[mgoetze]

After 2♣-2♦-3♣ we can use 3♦ as Stayman; after 2♣-2♦-3♦ we have no such luxury. Has anyone considered playing

2♣-2♦-...
...-3♦ denies a 4-card major,
...-3♥ 4 hearts and longer diamonds,
...-3♠ 4 spades and longer diamonds?

[jallerton]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 16:38, said:

After 2♣-2♦-3♣ we can use 3♦ as Stayman; after 2♣-2♦-3♦ we have no such luxury. Has anyone considered playing

2♣-2♦-...
...-3♦ denies a 4-card major,
...-3♥ 4 hearts and longer diamonds,
...-3♠ 4 spades and longer diamonds?

Yes, many people have considered playing this rebid structure. I know that because this is exactly what many players do play!

[mgoetze]

jallerton, on 2015-February-13, 16:49, said:

Yes, many people have considered playing this rebid structure. I know that because this is exactly what many players do play!

Oh good! How have these players fared with it? Are there any problems besides not being able to bid 3M naturally (i.e. setting trumps)? Does it actually gain when it comes up?

[mike777]

It should be noted that many that do play this demand an excellent 4 card major suit which means 2c=2d=3d does not deny a 4 card major.

[mgoetze]

mike777, on 2015-February-13, 17:35, said:

It should be noted that many that do play this demand an excellent 4 card major suit which means 2c=2d=3d does not deny a 4 card major.

And what's the point of that? Doesn't it defeat the whole purpose?

[mike777]

THis is what I was taught:


"...agreed to play it as “chunky” 4-card major with 5+ diamonds.


We used to play that is “set trumps” and only cue-bidding ensued, but that hand is even rarer than the treatment given above.


And, Soloway and Passell suggested the treatment that we play, so that was good enough for me!..."

------


If I recall one main reason was it takes up a lot of space so the hand should be more specific but not too rare.

[Stephen Tu]

Putting suit quality restrictions to me is a good way to bury your 4-4 major fits. I don't see the point either.

Then again it's hard to construct legit 2♣ openers that have really bad 4 card majors, so it's going to be rare that the 4 card major isn't "chunky". Still one could have say ♠x♥Axxx♦AKQJxx♣AK opposite ♠xxx♥Kxxx♦xx♣xxxx, and you are in a terrible spot if responder can't bid hearts. And if responder can bid hearts on Kxxx, how do you get to 4♥ on a 5-3 fit intelligently?

Requiring chunky makes it too rare IMO and doesn't solve your problem hands. I guess chunky lets you select 4M on the 4-3 a bit more often instead of 5m when 3nt is wrong? That's a pretty narrow target compared to reliably getting all 4-4 major fits.

[Phil]

I played this for a few years and it never came up. Unfortunately the strong hand with a solid major came up a few times and we lost out.

I dropped it from the cc.

[jallerton]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 16:52, said:

Oh good! How have these players fared with it? Are there any problems besides not being able to bid 3M naturally (i.e. setting trumps)? Does it actually gain when it comes up?

Both hand types (the 4M, (5)6♦ FG hand and the solid major hand wanting to know only about cue bids) are quite rare, so it's hard to say which is better, without a simulation. I'd probably use the BBO partnership bidding tool if I wanted to form a more definitive judgement. As I'm sure you've worked out, the gains for using the jumps to show 4M come from being able to play in 4/4 & 5/3 major suit fits whilst avoiding 4-3 fits. The losses, in theory, are that these calls take up a lot of room. It's harder to judge when to play in Responder's suit, especially when Opener rebids 3♠.

[PhantomSac]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-13, 16:38, said:

After 2♣-2♦-3♣ we can use 3♦ as Stayman; after 2♣-2♦-3♦ we have no such luxury. Has anyone considered playing

2♣-2♦-...
...-3♦ denies a 4-card major,
...-3♥ 4 hearts and longer diamonds,
...-3♠ 4 spades and longer diamonds?

This is extremely common, I prefer to play this way when playing standard.

[Zelandakh]

I am actually fairly shocked you do not have this in your database Michael. It must have come up more than 20 times since you have been on BBF! I know I have personally posted about it several times in that period too.

[PhilKing]

It's so standard even the top French players do it.

[helene_t]

Even in Lancashire, actually. It hasn't reached Yorkshire yet, though.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-18, 07:26, said:

I am actually fairly shocked you do not have this in your database Michael. It must have come up more than 20 times since you have been on BBF! I know I have personally posted about it several times in that period too.

I am still fairly shocked that after over 4 years of maintaining the systems index I have received exactly zero suggestions for threads to be included (except for the couple I got immediately after soliciting them in the announcement thread).

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-18, 08:49, said:

I am still fairly shocked that after over 4 years of maintaining the systems index I have received exactly zero suggestions for threads to be included (except for the couple I got immediately after soliciting them in the announcement thread).

Clearly every bidding thread in which Ken or I post is crying out to be added, no?

Seriously though, his minor suit opening structure for strong club systems and Han's method after 1♦ - (2♣) would probably be at the top of the list. Quite a lot of PK's ideas are certainly worth adding too. The parity cue bidding thread from way back (awm was the main contributor I think) would also be a worthy contender.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-18, 09:33, said:

Clearly every bidding thread in which Ken or I post is crying out to be added, no?

Seriously though, his minor suit opening structure for strong club systems and Han's method after 1♦ - (2♣) would probably be at the top of the list. Quite a lot of PK's ideas are certainly worth adding too. The parity cue bidding thread from way back (awm was the main contributor I think) would also be a worthy contender.

Yes, yes, that's great, but do you suppose you could send me links? I'm happy to add them but tracking them down is a lot of work.

[RMB1]

PhilKing, on 2015-February-18, 08:02, said:

It's so standard even the top French players do it.

Playing SEF?