[DavidKok]

Lovera, on 2022-April-02, 01:14, said:

What complicates things a little is that S did not immediately bid the ♣ but in the second round. Now the system I use changes the bids when is interferred becoming preventive and allowing 3 ♠ meaning 6-11 points (otherwise it means strong balanced hand 14-18) and, therefore, what previously said is for me right.

I don't understand at all. What is your system over 3♣? The ranges you are discussing are not compatible with the actions on the previous rounds.

mikeh, on 2022-April-02, 01:34, said:

Fwiw, and in answer to a question posed by the OP in a later post, my understanding is that there is a trend amongst some of the top players to use the jump as mixed rather than weak.

This has attractions, even though the weak raise can occasionally steal a contract or lead to a good save.

One attraction is obvious here…opener bids 4S opposite a mixed raise.

[..]

I’m going to be discussing this change in my partnerships after I get home. I’m in an event where we can’t readily change methods mid-event so can’t do it now.

I thought the mixed raise typically had 9 losers, so it is not immediately clear that opener should raise to 4♠ (although of course I would anyway, down one is good bridge). I think the two arguments for mixed over preemptive are frequency and discouraging the opponents to compete at the 4-level, and I do think it is the superior agreement. That being said, I play preemptive jump raises in my 2/1 partnership, and wide-ranging destructive raises in my new Precision partnership.

apollo1201, on 2022-April-02, 00:57, said:

Do you play a forcing or semi-forcing NT over 1M opening?

In that case, 2M is a more constructive raise, and passing 2M is really pessimistic with the hand, despite its unattractive shape and dubious doubleton Q. Even playing MPs, you need to act.

This is not at all clear - in fact I think the constructive 2M raises are bordering on the silly, and I strongly dislike them regardless of how you play 1NT.

AL78, on 2022-April-02, 01:41, said:

It is becoming apparent there is a hole in our methods to handle the mixed raise hands.

This is an extremely common problem. In standard methods, responder typically wants to show at least 6 types of raises below the 3M level:

• Simple raise - ~6-9 with 3-card support.
  
• Mixed raise - ~6-9 with 4-card support.
  
• 3-card limit raise.
  
• 4(+)-card limit raise.
  
• GF raise (you can even split this in 3-card and 4(+)-card support)
  
• Preemptive raise - ~0-5 with 4(+)-card support.

People have taken to allocating 2M, 2NT, 3M and then even 3♣ and 3♦ for these hands, but you can't fit 6 types in 5 bids unambiguously. Furthermore, I personally dislike Bergen raises, so now the options are even more limited. This is, to a certain extent, an unsolvable problem. You have to bunch some of these hands together or accept that you cannot show some of them. Some people prefer to stick a couple of them in delayed raises, but personally I do not like this at all. I think current expert preference is to drop the preemptive 4-card raise completely, bunch the 3- and 4(+)-card limit raises into a single bid (and optionally even stick the GF raise in there, although you can start with a 2/1 auction for those instead) and then the rest fits in a good raise scheme.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2022-April-02, 04:16, said:

I think the constructive 2M raises are bordering on the silly, and I strongly dislike them regardless of how you play 1NT.

Is this partly because you believe

DavidKok, on 2022-April-02, 04:16, said:

down one is good bridge

?

[DavidKok]

No. It is because it is precisely on the weak hands with support where you should put maximum pressure on the opponents. Taking an extra round to show your support while leaving the entire 2-level free for the opponents goes contrary to this. The "down one is good bridge" thing is a joke, of course.
I'm also a big fan of an aggressive opening style (though not as aggressive as some), which means partner will frequently open with shapely but low HCP hands. It makes a world of difference to them whether you have 5HCP and 3-card support or 8HCP with 2-card support, and bidding 1NT then rebidding 2M with both can be very costly. I support with support, even if that means I have to over- or understate the strength of my hand. If you have to fib, drop the bean counting, not the shape.

Let's say you picked up ♠KQ9xxx, ♥Ax, ♦Jxx, ♣xx and opened 1♠. If partner raises to two, you now know that you likely want to sacrifice (or "compete") over the opponents' 3-level contract, and you may as well do it immediately (you might even want to sacrifice at the 4-level, depending on partnership style and vulnerability. In fact, you might want to do that immediately!). If partner bids 1NT which may be weak with 3-card support you are in no-mans land when 3♣ or 3♥ (or even 3♦) comes back the other way - and you even made it easier for the opponents to get in to boot!

[Lovera]

DavidKok, on 2022-April-02, 04:16, said:

I don't understand at all. What is your system over 3♣? The ranges you are discussing are not compatible with the actions on the previous rounds.

It is so:1♠-(3♣), 3♠ is preempt by partner with 6-11 points; whilest 1♠-(pass), 3♠ as partner's answer in the system show 14-18 points in a balanced hand. Than as bidding is at table the answer of 2♠ show 9-11 points being a direct raise and not 6-11 how when the bidding is interferred as i.e. 1♠-(2Cl), 2♠/3♠(=6-11)