akhare, on 2012-January-10, 02:13, said:
X: Negative
2♥: NFB
2S: Raise
2N: Natural
3♣: Clubs
3♦: ♥, possible FSJ
3♥: ♠ raise
3♠: ♠ raise
I'd be happy giving up FSJs at the 3-level and I'd like to get 2N natural back (thanks very much), but there's so many 1M-overcall situations and it would be nice to have something that one could remember at the table.
I remember that in Rodwell's interview he commented on Bergen's idea of Switch (in the above case 2H would show clubs and 3C would show hearts) and I don't think he liked the idea. I also think he didn't like negative free bids (except for certain cases with his strong club). I think the idea is that standards for responding get lowered, but also NBs don't promise enough strength to support opener in describing his hand. The auction just dies. Anyway, that's been my concern. I feel the same way about transfers. If they don't promise invitational strength (and it would be tempting to cheat here), opener usually just accepts the transfer. Same difference. By making the bid forcing, responder has to have GI+.
I also want to know right away if partner is showing a fit for me or just his own suit.
So I'm fine if people want to debate these points, but I'd also be interested in other structures that used something like Bergen at the 3-level and FSJs/splinters at the 4-level (and 3S when hearts are trump).