use a raise of the minor by responder now as non-forcing, and 2NT as a forcing bid to find out the quality (legnth) of the support.

Couple comments:

In the sequence

1m - 1H - 2H, you might want to use 2S rather than 2NT as your forcing inquiry.

Not sure whether I like playing

1m - 1M
2m - 3m

Is natural, non-forcing. Moysians at the 2 level often play quite well.
I prefer a style in which responder will pass with a 4 card suit and less than game interest. I'd like the 3m rebid to promise a 5+ card major and a secondary fit for partner.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2004, 09:11 AM, said:

Quote

Couple comments:

In the sequence

1m - 1H - 2H, you might want to use 2S rather than 2NT as your forcing inquiry.

This 2♠ as forcing inquiry is exactly what is recommended by Robson/Segal. I too play this as forcing, seeking additional information. It is three of the minor that is not forcing.

Quote

Not sure whether I like playing

1m - 1M
2m - 3m

Is natural, non-forcing.  Moysians at the 2 level often play quite well.
I prefer a style in which responder will pass with a 4 card suit and less than game interest.  I'd like the 3m rebid to promise a 5+ card major and a secondary fit for partner.

Then don't play it. While three of a minor is "not forcing" , it is often not passed. This "three of a minor" is most definetly not A BID OF MISERY, and has very little to do with the possibility that partner might only have three card support. That is, we are not biddign 3 of minor to cater to not playing in a 4-3 fit, per se. To begin with, partner will often have FOUR CARD support for the initial raise, and will take another call over our three of a minor. Second, three of a minor is not a weak bid even though it is not forcing. With weak hands, responder can smuggly pass the 2-of-a-major and play in a 4-3 or 4-4 fit, no problem. Three of a minor here points the way to some very close games where double fit is the key.

Ben