[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2010-October-23, 08:07, said:

Are you saying that MickyB's methods are inferior even when responder is strong? I don't see why. Here are some of the benefits:
- Sequences starting 1♣-1♥;1♠-2♦ are cumbersome in standard methods, but not when opener is known to be unbalanced
- When opener is balanced, you don't reveal opener's spade length unless responder wants to know it
- When responder has invitational values with three clubs and opener has a minimum 4-5, you play in 3♣ rather than 2NT.

What are the disadvantages that make this method inferior when responder is strong?


You get a bit back on the partscore hands, because:
- After 1♣-1♥;1NT-pass, the defence have less information
- After 1♣-1♥;1♠, responder can bid 2♣ when it's right
- After 1♣-1♥;1NT, responder can choose to play in 2♥ with a 5-card suit, whereas after 1♣-1♥;1♠ he can't.
But I agree that losing a spade fit when responder is 4-4 in the majors is quite a big problem.

What I wanted to say is that I consider the disadvantages when responder is strong are small and probably not significant.
But of course after a more likely 1NT rebid opener is less well defined and has more hands to describe when responder is strong.

MickyB's method can not be inferior, when his bidding starts 1♣ - 1 ♥ - 1♠ since here opener has given a better description of his hand.
If you play standard you probably like to play some flavor of XYZ after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1 ♠, so 2♣ is not a possible resting place unless responder rebids 1NT and opener 2 ♣, but this is generally not considered a big issue, not least because few opponents will let you play 2♣ when that is the right contract.
If 2♦ is played as game forcing after 1♣ - 1 ♥ - 1♠ I do not see why this sequence should be cumbersome. If the bidding can not stop below 3NT now you are in a comfortable position. Of course you need agreements. For example what the default action is, if nothing fits (typically 2 ♠), whether opener's 2NT needs to be balanced and show a ♦ stopper (I would vote yes) etc.
A clever alternative is after 1♣ - 1 ♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ to use 2♥ as the default action (balanced hand, but could be only 2 cards if no ♦ stopper) and invert the meaning of 2♠ and 3 ♣. 2♠ guarantees 5 cards in ♣ and 3♣ shows 5 cards in ♠ and therefore 6 cards in ♣

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

I dont think that it is as simple as that rainer.There is also the issue of "timing" in the auctions when one discusses low level part scores. Suppose responder held Axx xxxxx x Qxxx.

In your system after partner rebids 1s normally one is not allowed to raise on 3 card support, and must bid a NT, which will probably end the auction. Mickyb on the other hand has now got the option to play in 2s, or 2c. With this and a vareity of hands where knowing that partner has 9 black suit cards will give you information you need to avoid 1N when the oppos have many red suit cards. It also makes it harder form them to enter the auction.

If one plays transfer walsh one can combine the advantages of both systems - after 1c-1d(!H)-1h(any wk nt) a one spade bid from responder just shows 4-4(+) with no game interest. Of course, that does have some of its own problems....

[rhm]

 phil_20686, on 2010-October-25, 09:22, said:

I dont think that it is as simple as that rainer.There is also the issue of "timing" in the auctions when one discusses low level part scores. Suppose responder held Axx xxxxx x Qxxx.

In your system after partner rebids 1s normally one is not allowed to raise on 3 card support, and must bid a NT, which will probably end the auction.

The price you pay here arises because of playing XYZ not because of playing standard.
However, I refuse to rebid 1NT with ♠ Axx ♥ xxxxx ♦ x ♣ Qxxx assuming the bidding started 1♣- 1♥- 1♠.
I probably pass 1♠ with this hand and I am pretty sure I am in a better contract than MickyB would be in 1NT . I avoid raising secondary suits with less than 4 cards, but if you would make me a bit stronger with the same distribution, I would rather raise on 3 cards than biding notrump with a low singleton in the only unbid suit. Sometimes a 4-3 fit is not so bad. Remember that playing XYZ you have lots of ways of raising the ♠ suit here and raising directly is the weakest of them.
But I admit I could play ♠, when opener has 3 cards in ♥ (not necessarily bad with responder's distribution) or even in a 3-3 fit, if opener is 3♠=1♥=4♦=5♣. (That is the way I like to bid this problem distribution.) These 3-3 fits can be a lot of tun. Unfortunately they happen to me less than once every other leap year.

Rainer Herrmann