A competitive problem

[Ronald Kalf]

Uncontested 1m-1M; 3m is forcing and very strong. How about 1C-(1D)-1H-(2D); 3C? Please assume that you do not play support doubles.

[jerome keslin]

I think this is a Good-Bad 2nt situation where 3c is the 17-19 version and 2nt is the weaker relay . However I think that reversing these meanings is preferable, playing weak-must-speak.

Support doubles work better with a strong nt. So I bid 2h with 3 card support and with 4 card support, bid 3h or 3d. ( 3h = distributional and 3d= high card raise). Double would be takeout, not support.

On Fri, 22 Sept 2023, 16:01 Ronald Kalf, <r-h....@t-online.de> wrote:

Uncontested 1m-1M; 3m is forcing and very strong. How about 1C-(1D)-1H-(2D); 3C? Please assume that you do not play support doubles.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/f9fb0651-94a5-4f44-bf65-c12a9586d051n%40googlegroups.com.

[judyorcarl]

weak must speak is so obvious that its popularity is crowd madness.

[judyorcarl]

in 2NT = bad, you are left with no call with the 22-24 one-suiter

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:48:39 AM UTC-4 jerome keslin wrote:

[judyorcarl]

UNpopularity 

[Steve Willner]

On 9/22/23 12:44 PM, 'judyorcarl' via The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding

System wrote:
> in 2NT = bad, you are left with no call with the 22-24 one-suiter

Cue bid?

The first question to ask is what double should show. I'd say any 15-17
NT without 3-card support for partner's suit (or where a raise is
misguided because of shape and honor location). That means pass and
suit bids show unbalanced hands. If you assign a different meaning to
double, you get a different answer.

--
Steve Willner

[Ronald Kalf]

Steve, that’s a very narrow target: 15-17 balanced, doubleton spade. I do agree that X should deny rather then show a fit. Robson and Segal suggest for a WNT context to use the unbid suit (here 2S) to show 3crd support and raise with 4. I prefer to reverse this (raising with 3 and bidding the unbid suit with 4). 

I like 2N as good/bad, also because we play g/b in a lot of competitive situations., I see no problem with the strong one-suiter playing g/b: bid 2N and bid again over 3C.

Another one for g/b: 1D-(1H)-1S-(2H); 2N g/b including a minimum 5-5 minors, responder showing preference if no game.

[jerome keslin]

Hi Ronald,

Possibly you misread Robson Segal?

They do not suggest bidding 2s ( the unbid suit ) to show a 3 card raise. Isn't this a bit dangerous if responder has only 4h and 6 points? ( unless you are suggesting that it shows 3h and 18+ points ). They do recommend bidding the 4th suit as a 3 card raise, if it is below 2h.

For example:

1mi - (p) - 1h - (1s)

2omi

In this case, 2h would show 4 cards.

In the example you gave, I think the bidding would be:

*2h : a 3 card raise

*3h : 4 card raise, with shape

*3d : 4 card raise, high cards.

They feel that with 4 cards, one should be worth the 3 level. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Kaplan-Sheinwold Bidding System" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kaplan-sheinwo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/dfca9300-0e25-4032-9562-fe276b2d65c3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ronald Kalf]

In my original example 1C-(1D)-1H-(2D) opener‘s 2S would be the unbid suit and cannot be used because this might force to the 3-level on a 4-3-fit. Therefore I suggested to switch the two „raises“, 2H on 3 (or maybe 4 if 3433) and bidding 2S on 4. The switch extends the use of the ‘fourth-suit support bid’. I mailed Robson some ten years ago and he agreed.

In your example 1m-(p)-1H-(1S) I play a normal support double and bid 1N with a balanced hand even without a stopper. 

[Ronald Kalf]

I don’t understand „weak must speak“. If we merely want to compete and they bid we have achieved our goal in that we pushed them one level up. This is the same in every leb/g-b auction. It is the intermediate hand that must speak.

[jerome keslin]

After 4th seat bids 1s over partners 1h response, then:

*  2h is 4 cards

*  4th suit is 3 cards.

* 1nt is natural unless 4th seat doubled 1s. Then 1nt is the 3 card raise.

* double denies support.

 Obviously you may play slightly differently, but I was just quoting his book.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kaplan-sheinwold/6242c5da-803e-4ad1-bb5a-ca698ac2dae7n%40googlegroups.com.

[judyorcarl]

Weak must speak is just for the rhyme. Non-game forcing hand must describe. 

Game-forcing hand relays with 2NT.