[straube]

newroad, on 2015-December-25, 15:07, said:

Even if 1M 2NT as NAT, FG is somehow theoretically suspect, as a practical matter, the gains originally alluded to seem to be real.

I think most folks have abandoned 1M-2N as FG natural because it so preempts opener from describing a shapely hand. I think you're right about rightsiding and for the majority of hands where we're deciding between 3N and 4M it's likely a good thing, but like an opening strong bal 2N, it would be a real slam-killer.

I see a lot of...

2C-GF bal or clubs
2N-GF FR

which is a pretty practical way of aligning with that balanced hand principle that you mentioned. I personally play

2C-GF relay
2N-GF FR

with the similar idea.

I've rarely encountered

2C-GF clubs or limit raise the major

which I don't like but understand the thought is to be able to play 2M with a limit raise.

Especially if we're considering a 4-cd GF raise, it's nice to inform partner quickly in case he faces a 5-level decision...or we do

1S P 2C (5D) P P ?

[lycier]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-18, 06:58, said:

Hardy raises look like this:

2NT: 15+, balanced, 4 trumps, slam interest
3♣: Limit raise with either 4 trumps and no side shortage, or 3 trumps and a singleton or void
3under (the denomination directly under trumps: "GF LImit raise, 9+ to 12- HCP, 4 trumps, a singleton or void
3M: weak
3over: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps, side shortage
4♣: balanced, 4 trumps, 12+ to 15- HCP, two of the top three trumps
4♦: as 4♣ but fewer that two top trumps.

The last two he described as "inverted trump Swiss", iirc.

Yes,yes, I like it.
3under and 3over also are called as Concealed Splinter with GF,then opener can make a cheapest bid to ask singleton or void.
Actually 4♣/♦ usually is 5-card support, however some experts of our country think such raise are not good and waste a lot of space.

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

With respect to your various thoughts

• Interesting theory about why 1M 2NT FG NAT has been largely deprecated. You would have to ask those around at the time as to which was the driver: bidding the former 2NT response hands suit first (allegedly being) better or the perceived need for a more convenient FG raise. The couple of anecdotal views I recall reading in The Bridge World (Seres and Gitelman) seemed to bemoan its loss. I can't regard their view as conclusive, however, as people who feel strongly the other way have no particular reason to say so, as de-facto methods approximate at least their preferred one.
  
• The "slam-killing" effect of 1M 2NT as NAT FG would be less pronounced than implied - there are a bunch of semi-BAL hands which make it into the modern suite of 2NT openings, maybe even the odd 5431 with some partnerships. Also, partner (in this case opener) has had a shot already. So yes, there may be the odd tight-but-reachable slam inadvertently pre-empted, but the practical game level upsides (to which I think you concur) in practise outweigh this.
  
• The thing about two way bids is that they ideally need to be very similar or very distinct. Very similar (e.g. same shape[s], split ranges) mean that partner in competition can act based on the known bit (e.g. fit in the example case). Very distinct in competition means that discrete actions can be made with each type, or, even better, no further action with one (e.g. a weak type) and action with the other (e.g. a strong type).
  
• Related to the above, I'm not sure how good FG clubs or FG BAL is. Opposite a major suit opening, they both lend themselves to defence opposite heavy barrage - maybe this is good. FG clubs or limit raise would appear ostensibly worse, you haven't even got a forcing pass option available under heavy barrage. FG clubs or FG raise is perhaps between the two in efficacy under heavy barrage (e.g. DBL with clubs or BAL raise, bid with shaped raise).

With respect to Lycier's thoughts and the Hardy stuff, I have seen this "extra strong" raise type elsewhere, the rationale seemingly being for slam to be good and needing to be driven by responder, extra strength is needed. I'm not convinced about the frequency, hence utility, of this approach. However, if you are so interested, the original Balanced Hand Principle article catered for dual range continuations (I believe it split them 11-14 and 15+) and if you play CLOR or anything with similar space, it is easy enough to add a step to split the range*.

On the other Hardy style bids, if concerned about trump quality with balanced raises, Turbo/Kickbo does this pretty well (especially if used one level down which is what 1M 2C 2D 2H as the FG raise facilitates). The undisclosed SPL does have some upside - there all some hands with even and/or soft honour dispersion which have no play for slam opposite any such SPL, in which case, hiding the shortage does no harm and maybe some good.

Regards, Newroad

* it then gets intersting which range to put in the step and which range to zoom on. I think 15+ in the step and 11-14 to zoom, as you "can't" bid 1M 2C 2D 2H 4M to sign-off.

[awm]

As far as swiss raises go, I think the main problem is that using 1M-4m to show a balanced raise in some point range removes most of your space for slam auctions. Points aren't usually the issue in these situations. For example, say opener has:

♠AKxxx ♥x ♦KQxx ♣Qxx and hears 1♠-4♣ (12-14 two keycards plus trump queen); you could find partner with:

♠Qxxx ♥AKxx ♦Ax ♣xxx where the five level is not safe
♠Qxxx ♥Axxx ♦Ax ♣KJx where slam is almost cold

A slower auction where you identify opener's length and/or shortness and get a few cues in below 4M is likely to be much more accurate. This has lead to swiss raises falling out of style, and I almost never see anyone playing them.

The other methods that people often pair with trump swiss (like concealed splinters, bergen raises) are okay and I see them sometimes in strong partnerships.

[tommylee]

In his advanced book on 2/1, Max Hardy in his full and complete system used "Inverted Trump Swiss." He had bidding sequences to show splinters (the under jump shift) and his Jacoby 2NT was 16+ so the bids of 4c and 4d described 4 card support and 13-15. 4c was either (i) 4 card support with 2 of the top 3 honors or (ii) 5 card support with the Ace or King of trump. 4 diamonds was any hand with 4 card support and 13-15 that did not meet the criteria of 4 clubs. I played it and liked it, but the frequency of occurrence was poor. I am sure that does not bother anyone in this forum.

[straube]

newroad, on 2015-December-26, 14:41, said:

[*]The "slam-killing" effect of 1M 2NT as NAT FG would be less pronounced than implied - there are a bunch of semi-BAL hands which make it into the modern suite of 2NT openings, maybe even the odd 5431 with some partnerships. Also, partner (in this case opener) has had a shot already. So yes, there may be the odd tight-but-reachable slam inadvertently pre-empted, but the practical game level upsides (to which I think you concur) in practise outweigh this.

It would be nice to have a study of how each use imps out.

We could be victims of group think, but almost everyone I know or come across does not play 2N as nat FG and whether 2N should be LR+ or FR seems to be the main divide. It's hard to say whether folks feel that it's more important for the FR to be shown or for the NAT FG to stay low (and they are partly different sides of the same coin), but if we're just looking at how we weigh their use as a pair...

newroad, on 2015-December-26, 14:41, said:

[*]The thing about two way bids is that they ideally need to be very similar or very distinct. Very similar (e.g. same shape[s], split ranges) mean that partner in competition can act based on the known bit (e.g. fit in the example case). Very distinct in competition means that discrete actions can be made with each type, or, even better, no further action with one (e.g. a weak type) and action with the other (e.g. a strong type).

Yes, I think is partly why the IMPrecision 1D response works and why the Polish Club doesn't.

newroad, on 2015-December-26, 14:41, said:

[*]Related to the above, I'm not sure how good FG clubs or FG BAL is. Opposite a major suit opening, they both lend themselves to defence opposite heavy barrage - maybe this is good. FG clubs or limit raise would appear ostensibly worse, you haven't even got a forcing pass option available under heavy barrage. FG clubs or FG raise is perhaps between the two in efficacy under heavy barrage (e.g. DBL with clubs or BAL raise, bid with shaped raise).

Both are difficult, but I would rather be in the first position than the second...

1M P 2C (5D) ? where 2C is bal or clubs
vs
1M P 2C (5D) ? where 2C is FR or clubs

[newroad]

Hi Straube

In short, I agree substantively with AWM's most recent post, and with respect to the three points in your most recent

• Agreed
  
• Not sure I know enough about IMPrecision to say, but your rationale is not entirely clear to me
  
• Agreed (I think that's what I said earlier - FG C or FG BAL > FG C or FG Raise > FG C or GI Raise)

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

Regarding 2)

1C-1D as the equivalent of 0-4 or 11+ hcps is a 2-way bid of very distinct ranges such that unless opener can force or invite game opposite 0-4 there opener can make a variety of non-forcing rebids and see whether partner passes or forces game. 1C-1D, 1M are natural and forcing but 1C-1D, 1N and 1C-1D, 2m are natural and not forcing.

I was contrasting to Polish Club, where 1C is a 2-way bid of 12-14 bal or minimum 4414s or medium club hands or a variety of stronger hands mostly of 18+ strength. Since the ranges are contiguous and since 1C forces at least an 1D response (often a 2-way bid itself) I think it runs against the idea of using 2-way bids for very similar or distinct purposes.

Regarding 3)

I misread your prior post and I think we have the same preference.

[Siegmund]

Wow, startled to see my own thread pop back up.

Just chiming in to say that there is at least one person here who is a big fan of 2NT as NAT GF (and I do in fact play it that way with two frequent partners.) Not a big fan at all of Jacoby (I'd generally rather responder describe his own hand than ask about opener's). Of course I am also a fan of Polish type clubs, though the exact strengths and types of hands included in 1C is somewhere there is room for a lot of experimentation yet

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

I don't think we quite have the same preference (I still prefer 2C as FG C or FG raise) but we agree on the order we'd rather be dealing with under heavy barrage.

[Siegmund] Good to see there are still some true believers in 2NT as NAT, FG

Regards, Newroad