[mikeh]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-23, 14:49, said:

As always, I'm taken aback with so many posts about systems where staying at a low level is possible for particular not-so-fitting a hand. Most if not all of those systems would miss a playable game should E had even more for his bid. If E held something like x, Axxxx, Ax, AQxxx even a slam would be in the picture. E had extras both in HCP and shape, and W gave a relatively strong courtesy raise. There are many hands with trumps splitting 5-1 where 3♣ makes. If the contract goes down, who cares. As a general remark, there is a cost for any reasonable bidding system.

Test

[mikeh]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-23, 14:49, said:

As always, I'm taken aback with so many posts about systems where staying at a low level is possible for particular not-so-fitting a hand. Most if not all of those systems would miss a playable game should E had even more for his bid. If E held something like x, Axxxx, Ax, AQxxx even a slam would be in the picture. E had extras both in HCP and shape, and W gave a relatively strong courtesy raise. There are many hands with trumps splitting 5-1 where 3♣ makes. If the contract goes down, who cares. As a general remark, there is a cost for any reasonable bidding system.

As I stated above, I’d pass 1N in the context of my partnerships, which very rarely pass 11 counts, such that (with no heart fit because no drury bid) game is a very long way away. However, with 3=5=1=4 or the like, I’d happily rebid 2C. With your example hand (1=5=2=5 6 controls), of course everyone bids 2C.

Then many pairs, especially in NA (I’m talking experts or good advancing pairs) have methods. In one partnership we’d raise 2C to 3C to show a sound raise, even though we could be on a 4-3 fit. In my other, we bid 2D then 3C to show a sound raise (in both we play bart but in one sound bids go through 2D, in the other, weak bids go through 2D (obviously not ‘weak weak’….those hands pass.

Since opener bid 1H, in both partnerships we have the ‘impossible’ 2S bid but that would show a super-max passed hand raise, often 5 card support.

I’m very comfortable passing 1N, btw. But in a partnership in which opening bids are sound, I’d have to bid 2C with my 14 count if at imps, but I think passing 1N is correct at mps. Partner holds at least 8 minor suit cards, we hold 9 majors….playing a 4-3 club fit (our most likely fit given we’re missing 12 diamonds and 10 clubs) rather than 1N is not the way to play matchpoints

[DavidKok]

I think the 1♥-1NT; P auction is completely reasonable, while passing 1NT with that 5-5 hand is unthinkable (and, in fact, opener should be very surprised with the 1NT response to find out that we have half the deck, the opponents have 9(+) spades, and are not in the auction).

If your partnership decides to play a forcing notrump, or to voluntarily bid 3-card minor suits at the 2-level, this incurs costs both when you get to a suboptimal strain on a misfit but also when you do have two real suits and partner can't play you for that. The people playing a F1NT think this is more than compensated for by the extra sequences created by using the first round response artificially, plus it allows for more flexibility in the notrump ladder (in particular, opening 1M with 5M332 hands in your 1NT range becomes less of a burden).

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-23, 15:08, said:

I think the 1♥-1NT; P auction is completely reasonable, while passing 1NT with that 5-5 hand is unthinkable (and, in fact, opener should be very surprised with the 1NT response to find out that we have half the deck, the opponents have 9(+) spades, and are not in the auction).

If your partnership decides to play a forcing notrump, or to voluntarily bid 3-card minor suits at the 2-level, this incurs costs both when you get to a suboptimal strain on a misfit but also when you do have two real suits and partner can't play you for that. The people playing a F1NT think this is more than compensated for by the extra sequences created by using the first round response artificially, plus it allows for more flexibility in the notrump ladder (in particular, opening 1M with 5M332 hands in your 1NT range becomes less of a burden).

2/1 is so powerful at imps, where game and slam bidding are disproportionately more important than at mps (and ignoring forcing club methods, many of which incorporate much of the 2/1 philosophy for responder), that it’s not practical to give up either a forcing 1N response by an unpassed hand or a semi-forcing, which is only feasible if one doesn’t put some limit raises into 1N. This can be done in several ways (eg 2C includes 3 card limit raises) and each of the ‘1N doesn’t include a limit raise’ approaches has its own costs.

As in all bidding systems, there is no perfect solution and different pairs will perceive different values for costs and benefits based partly on subjective experience (or lack thereof), partly on how much memory work they can tolerate and, no doubt, partly on cognitive dissonance.

As for opener bidding a 3 card minor over 1N, we don’t. For us, 2C is 2+ and 2D promises 4+. We lose something in clubs but gain what we think is more in diamonds. With 4=5=3=1 we guess. Chunky diamonds…2D….weak diamonds…2C (which is, understandable, rarely passed).

[DavidKok]

I think I disagree almost completely. In no particular order:

• If your 2♣ is 2+ and you sometimes rebid 2♦ with 4=5=3=1 with a chunky three card suit that almost exactly matches what I meant with "If your partnership decides to play a forcing notrump, or to voluntarily bid 3-card minor suits at the 2-level". I'm not really sure how else to interpet that the 2m rebid can be three - I'm suggesting instead passing those hands unless they are strong enough to reverse. What do you mean when you say "As for opener bidding a 3 card minor over 1NT, we don't"? Is 2♣ '2 or 4+'?
  
• I would personally not include a 3-card raise of opener's major suit in the 1NT response regardless of which of the three approaches partnerships use (if 1NT is wholly artificial, e.g. a game forcing relay, that's beyond the scope of what I'm hoping to describe). I never really understood why this is so popular, to me it seems strange to conceal support and I consider it a systemic weakness. I think including major suit raises in 1NT is more popular in America than it is in Europe. But even if a partnership does choose to put some raises through 1NT I don't think that moves the needle a significant amount on forcing versus semiforcing compared to the other relative advantages and disadvantages of the two methods.
  
• I don't wish to debate the relative merits of F1NT, SF1NT and a weaker 1NT response - plenty of words have been wasted on that already. Instead I was suggesting that F1NT does worse on this particular deal but might gain on others, and this is a systemic choice.

To be clear: I was not suggesting any particular method over any other one. I was responding to this comment:

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-23, 14:49, said:

As always, I'm taken aback with so many posts about systems where staying at a low level is possible for particular not-so-fitting a hand. Most if not all of those systems would miss a playable game should E had even more for his bid. If E held something like x, Axxxx, Ax, AQxxx even a slam would be in the picture. E had extras both in HCP and shape, and W gave a relatively strong courtesy raise. There are many hands with trumps splitting 5-1 where 3♣ makes. If the contract goes down, who cares. As a general remark, there is always a cost for any reasonable bidding system yet such cost is far below the cost of a home-cooked system.

[Zelandakh]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-February-23, 14:49, said:

As always, I'm taken aback with so many posts about systems where staying at a low level is possible for particular not-so-fitting a hand. Most of those systems would miss a playable game should E had even more for his bid. If E held something like x, Axxxx, Ax, AQxxx even a slam would be in the picture. E had extras both in HCP and shape, and W gave a relatively strong courtesy raise. There are many hands with trumps splitting 5-1 where 3♣ makes. If the contract goes down, who cares. As a general remark, there is always a cost for any reasonable bidding system yet such cost is far below the cost of a home-cooked system.

I daresay a Walrus who plays only robot bridge would happily a pass a non-forcing 2♣ response with ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦Ax ♣AQxxx but I suspect almost all decent human players will look at the 9 card club fit with prime values and upgrade to an invite. After a 3♣ raise, West will obviously accept and there is enough bidding space for the partnership to examine and reject 3NT on the way. No bidding system is perfect but the point being made here displays a lack of understanding that shocks me and is frankly just insulting. After not posting here for some time, this sort of response is a great reminder of why I stopped.