[Fluffy]

I am pretty new still on limited openings, and I am not sure if I am going on the right track with this.

I have noticed some bad results for underbidding the 1♥-pass-2♥ and the 1♠-pass-2♠ hands.

Right now I am passing hands that have no real posibility to make game, hence passing 1♠ with 3 card support and 5 HCP for example

I don't like this.


I am thinking about playing 1♥-2♦ and 1♠-2♥ as some form of support with another variant, along with 1♥-2♥ and 1♠-2♠ being more specific (I guess kind of preemptive)


Am I on the right track? or should I just keep a 1♠-2♠ 4-10 wide range?


NOTE: the non support variants of 1♠-2♥ amd 1♥-2♦ should be primarilly non game forcing, but perhaps invitationals since game forcing ralays go elsewhere.

[straube]

I think that's the right idea. I assume that in Spain it would be legal to play that. In the US it's only legal Midchart or higher. You could also incorporate a forcing NT to separate things into weak raises, constructive raises and limit raises.

We experimented with limited opening hands and 1-under as a limit raise. One of our design goals was to stop at the 2-level. In practice, we found that most of the limit raise hands made game opposite minimum hands if the cards were working. Eventually, we decided that playing 2M was only permitted with hands that were lighter than a standard opening; the others made some sort of game try (2-way for us).

[Fluffy]

Our system is mid-chart already so no problem with that , and it is allowed in Spain on all events.

its important to note that we use 1NT response as GF relay, so no forcing NT, right now we were using 2 red as non forcing 6-11 natural bid. If we turn to some form of transfer We have to decide if 1♠-2♦ and 1♥-2♣ turn into transfers as well

Another question on this matter, do bergen raises make more or less sense opposite limited openings?

[Zelandakh]

You definitely want to be able to raise quickly to the 3 level with 4 card support. Whether you use Bergen or something similar is a matter of taste but it is a clear winner overall imho. The problem with 1M - 2M having such a wide range is that there are still plenty of hands Opener can hold that will want to investigate game. Having a way to show a 3 card limit raise at the 2 level would help to reduce this range so would be a useful addition if you can find space for it. My own solution is to reduce the 1NT relay to INV+ allowing it to include the 3 card limit raise but that is probably impossible within your system so perhaps some kind of 2/3-way 2C (nat or 3 card LR or bal) would be an idea for you.

[Free]

Another solution (which I use) is to use 2♣ as a GF relay, and play 1NT as (semi)forcing like in 2/1. You can include the weak and INV raise in there, and use the immediate raise constructively.

If you really want to bid at 2-level with weak hands, I guess it's definitely playable to use 2M-1 as constructive raise, losing the natural meaning of this bid. Using it as 2-way is problematic I'm afraid.

[wclass___]

yeah, IMO, it is the only right way to go.

If you want relays over 1M, you need to save as much space as possible, so i don't think that 2♣ is an option. If you are going standard relay route: shape then controls, i strongly recommend not to relay extreme shapes. So 1M-1N-2♦ or 2♥ should tell that openers shape is too wild.

[straube]

Free, on 2011-February-25, 07:40, said:

Another solution (which I use) is to use 2♣ as a GF relay, and play 1NT as (semi)forcing like in 2/1. You can include the weak and INV raise in there, and use the immediate raise constructively.

If you really want to bid at 2-level with weak hands, I guess it's definitely playable to use 2M-1 as constructive raise, losing the natural meaning of this bid. Using it as 2-way is problematic I'm afraid.

I agree with 1N semiforcing and 2C as GF relay. We're only +1 after the GF relay compared to standard symmetric and that keeps 1N as an option/weak relay for the non-GF hands.

2C-GF
.....2D-various
..........2H-relay
...............2S-four clubs
...............2N-five clubs
...............3C-5332
...............3D-5 diamonds, higher
.....2H-six hearts
.....2S-4 diamonds
.....2N-five spades
.....3C-four spades, higher

I also like Bergen but think it's interesting that Meckwell don't play it.

[Zelandakh]

1N as INV+ relay over 1S is also (mostly) +1 step but you get the added bonus of being able to take the INV hands out of the weak responses and you sometimes also have Opener's strength more limited than the direct GF relay methods.

ie 1S - 1N
----------
2C = min without 4 hearts (now 2D is GF relay and others are natural invites)
2D = 4 hearts (now 2H is GF relay)
2H = max, 4+ clubs, GF
2S = max, 1-suited, GF
2N and higher = max, 4+ diamonds, GF

Obviously 1S - 1N - 2m - 2S is the 3 card limit raise here.

[Fluffy]

Our 1M-1NT structure is extremely codified, but I think I can drop a 1NT followed by 3M as invitational without much risk because the only hands where I couldn't rebid 3M are 5-5 at least where game is a good denomination. Even I could be able to play 2 spades opposite 5♠4m hands

Still my main concern is what to do with 3 card support hands with 4 points versus 3 card support hands with 9 points

[Free]

Fluffy, on 2011-February-26, 03:05, said:

Still my main concern is what to do with 3 card support hands with 4 points versus 3 card support hands with 9 points

With 3M 5-7HCP we bid 1NT (semiforcing)
With 3M 8-10HCP we bid 2M
With 3M INV we bid 1NT (semiforcing)

We accept to play 1NT when opener is MIN and responder is INV, because playing 3M will usually be too high in that case. When opener is MIN and responder has the weak raise, opps usually have an easy game to bid. I think Meckwell also play it this way.

I find it pretty obvious not to play Bergen raises after a limited 1M opening. Just make sure you have a mixed raise and an INV raise with 4 card support available somewhere, that's more than enough.

[gnasher]

I play 1♥-2♦ as a weak 3-card raise or a 3-card limit raise, with 1♥-2♥ as constructive (and similarly 1♠-2♥ / 1♠-2♠). That seems to work OK.

After the two-way raise, opener's bids are:

2M = to play opposite the weak hand
3M = to play opposite the weak hand, FG opposite the invitational hand
2NT = 18-19 balanced
Lowest new suit = either a natural game try opposite the weak hand, or a hand that's driving game and has slam interest opposite the invitational hand
Other new suit = game try opposite the weak hand
3NT = solid suit
4M = to play opposite either (though responder might bid with some invitations)

When opener makes a game try but responder has the invitational hand, he bids something that is inconsistent with holding the weak hand - a suit bid higher than three of our trump suit, or 3NT opposite a natural game-try.

I suspect that at some point I'll miss a slam opposite the invitational hand, but it hasn't happened yet.


One theoretical downside is that they can sometimes force you to a higher level than you wanted to reach. For example, after

1♥ pass 2♦ 3♠
pass pass

responder has to act again with the invitational hand.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2011-February-26, 13:52, said:

I play 1♥-2♦ as a weak 3-card raise or a 3-card limit raise, with 1♥-2♥ as constructive (and similarly 1♠-2♥ / 1♠-2♠). That seems to work OK.

I think the main point of Fluffy's solution/question is not to end up in 3M when opener is min and responder is INV. This is about a strong ♣ system with limited and light 1M openings. Sadly the 2-way raise doesn't really help to solve this particular problem.

[awm]

Typically limit raises have a tighter range of strength than single raises. For example, the standard ranges are something like 6-9 (or even good 5 to bad 10) for single raise and 10-11 for limit raise. A big part of the reason this works out is that you have room for game tries over the single raise, whereas over a typical limit raise (to the three-level) you pretty much have to decide whether to bid game or not right there.

This being the case, it makes sense to let 1♥-Pass-2♦ have a wider range than just a limit raise.

My suggestion is something like 1♥-Pass-2♥ = 5-8 and 1♥-Pass-2♦ = 9-12 (presumably some 12s don't make game opposite a light opening). If partner thinks he can make game opposite "top-of-the-range" then he bids past 2♥.

[whereagles]

I once thought of using 1M-2♣ as either clubs GF or Drury. I remember I managed to make follow-ups work fine on paper, but I can't remember how... lol. If you're interested I can dig out the file and send you.

[gwnn]

skjaeran plays
1♠-2♥=either natural GF or 0-5 with 3 card support. opener bids 2♠ a lot over 2♥ natural GF anyway so it's OK.

[gnasher]

Free, on 2011-February-27, 03:48, said:

I think the main point of Fluffy's solution/question is not to end up in 3M when opener is min and responder is INV.

Where does it say that?