[Ranmit]

We play 1D = 2+ diamonds, 12-15 points, not 4/4/4/1. Responder's 1M would show 5-11 points, 4+ cards in M.

If your shape is exactly 3=1=5=4, is 2C or 2S the better bid in matchpoints after 1D 1S?

2C for us shows 5=4 (or 5+/5 in the minors), but then partner is likely to just pick his better minor even with a 5 card spade. And given the hand with short trumps is likely to be ruffing, the argument for 2S is stronger even in a 7 card fit. But yes, we might end up in a 7 card part game when we potentially have a 9 card minor fit.

2. Similarly, our 1H opener shows 12-15 points, 5+H. Responder's 1S shows 4+ Spades, 5-11 points. If your shape is 3=5=1/4, is 2m or 2S the better bid in matchpoints after 1H 1S? (2m would show 5+H, 4+m).

[Cyberyeti]

Minimum raise the major, maximum rebid the minor then bid the major ?

[DavidKok]

• I would raise the major with 3. Responder can be stuck for a rebid if you do choose 2♣. 2♠ is, in my opinion, the percentage bid. At matchpoints the 4-3 fit might score better than a minor too!
  
• The traditional advice is to bid 2♠ with a minimum and 2♠2♣-then-2♠ with extra's. I think this is not as good, but you could give it a try.
  
• Over 1♥-1♠ I would do the same thing and raise on 3 cards in a minimum (that is, suitable for simple raise) unbalanced hand.
  
• Making the 1M answers to 1♦ and 1♥ limited seems like a very poor idea to me.

[mycroft]

My belief is that you should raise the major:

• If you get to play 2M, you're ruffing in the short hand. If you play the minor, it might be a better fit, but you don't have that advantage.
  
• It's matchpoints; majors pay better than minors, even if you can make one more trick in the minor.
  
• As you say, partner may have a 5-card major and not correct.
  
• As someone who "never lets them play 2-of-a-fit" (FBVO "never"), frequent raises into Moysian "fits" makes this less successful. For those who live by the LOTT motto, throwing their TT calculations off gives a similar advantage.

BUT!

• If you or partner are not good at playing 4-3 fits, you'll either "git gud" fast or quit playing (bridge/in this partnership).
  
• Similarly, if partner doesn't want to play/learn these fits, don't force them to. In theory, this is +EV. In practise, especially with an upset or surprised or panicking partner, that's a good theory.
  
• If you do raise on 3 regularly, you *need* a way to resolve the extent of your own fits in two cases:
  • when looking for game (hence the 2NT "GF, 4♠" rebid and followups, for instance).
    
  • when they compete (partner can't "automatically" or "following the Law" raise to 3 with 5 trumps any more. So you have to agree how you're going to handle OBAR BIDS or LOTT interference now). Similarly, you almost have to pass with 4 (and no GF) and leave the competing to opener, even with strong(er) hands.
• You *will* lose sometimes, whether it's "2M makes 7 tricks, 3m makes 9" or "let them play 3m with 18 total trumps and the field got to 3M" or "only ones in 3M with 16 (or 17) TT, and went down (one more)". Accept it and move on. Best, keep track and see if you get more pluses than minuses (whether or not it was a 3- or 4-card raise - remember much of the reason to play this is to throw off *their* calculations!) and use that to modify your rules.
  
• Because of 1, you *will* lose more often than you "should" while you're learning how to play these hands. If you put those in your calculations without working out why the loss, you'll give up on this even if you shouldn't.

Finally, realize this only solves the minimum raise problem. What to do with 16 or 17 (where you can't GF with 3m and then hopefully pattern out, but you can't really bid 3M either on a potential 4-3) needs to be looked at as well.

Having said this, I don't follow my suggestions in either of my regular partnerships. In one, we prefer to continue playing Kokish Game Tries (which don't give you a "no fit" out), in the other we just "do what looks right and hope partner judges and plays well". It's probably right to do so, but the work to "get it back" is too much right now.

[DavidKok]

Well said. I just want to add that 'BUT!' point 3 need not be a convention - natural bidding goes a long way here. Many pairs play a form of Spiral here, and I think this is good, but in my opinion you can manage fine without too if you don't want to add a convention.

[Ranmit]

Thanks!

DavidKok, on 2025-October-20, 11:06, said:

[*]The traditional advice is to bid 2♠ with a minimum and 2m-then-2♠ with extra's. I think this is not as good, but you could give it a try.

I dont understand this. Our 1D/1H opener is limited (12-15) - sure I could be at the lower/upper ends of this range, but responder can certainly pass after 1D-1S-2C. So I should bid this only if I feel the minor part game is better than the (potential 4-3) spade part game - which is the original question. Why should the answer to that question change based on whether I am a min or a max?

DavidKok, on 2025-October-20, 11:06, said:

[*]Making the 1M answers to 1♦ and 1♥ limited seems like a very poor idea to me.

Curious why you think so? We have 1D 2C as an artificial GF with a relay structure thereafter through which opener can describe his full hand, so it feels much cleaner to have the 1M response as limited. In fact I thought it was a strength of our system!

[Ranmit]

mycroft, on 2025-October-20, 11:23, said:

BUT![*]If you or partner are not good at playing 4-3 fits, you'll either "git gud" fast or quit playing (bridge/in this partnership).

I didnt think it would be that different...I guess I will have to read up about how to play these fits. But it will certainly take more than a few declaring disasters to make me give up bridge!

mycroft, on 2025-October-20, 11:23, said:

[*]If you do raise on 3 regularly, you *need* a way to resolve the extent of your own fits in two cases:

• when looking for game.
  
• when they compete (partner can't "automatically" or "following the Law" raise to 3 with 5 trumps any more. So you have to agree how you're going to handle OBAR BIDS or LOTT interference now). Similarly, you almost have to pass with 4 (and no GF) and leave the competing to opener, even with strong(er) hands.

.

The first point - we currently play Kokish game tries after 1D 1M 2M, but can easily switch to some form of spiral, so that should be simple.
The second point is very relevant and I hadnt thought of that, thanks! Any suggestions on how we should handle competing bids after 2M? Or are you implying responder should generally pass even with a 5 card suit, and we accept the occasional minuses given the system should be net positive over the long run?

mycroft, on 2025-October-20, 11:23, said:

Finally, realize this only solves the minimum raise problem. What to do with 16 or 17 (where you can't GF with 3m and then hopefully pattern out, but you can't really bid 3M either on a potential 4-3) needs to be looked at as well.

Our 1D / 1M openers are limited to 12-15. We open a strong 1C (16+)

[DavidKok]

Ranmit, on 2025-October-20, 12:46, said:

DavidKok, on 2025-October-20, 11:06, said:

• The traditional advice is to bid 2♠ with a minimum and 2♠-then-2♠ with extra's. I think this is not as good, but you could give it a try.

I dont understand this. Our 1D/1H opener is limited (12-15) - sure I could be at the lower/upper ends of this range, but responder can certainly pass after 1D-1S-2C. So I should bid this only if I feel the minor part game is better than the (potential 4-3) spade part game - which is the original question. Why should the answer to that question change based on whether I am a min or a max?

I agree. I do think 14, and especially 15, is a bit strong for the simple raise. As mycroft said deciding to raise on 3 doesn't solve the problem when opener has slight extra's, and I think the limited opening is still wide enough to contain two ranges. However, I think a 2♣ rebid is not the solution, for the reasons you mention.

P.S. I've corrected the '2♠-then-2♠' typo in the original post. It should of course read 2♣-then-2♠, as you mention.

Ranmit, on 2025-October-20, 12:46, said:

DavidKok, on 2025-October-20, 11:06, said:

• Making the 1M answers to 1♦ and 1♥ limited seems like a very poor idea to me.

Curious why you think so? We have 1D 2C as an artificial GF with a relay structure thereafter through which opener can describe his full hand, so it feels much cleaner to have the 1M response as limited. In fact I thought it was a strength of our system!

In my opinion game forcing relay is not a substitute for dialogue auctions. I would much rather restrict the relay to specific hand types and retain strong options in the 1M responses.

[mikeh]

On the relay point: I speak as someone who played relay for several years. If your opening 1M is 11-15, forcing to game with a 12 count is going to work out extremely poorly quite often. 12 opposite 11, with no fit, is not a recipe for bidding good games.

Secondly, the problem with relaying with modest hands is that for game and slam you need to find out a lot of information….more so than if, for example, the relay response required, say, 15 hcp. Such a hand needs fewer useful cards from opener, because of its own strength. The more info one needs, the longer and higher the relay chain becomes.

Thirdly, it’s generally felt amongst relayers that relays work best when relayer has a balanced or semi balanced hand, when responder is unbalanced, most believe that what David refers to as dialogue bidding is superior. As a former relayer (actually we do use a 1C 1N gf relay) I agree.

These days there are so many gadgets for ‘dialogue’ bidding that relays aren’t as relatively powerful as they were 30 years ago. Which is one reason no longer play the 2C relay.

Btw, I have frequently described the best approach to constructive bidding as being conversational, so I’m pleased to see the ‘dialogue’ descriptor

[akwoo]

Ranmit, on 2025-October-20, 12:46, said:

Curious why you think so? We have 1D 2C as an artificial GF with a relay structure thereafter through which opener can describe his full hand, so it feels much cleaner to have the 1M response as limited. In fact I thought it was a strength of our system!

How good is the competition you're playing?

You have two weaknesses to take care of:

1) When you bid 1D-2C (gf relay), and 4th seat steps in with an overcall, you're effectively starting to describe your hands at the 3 level, and often you also don't have any information about whether you can double them profitably.

2) When you bid 1D-1M (5-11), 4th seat can often come in a little lighter, since your average expectation of strength is a good deal less than over a standard 1D-1M auction (you are roughly 16-25 combined instead of the usual 17-35). This means they often are deciding whether or not to compete in the part score battle with better information, having been able to get in a lower level bid to start.

Are you playing against opposition that knows that they should adjust their competitive bidding to your system? Are you even playing opposition that steps into auctions as often as they should?