[wank]

assuming you're playing 1m - 2m as GF, should you adopt a different scheme to whatever it is people normally play over an invitational plus 2m to maximise the extra space available?

1m is 3+. 18-19 bal is opened through 2c so isn't a possibility in 1m.

[The_Badger]

Given that the 2m responding hand is stronger in a GF scenario, instead of opener showing stoppers, singletons or a desire to play in a minor suit contract as opposed to 3NT opposite an invitational raise, opener could show controls as opposed to stoppers maybe? I am sure a more-experienced 2/1 player than me has a detailed way of handling this auction.

But there isn't anything to stop an invitational responder hand in a crossover auction (1♣ - 2♦, 1♦ - 3♣) proceeding beyond the original invitation too?

To my mind, I think you need to clarify the different hand types where you would use a GF, possibly slam force, after 1m-2m; and, those hands where you may be more borderline, where you'd use a crossover bid then a new suit bid (extra values) scenario.

After a 1m-2m GF bid, there's also the possibility obviously of using this bid as a relay to define opener's shape and strength, controls could come later.

[Zelandakh]

I have been a firm believer in using the first step over an inverted 2m raise to show a balanced hand ever since Frances introduced me to the concept here a few years ago. I think that would also be a good approach when 2m is GF. The point here is that many responding hands will know precisely where they want to play in this (common) case and can then bid it without leaking information but at the same time enough space is retained if Responder wants to investigate cog or slam.

One thing that does seem relevant is whether we need to investigate 4-4 major suit fits after 2m. As I recall, CY plays a system where 2m is GF but is bid in preference to showing a major meaning that this checkback is important. If your 2m is more traditional in nature in terms of shapes, this not a factor and it seems to me that getting across the standard messages - strength, shortage, stops - is going to be just as valid as for when Responder might hold an invite. The main difference is that you do not need to stop in 2NT/3m so you can design the structure to use space slightly more optimally in certain cases.

[straube]

I think the obvious answer is yes. Are you looking for help with continuations? If so, what hand types can opener and responder have at the point of 1m-2m?

[wank]

 straube, on 2017-November-07, 09:55, said:

I think the obvious answer is yes. Are you looking for help with continuations? If so, what hand types can opener and responder have at the point of 1m-2m?

yes. basically, please. i know you're much better at working out these permutations than i am.

assume responder doesn't have a major unless he's strong enough not to care. i suppose responder will bid 1D over 1C with 54. responder doesn't have a 3 level splinter available.
so responder is either 4 bal or 5 unbal. no major either way.

as for opener, we open longer minor (1C always with 33 and also 44 if weak NT unless huge discrepancy), if bal must be 12-14 (i.e. 15+ bal is opened elsewhere), no 5cM unless 6m

[Kungsgeten]

So we may want to consider:

1. Information leakage.
2. Finding the right game/strain.
3. Exploring slam possibilities.
4. The level of artificiality (how "easy" it will be to remember).
5. Which hand will declare a (likely) 3NT contract?

Then the continuations can take these into consideration, depending on what you find most important. Many users on this forum use relay methods, or similar, and then information leakage is ranked pretty low: you ask a lot of questions "just in case". That isn't necessarily bad, but a lot of natural methods usually rank information leakage higher; we don't want to give the opponents extra information. It might also be a case of reserving energy, trying to spend less time on the bidding unless more time is needed. Anyway, I think its a good idea to define opener's hand type first. The structure below is stolen from user Bende, who probably stole it from someone else:

- Step 1 = Unbalanced minimum, with shortness, or 16+ with 4441. Relay asks for shortness up the line (1/2/3 with minimum, 4/5/6 with 16+ 4441).
- Step 2 = Balanced hand, 3 or 4 card minor. Does not want to bid 2NT.
- Step 3/4 (not 2NT) = Unbalanced GF, extras, no shortness.
- 2NT = Balanced hand, 3 or 4 card minor.
- 3m = Minimum, 5+ minor and no shortness.
- Higher = 16+, shortness in bid suit. Not 4441.

[straube]

I like your decision not to include 4-cd majors with your raise; 1m-2m handles too many hand types if it includes those.

Do you want to use relays? A rough draft of what that could look like...

1D-2D
.....2H-balanced
..........2S-some unbalanced (both minors?)
..........2N-also balanced
..........etc-other unbalanced (6D and shortness?)
.....2S and higher-other unbalanced

But opener would have many more hand types than responder and too many to relay properly. You would need to use some approximations. Maybe something like...
.....2S-semi-balanced with 5 or more diamonds (so maybe 4252 or 2363)
.....2N-high short
.....3C-middle short
.....3D-low short, 4 diamonds
.....3H-low short, 5 diamonds
.....3S-low short, 6 diamonds

After these approximations you have something of a co-captaincy because strength is undefined.

[wank]

Relays or anything else with high levels of complexity aren't a problem

[nullve]

Your 1m openings are similarly defined, so you probably want similar continuations over each inverted raise. But then you won't need the extra space that you have after 1♣-2♣. So why not use the same bid (e.g. 2♦) as the inverted "raise" over both openings?

[straube]

 nullve, on 2017-November-08, 19:05, said:

Your 1m openings are similarly defined, so you probably want similar continuations over each inverted raise. But then you won't need the extra space that you have after 1♣-2♣. So why not use the same bid (e.g. 2♦) as the inverted "raise" over both openings?

Good idea. I think I did that once long ago and then made 1C-2C just a simple raise. I've forgotten what I did with the invitational raises. I came not to like the whole structure. It seemed too much of a good thing to be able to establish a GF with a minor suit fit as early as 2D, and 1C-2C as a simple raise didn't lead anywhere except invite the opponents into balancing. I pretty much had the thought that if my structure was right, then we had too much room available after a natural 1C open...which is pretty much the case actually.

But 1m-2D would keep all the steps the same.

[Zelandakh]

Something along these lines perhaps?

1♦ - 2♦
==
2♥ = 12-14 bal
... - 2♠ = relay
... - ... - 2NT = 5♦(332)
... - ... - ... - 3♣ = relay
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♦ = 3352
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 2353
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 3253
... - ... - 3♣ = 4 spades
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = relay
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♥ = 4432
... - ... - ... - ... - 3♠ = 4342
... - ... - ... - ... - 3NT = 4243
... - ... - 3♦ = x44y
... - ... - 3♥ = 3343
... - ... - 3♠ = 2344
... - ... - 3NT = 3244
... - 2NT = nat, (power) slam try
... - 3♣♥♠ = stop ask
... - 3♦ = nat, SI
... - ... - 3♥ = decline slam try (Friv)
... - ... - 3♠+ = accept slam try, control cue in preferred style
2♠ = min, unbal
... - 2NT = shortage ask
... - ... - 3♣ = side void
... - ... - ... - 3♦ = relay
... - ... - ... - ... - 3M = void in M
... - ... - ... - ... - 3NT = ♣ void
... - ... - 3♦ = singleton ♣
... - ... - 3♥ = singleton ♥
... - ... - 3♠ = singleton ♠
... - ... - 3NT = no shortage
... - 3♣♥♠ = stop ask
... - 3♦ = nat, SI
... - ... - 3♥ = decline slam try (Friv)
... - ... - 3♠+ = accept slam try, control cue in preferred style
2NT = extras, unbal, no shortage
... - 3♣♥♠ = stop ask
... - 3♦ = nat, SI
... - ... - 3♥ = decline slam try (Friv)
... - ... - 3♠+ = accept slam try, control cue in preferred style
3♣ = extras, side void
... - 3♦ = relay
... - ... - 3M = void in M
... - ... - 3NT = ♣ void
3♦ = extras, singleton ♣
3♥ = extras, singleton ♥
3♠ = extras, singleton ♠

[wank]

 nullve, on 2017-November-08, 19:05, said:

Your 1m openings are similarly defined, so you probably want similar continuations over each inverted raise. But then you won't need the extra space that you have after 1♣-2♣. So why not use the same bid (e.g. 2♦) as the inverted "raise" over both openings?

excellent plan. i had 1C-2D as a particularly dirty and over-loaded multi. it would very much benefit from the extra step gained by switching it down to 2C

[awm]

Probably the most important thing is locating shortness (if any) in either hand. Can responder have a singleton or void here, or would that be handled by a direct splinter or some other call? If responder is always (semi)-balanced then Zel's structure looks quite good to me. If responder's shortness is possible I'd rearrange things a bit to make sure it can be shown.

[wank]

 awm, on 2017-November-09, 10:10, said:

Probably the most important thing is locating shortness (if any) in either hand. Can responder have a singleton or void here, or would that be handled by a direct splinter or some other call? If responder is always (semi)-balanced then Zel's structure looks quite good to me. If responder's shortness is possible I'd rearrange things a bit to make sure it can be shown.

yes responder can have a shortage.

a direct 3x bid is pre-emptive.

[awm]

In this case I'd modify Zel's structure by getting rid of the relay. Relaying a balanced hand isn't the most useful thing, and if you don't play relays normally it's a lot to remember and maybe doesn't add much. Instead I'd go with after:

1♦-2♦-2♥ (12-14 balanced) and...

2♠ = interested in 3NT, but not willing to declare it (probably weak in some suit)
... 2NT = scattered stoppers everywhere
... otherwise notrump controls up the line
2NT = extras in a semi-balanced hand, happy to declare NT, asks for cue if opener has controls or 3NT on a disappointing hand
3♣, 3♥, 3♠ = shortness
3♦ = no shortness, requires a cue for slam in diamonds
3NT = to play

[wank]

lovely. thanks a lot everybody.