[nekthen]

 mikeh, on 2019-July-06, 09:03, said:

Really? Why on earth would anyone play a different approach over 2D as 4SF compared to 2D as xyz? Now, you may play differently but, if so, I bet you’ve never tried to analyze why. If you did, you’d realize it makes no sense at all.

WOW. Calm down. All I meant was when I play xyz, I prefer to do it in all sequences where it applies. To say to partner "ok xyz except when I open 1 club" seems an unnecessary extra strain. Yes you give up playing in 2 clubs, but how often do the opps let that lie? After 1C 1H 1S 2c p no opp with a pulse is going to pass. At pairs that is losing bridge. Using xyz, the bidding goes 1C 1H 1S 2N 3c p and opps have to guess at the 3 level whether to back into the auction.

Incidentally, it was not me that said the approach is different between 2D FSF and xyz.

There is also a big difference between the sequences if you are coming from a strong NT, 5 card major or a weak NT 4 card major (my school). Also whether you play the 1S bid as always unbalanced and thus showing 5 clubs or can include balanced hands with 4 spades i.e. does 1N deny a 4 card spade suit? So many possible nuances in such a simple sequence!

[Vampyr]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-July-04, 09:30, said:

Unnecessary jumps (e.g. jumping to 3nt instead of bidding 2nt which is already GF) can show extra values.

Do people really play this way?

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-06, 21:47, said:

Do people really play this way?

Yes I would think so. We can't have a known fit so it can't be a splinter. But I suppose one could play 4!D as a self-splinter with a 4207-shape or so.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2019-July-07, 22:57, said:

Yes I would think so. We can't have a known fit so it can't be a splinter. But I suppose one could play 4!D as a self-splinter with a 4207-shape or so.

In my circles 2NT is generally stronger than 3NT when we are forced to game.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-08, 00:52, said:

In my circles 2NT is generally stronger than 3NT when we are forced to game.

This sort of question is always problematic, jumping to 3N is great where you have a minimum with a double stop in the 4th suit, but less good when you're rock bottom minimum with a pretty tenuous stop and can't bid 2N to suggest NT but not categorically say you want to play there because it shows extras.

[mikeh]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-08, 00:52, said:

In my circles 2NT is generally stronger than 3NT when we are forced to game.

The whole point of playing 4SF (or 2D gf in xyz) is to maximize the use of bidding space, since responder is completely unlimited. It therefore makes sense, at least to me, for the jump to 3N to show a very specific hand with significant extras.

Why?

Because when opener promises significant extras, responder is safe to continue the slam exploration, if that is what he had in mind, over 3N. Meanwhile, when 3N is a minimum, it may still be the 'right' minimum for slam on some hands yet responder may not have safety beyond 3N.

These considerations also make it useful for the jump to 3N to have narrow shape constraints as well as promising significant extras. What those constraints should be will depend on what 1S shows. In my non transfer methods, 1C then 1S over either 1D or 1H promises an unbalanced hand, with at least 5 clubs. So for me, 3N would be specifically 4=1=3=5, 15-17 hcp.

Yes, this is low frequency but the whole point of playing an artificial non-jump game-force is to preserve bidding space, thus my view that the usual meaning of the gf call is to ask partner to make the cheapest intelligent call, the cheapest being desired in order not to preempt the hand that is about to say 'why' it is forcing to game. It makes sense, in this context, to confine space-consuming jumps to very narrow, and 'extra value' hands.

edit: cyber's point about it being dangerous to jump to 3N with but a single or tenuous stop in the 4th suit is also valid, and argues for 2N on most semi-balanced hands, regardless of strength. Again: keep the bidding low until (and often after) responder says why he was forcing to game.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2019-July-08, 09:17, said:

edit: cyber's point about it being dangerous to jump to 3N with but a single or tenuous stop in the 4th suit is also valid, and argues for 2N on most semi-balanced hands, regardless of strength. Again: keep the bidding low until (and often after) responder says why he was forcing to game.

I would have thought that some sort of artificial responses to the 2N would be best, but haven't really investigated due to the fact that I DON'T play GF 4SF at the 2 level. Do you play (or have you ever) anything interesting Mike ?

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-08, 09:38, said:

I would have thought that some sort of artificial responses to the 2N would be best, but haven't really investigated due to the fact that I DON'T play GF 4SF at the 2 level. Do you play (or have you ever) anything interesting Mike ?

Back in the day....late 1990's....I played a relay method in a 2/1 context, and our 4SF auctions were one of the relay triggers (as was 2C over 1N 15-17, 2C over 1D/H/S and 1D over 1C). It was a very powerful method, developed by my then-partner, but required enormous memory work. I have just started playing with that partner again, but we both immediately agreed that we won't be playing any of the relays: we're too old for that stuff

As for anything over say 1C 1H 1S 2D 2N, no. And, frankly, I don't think it makes sense to do so. If you want relays, use 2D as the initial relay...don't waste a round of bidding and then start asking.

I am a big believer in transfers over 2N rebids, but this wouldn't be a situation where I think they work well. We use them in 1D 1M 2N and 1H 1S 2N, and in 1C 1R 1N (since in our form of T-Walsh, 1N shows 17-19), and also in 1S 1N 2H 2N, so that opener can show 5-5 majors or 6=4 majors while preserving the ability to get out at the 3-level on garbage or to commit to game with a good hand.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2019-July-08, 12:39, said:

Back in the day....late 1990's....I played a relay method in a 2/1 context, and our 4SF auctions were one of the relay triggers (as was 2C over 1N 15-17, 2C over 1D/H/S and 1D over 1C). It was a very powerful method, developed by my then-partner, but required enormous memory work. I have just started playing with that partner again, but we both immediately agreed that we won't be playing any of the relays: we're too old for that stuff

As for anything over say 1C 1H 1S 2D 2N, no. And, frankly, I don't think it makes sense to do so. If you want relays, use 2D as the initial relay...don't waste a round of bidding and then start asking.

I am a big believer in transfers over 2N rebids, but this wouldn't be a situation where I think they work well. We use them in 1D 1M 2N and 1H 1S 2N, and in 1C 1R 1N (since in our form of T-Walsh, 1N shows 17-19), and also in 1S 1N 2H 2N, so that opener can show 5-5 majors or 6=4 majors while preserving the ability to get out at the 3-level on garbage or to commit to game with a good hand.

OK, I was thinking of something artificial over 2N (any balanced) to sort out range and state of diamond stop rather than full artificiality.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2019-July-08, 00:52, said:

In my circles 2NT is generally stronger than 3NT when we are forced to game.

Bridge teachers often advocate the principle of fast arrival, and then they may or may not make an exception for notrump.

It may be a regional thing. I am not sure if I ever discussed it with anyone in England, except that 2/1 players often play
1M-2m
2NT
as 12-14 or 18-19, with 3NT being 15-17 if you don't systematically open 1NT with that. Some play 2NT as 15-17 and 3NT as 18-19, with gthe 12-14 hands bidding 2M.

In the Netherlands I think the jump to 3NT is always taught as strong, and the PoFA for notrump is presuambly a misunderstanding by some students. But apparently:

Larry Cohen s website said:

All jumps to game are weak actions. If you and your partner wish to invert the meanings for jumps to 3NT, that is a slightly better way to play it, but involves extra memory.

https://www.larryco....nter/detail/515

In the FSF auction, it is a bit different since opener can almost never know what suit we belong in. He has to make a descriptive bid, especially if it is space-consuming, as MikeH explains. So there wouldn't be a PoFA jump to game in a suit either. But in many auctions it is so that you can jump to game when you are minimum and know of an 8-card fit in a major. Other jumps must show very specific hands (and if they bypass 3NT they must obviously be strong). A jump to 3NT could logically be agreed as weak or as strong, as long as it is very specific.