[jogs]

Hand types for the partnership (for practical purposes) are infinite. Bids available to describe them is in finite linear space. There are very few bids in the bidding box. Every system will have holes. The best systems will have the fewest holes(in terms of frequency).

[mgoetze]

The only reason this is a problem is because people are bidding 1♦-1♥-1♠ with such a wide range of hands as 4243 and 4261. (And yes, Stefanie, this is absolutely standard.) The obvious solution is to play a system such as Transfer Walsh that clarifies your hand-type (balanced or unbalanced).

Anyway, you've found a hole in the system, but I'm pretty sure it's smaller than the holes that can be found in the alternative system (4th suit invitational).

[Stefan_O]

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-20, 12:07, said:

 Stefan_O, on 2016-August-20, 09:39, said:

But the std style is that you always bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ with a 4-card ♠-suit even if you have balanced hand, right?

Is this standard?

I think/hope so

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced,
you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.
Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

[Jinksy]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-August-25, 11:54, said:

I think/hope so

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced,
you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.
Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

If you don't bid in only with unbalanced hands, you might end up playing in 1N with a 5-4 diamond fit.

I'm not saying showing unbalanced is better, but presenting just the downside of a particular treatment isn't a good way to figure out its value.

[fromageGB]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-August-25, 11:54, said:

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced, you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.
Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit, even a sequence like 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, where 1♥ is either natural or artificial. Similarly, if you open 1♣ only when balanced or long, you will have methods that always find a spade fit.

It is the "while choosing 1NT" that is the stupid thing. Of course if you play silly bids you miss the contracts, it is nothing to do with balanced/unbalanced.

[Stefan_O]

 fromageGB, on 2016-August-27, 03:54, said:

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit...

Errr... what bidding-system are you referring to? What do you open with a balanced 12-14 and no 5-card major?

I was assuming a context of SAYC or 2/1...

[Wackojack]

If you play FSF to game then:
1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠
3♥?
How many hearts does this show?
If 3 then is this stronger than bidding 4 ♥ on the principle of fast arrival?

Similarly:
1♠ 2♣
2♦ 2♥
2NT 3♠
If this shows 3 card support is it stronger than bidding 4♠

There many other sequences where after 4SF you can bid game or raise below game. What general principles are in play here?

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2016-August-27, 03:54, said:

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit, even a sequence like 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, where 1♥ is either natural or artificial. Similarly, if you open 1♣ only when balanced or long, you will have methods that always find a spade fit.

It is the "while choosing 1NT" that is the stupid thing. Of course if you play silly bids you miss the contracts, it is nothing to do with balanced/unbalanced.

No, the post you quoted did not say that an opening 1♦ was unbalanced, but 1♦-♥1♠ was.

[Stefan_O]

 Wackojack, on 2016-August-27, 09:07, said:

If you play FSF to game then:
1♦ 1♥
2♣ 2♠
3♥?
How many hearts does this show?
If 3 then is this stronger than bidding 4 ♥ on the principle of fast arrival?

Logically, if 2♠ is GF, you would hardly jump to 4♥ at all over 2♠, because responder might have only 4 ♥'s, but slam-interest in one of opener's minors, in which case he plans to set the trump with 4♣/♦.
So seems you should bid only 3♥ to show your 3-card support, regardless of strength here.

 Wackojack, on 2016-August-27, 09:07, said:

Similarly:
1♠ 2♣
2♦ 2♥
2NT 3♠
If this shows 3 card support, is it stronger than bidding 4♠?

Ummm.... probably....
Only, if responder jumps to 4♠ over 2NT as "signoff", he might as well have jumped to 4♠ over 2♦... so not sure what the difference between those sequences would be...
Sometimes, there are more possible ways to bid than you actually have use for