[straube]

We're still having a little trouble nailing down our 1M raise structure. We play 10-15 5+M.

Our structure for 1S is

1N-semiforcing, could have very bal limited raise, could have bad raise with 3-cd support
2H-good constructive/limit raise, roughly 3 cover cards
2S-simple raise, roughly 2 cover cards
2N-LR+ with 4+S
3S-bad simple raise with 4 trump

Our other bids are assigned other things and aren't really available.

Now my initial thought for the 2H and 2S response was that we would be able to raise with very weak hands. Unfortunately, we found that despite having that extra 2H bid
for a raise, there's just a lot of strengths to cover. Contrast to using a forcing NT...

1N-forcing, could be LR with 3 or bad simple raise with 3
2S-constructive
2N-LR+ with 4
3S-weakish

Looking for suggestions how to define our raises. Do we need to just pass 1S when we are weak and have 3 spades? Should we just do this when vulnerable? We could do

P-less than constructive raise with 3
1N-semiforcing, not 3S
2H-limit raise with 3
2S-constructive raise with 3+
2N-limit raise+ with 4
3S-bad simple raise with 4

We could do....

1N-semiforcing, not 3S
2H-constructive raise
2S-less than constructive raise with 3
2N-limit raise+ with 3+
3S-bad simple raise with 4

obviously 2N is yuck

Maybe even...

1N-semiforcing, not 3S
2H-constructive raise
2S-less than constructive raise
2N-limit raise+ with 4+
3S-3-cd LR

I actually almost like the last best.

[Phil]

I think all of this is fine and we play similarly.

You didn't mention 1S 2D. Seems to work well as weak hearts or GF.

[straube]

Phil, on 2016-June-14, 14:51, said:

I think all of this is fine and we play similarly.

You didn't mention 1S 2D. Seems to work well as weak hearts or GF.

2D is hearts. 2C is GF relay or certain GI with 4H

[Kungsgeten]

I do not quite understand the problem in your current structure. Is the strength of 2H too wide?

One option which you do not list could be to split the 2H raise into two non-seamless intervals. Perhaps something like this:

1S--
1NT = Semi-forcing. Could have simple raise with 3 card support.
2H = Transfer raise. Bad raise or limit raise.
2S = Constructive.
2NT = Limit+, 4 cards.
3S = Preempt.

The big downside is ofcourse that the bad raise loses much of its preemptive effect, since sandwich can double, cue bid, or pass -> bid.

[nullve]

straube, on 2016-June-14, 14:40, said:

1N-semiforcingnon-forcing, could have very bal limited raise, could have bad raise with 3-cd support
2H-good constructive/limit raise, roughly 3 cover cards
2S-simple raise, roughly 2 cover cards
2N-LR+ with 4+S
3S-bad simple raise with 4 trump

[straube]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-June-15, 04:10, said:

I do not quite understand the problem in your current structure. Is the strength of 2H too wide?

One option which you do not list could be to split the 2H raise into two non-seamless intervals. Perhaps something like this:

1S--
1NT = Semi-forcing. Could have simple raise with 3 card support.
2H = Transfer raise. Bad raise or limit raise.
2S = Constructive.
2NT = Limit+, 4 cards.
3S = Preempt.

The big downside is ofcourse that the bad raise loses much of its preemptive effect, since sandwich can double, cue bid, or pass -> bid.

We had used 2H as constructive or limit raise with the limit raise having to bid again. I like that better but if opener breaks tempo it's a problem taking another bid with the limit raise. Yours doesn't have this problem but it does lose the preemption. I really hate losing 1M-3M as preemptive, particularly for hearts. I might have to sacrifice 1M-3D which is currently invitational diamonds. May not be frequent enough to justify it.

[straube]

I think I've figured out that 1H-3D can be a LR with 3 trump and 1H-3H can be weak. I can't give up 1S-3D as GI diamonds without creating some other problems. Looking for feedback as to which of two options is better. Or suggest something better.

1S-
.....1N-semiforcing, denies 3 spades
.....2C-GF relay or GI 4H
.....2D-5+H
.....2H-constructive raise
.....2S-weaker raise
.....2N-LR+, 4+ trump
.....3C-GI
.....3D-GI
.....3H-GI
.....3S-LR, 3 trump

or the same but

.....2N-LR+, 3+ trump
.....3S-weak

[Kungsgeten]

straube, on 2016-June-15, 06:01, said:

if opener breaks tempo it's a problem taking another bid with the limit raise.

Shouldn't opener's actions (except relaying) be shapely INV vs the constructive raise? In that case I think it would be okay to force game vs the limit raise, unless perhaps opener's bid makes responder's hand a lot worse. What continuations do you play after 1S-2H? I think Romex game trials all the way could be an alternative:

1S--2H;
2S = The normal bid. Now 3S is limit raise, while 2NT/3y is Romex game trials with a shapely constructive raise.
2NT = Romex game trial vs constructive raise. Shortness somewhere.
3y = Natural, game trial vs constructive raise.
3S = Good max, normal INV vs constructive raise.

[straube]

We play Kokish, which seems the same as Romex except 2N asks which GT partner might accept while suit rebids promise shortness.

Yeah, we might need to have 1S-2H handle both constructive raises as well as limit raises of 3-cd support. The LR has to bid again opposite a sign off attempt.

Think we can avoid this for 1H though and it's more important to show what kind of heart raise one has right away.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2016-June-15, 08:02, said:

I think I've figured out that 1H-3D can be a LR with 3 trump and 1H-3H can be weak. I can't give up 1S-3D as GI diamonds without creating some other problems. Looking for feedback as to which of two options is better. Or suggest something better.

1S-
.....1N-semiforcing, denies 3 spades
.....2C-GF relay or GI 4H
.....2D-5+H
.....2H-constructive raise
.....2S-weaker raise
.....2N-LR+, 4+ trump
.....3C-GI
.....3D-GI
.....3H-GI
.....3S-LR, 3 trump

or the same but

.....2N-LR+, 3+ trump
.....3S-weak

I see the issue - 1NT SF makes for fewer sequences. However, given your limited opener's range, I think you can still get most of the obstructive raises you seem to want since you've got a lot of extra space after the 2M-1 and 2NT bids. If you're going to force to 3M on any 3 card limit raise (which is not a particularly good hand for preempting), you might as well fold that into one of the slower forcing sequences. How about this:

1N less than 3 trump, SF/NF to taste
2H 3-4 card constructive or 3 card limit raise
.....2S 10-13ish, not exceptional shape
..........P 3 card constructive raise
..........2N limit raise, then help suit tries
..........3X help suit tries with 4 card constructive raise (forces to 3M, LLOT style)
.....2N max values (14-15ish), forcing. 3 card constructive will make 3X game tries, others bid game or over 3M
.....3X shapely invites (12-15ish); constructive raise may counter or sign off at 3M, limit will accept
.....3S long suit, distributional invite
2S weak raise
2N 4+ support, limit+ values (followed by relay game/slam tries, fast arrive for limit raises)
3S preemptive raise

Incidentally, we play something fairly similar after the opponents double 1M - obstructive raises, 2 level constructive transfers, 2N Jordan, etc.

[straube]

Thank you, Rob. For your email as well.

We settled the other day on 2M-1 as constructive, 2M and 3M as weak and 2N as LR with 3 or 4 trump as well as GF with 4 trump.

I imagine many wouldn't agree with combining the 3 and 4-cd limit raises, but I'd just as soon know we're in game territory ASAP.
The 2M and 2M-1 bids can also be 3 or 4 trump and we have the 2C response as a GF relay or GI with exactly 4 hearts.

I'd thought to place the 3-cd limit raise (denying the OM) into the 3D response but partner didn't like it and there's some tradeoffs there as well.

Kind of like that the 2M-1 won't pose much of a tempo issue for us. Opener can think a bit before signing off and responder won't be barred with a LR because he won't have one.

[Zelandakh]

Presumably you use 3♣♦♥ for something else so they cannot be incorporated into the raise structure? I can think of many ways of doing this. Seeing that you like to use the LR+ 2NT concept, one possibility that comes to mind, trying to match the pattern between direct and delayed raises is...

2♥ = weak raise, or 4 card CR, or mini-splinter, or maxi-splinter
... - 2♠ = most hands
... - ... - 2NT = 3 card LR+
... - ... - 3♣♦♥ = mini-splinter
... - ... - 3♠ = 4 card constructive raise (see below)
... - ... - 3NT = void maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♣♦♥ = singleton maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♠ = anything you want, for example a maxi-splinter with a singleton heart but weaker than 4♥
2♠ = 3 card constructive raise (see below)
2NT = 4 card LR+
3♠ = weak raise
3NT = void splinter
4♣♦♥ = singleton splinter
4♠ = to play

The above is designed to keep the same structures and provide all of the different raise types but, to be honest, without a proper mixed raise it is not really worth splitting the 3 and 4 card constructive types. So better is probably to use the delayed 3♠ as a limit raise and make the delayed 2NT a pure GF.

There is also another completely different way of playing here that you might consider. You could use 2♥ as a variety of raises or an invitational one-suiter. That frees up the entire 3 level for direct raises:

2♥ = constructive raise, or INV 1-suiter, or 3 card limit raise, or maxi-splinter
... - 2♠ = <GF opposite CR
... - ... - 2NT = 3 card GF raise
... - ... - 3♣♦♥ = INV one-suiter
... - ... - 3♠ = 3 card LR
... - ... - 3NT = void maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♣♦♥ = singleton maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♠ = anything you want, for example a maxi-splinter with a singleton heart but weaker than 4♥
... - 2NT = relay
... - ... - 3♣♦♥ = one-suiter
... - ... - 3♠ = 3 card LR (if you think finding low-hcp slams is worthwhile, otherwise move the maxi-splinter hands down)
... - ... - 3NT = void maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♣♦♥ = singleton maxi-splinter
... - ... - 4♠ = constructive raise
2♠ = weak raise
2NT = mini-splinter (NB: there is extra space here to show something else if desired, such as 3 card splinters or a slam-invitational hand with a great side-suit)
3♣ = 4 card GF raise
3♦ = 4 card LR
3♥ = 4 card constructive (mixed) raise
3♠ = weak raise
3NT = void splinter
4♣♦♥ = singleton splinter
4♠ = to play

Both of these schemes provide 3 and 4 card version of weak, constructive, limit and GF raises along with mini, maxi and normal splinters. The first has the advantage of 2♥ always showing spades while the second splits the LR and GF raises and, perhaps more importantly, gets to show the mixed raise immediately to create more pressure. To be honest there seems to be plenty of space here so I do not really understand the issue. That usually means I am missing something obvious, particularly when posting from work...

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-20, 04:06, said:

Both of these schemes provide 3 and 4 card version of weak, constructive, limit and GF raises along with mini, maxi and normal splinters. The first has the advantage of 2♥ always showing spades while the second splits the LR and GF raises and, perhaps more importantly, gets to show the mixed raise immediately to create more pressure. To be honest there seems to be plenty of space here so I do not really understand the issue. That usually means I am missing something obvious, particularly when posting from work...

We're trying to quickly if approximately show what we have. We want to avoid 1S P 2H* (4D) ? and guessing whether partner has support or not, or whether partner has a weak or LR.

We're using 1S-3C/3D/3H for natural GI because we have to slot them somewhere. Otherwise 1S-1N, 2H-3m is a difficult choice. I guess 3m would be to play and 2N could be GI with a long minor.

In order to make 1M-3L work as GI, we need a place for 4OM/6m GI so we start to relay (2C) with these and then break relay into the minor. Our relays are organized such that opener's highest rebids show the other major such that if responder only has GI with the other major, he can break relay to show a 4/4 fit. I.e. we can't break relay just to show GI 6m because doing so also promises 4OM.

We basically show fit right away unless we have also the other major and think it might be a better spot or have certain GF hands (usually 3 trump) that want to relay the hand.

[Zelandakh]

Ok, then how about using the 1NT->3m sequence as inviational and having the weak minor one-suiters in the 2♥ response? In this case it becomes extremely risky for 4th hand to preempt with 4♦ (or whatever) as there is no guarantee of either strength or fit on your side. Then we make it so that all hands with 4 card support raise to 2♠ or above immediately and fit in the remaining hands (3 card raises) between 2♥, the relay and any other call we can free up. So, if a 2♥ response were to be weak with a minor or 3 card raises from a certain minimum strength, what is the lowest you could go and still feel comfortable? We start there and then reverse back how the structure has to look to accommodate the basic design framework.

[straube]

Appreciate your input. I'm not sure I understand fully, but I think (for 1S) you're suggesting that 2H is a weak raise with usually three trump or wanting to sign off a minor. A direct 2S then is more constructive?

As far as how weak....well at certain vulnerabilities I'd like to raise spades with as little as Qxx xx xxxx xxxx. The opponents are going to know that it's usually right for them to compete over 2S, but they will occasionally find the wrong fit. Also, if they use OBAR strategy they'll have a hard time figuring out whether they have game or not. They're just preempted from getting to the ideal contract a decent percentage of the time. But if it goes 1S-2S weak that puts more pressure on the opponents than would 1S-2H, 2S-P* where Pass reveals the weak raise.

Over 1S-2H (constructive, maybe 9-11) we'll be able to penalize them or compete.

I'd like not to cater to weak with a long minor. I basically want 1M-1N to be a bid that we quite frequently want to pass. We've excluded hands with fits, so rebidding 2D with something like KJxxx xx AQxx xx has lots of ways of losing. We've excluded hands with 6 hearts or GI 5 hearts so probably can say the same for minimums with 5S/4H. I mean if we know pard can't have 3 spades and our "anchor" suit has at best a 5-2 fit, why introduce 4-cd suits with minimums?

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2016-June-20, 09:45, said:

Appreciate your input. I'm not sure I understand fully, but I think (for 1S) you're suggesting that 2H is a weak raise with usually three trump or wanting to sign off a minor. A direct 2S then is more constructive?

There are a few ways of doing it. That is one option but I was actually looking at it the other way round in the last post, with 2♠ being weaker than the raise options in 2♥. The question was then what the bottom end would be for 2♥ that would still be comfortable. If you could handle a 2♥ response that was weak in a minor or a 3 card raise with 9+ then I think it would be easy to build a structure around that. Just take the second method from #12 and substitute weak for INV on the 3m rebids, with 3♥ being freed up for anything else you want it to be (since I forgot you would be using 2♦ for that). Then remove all of the maxi-splinters and move them to the immediate 2NT response instead. That ought to cover everything!