[jallerton]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-15, 18:05, said:

Also if finding 5-3 fits is the priority then you can play the style of T-Walsh where completing the transfer shows 3. (I prefer my style to that one, so...)

Most methods work in an uncontested auction, but they are in a better position that the rest of us when the auction goes 1♣-(Pass)-1M-(Pre-empt).

Another advantage is knowing about a 5-4 fit. One of the nice things about playing Kaplan Inversion is when the auction starts 1♥-Pass-1NT showing 5+ spades, Opener can raise aggressively holding 4-card support, getting to the 3-level has some security when there is a known 9-card fit. Contrast that with the natural auction 1♥-Pass-1♠natural-Pass. Now it's more dangerous for Opener to go to the 3-level when Responder's trump suit could be 10xxx (or worse); meanwhile Responder is reluctant to make a marginal game try after 1♥-1♠-2♠ in case Opener transpires to only have 3-card support.

ARF/DG have similar inferences available after 1♣-P-1M-P.

I assume that ARF/DG like these inferences over 1♣ and 1♥ openings, judging from their extension to play something similar over 1♦ openings. As I recall, version 1 used 1♠ as 5+♠, 1NT as 5+♥; then after a while they switched the meanings of 1♠ and 1NT. [This gave us something to think about - what should 4th hand's doubles mean?]

[mgoetze]

Fair points, though on the flipside Gold-Forrester will of course be at a disadvantage when it goes 1♣-(p)-1♦-(2♦) etc.

[jallerton]

BRBanger, on 2015-July-16, 03:37, said:

Jeffrey, thank you for putting me out of my misery by explaining the 1C-1D-1H-1NT response as both majors (4-4) limited. This makes a lot of sense, and, given that we may lose the occasional major fit where responder has only one 4cM, at least we catch one where responder has both M's. Yes, the CC dates from 2013, but I also picked up the Gold-Forrester card from this years Camrose and it looks pretty much the same. The next question is how to find the 4-4 M fit when opener has an unbalanced hand with 5+clubs and 4M, where finding the M fit is more critical (either 11-14 or 15-18 types). Can you help me out with this one please?

Zelandakh, on 2015-July-16, 05:19, said:

My guess is that they play 1♣ - 1♦; 2♣ as 11-14 with clubs and hearts. The 11-14 club-spade hands and 5+♣4M 15-18 hands are no problem: 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 2M respectively.

BRBanger, on 2015-July-16, 06:11, said:

But 1C-1D (relay, no 5M)-1H (covers weak NT) -1S (relay)-2M showing 15-18 with 5+clubs and 4M has no guaranteed fit; we may wish we were back in 2C. I'm still left guessing how the Gold - Forrester system works here. As Jeffrey points out, all is fine if responder can bid 1NT to show both M's <INV. Maybe I'm missing something, and it wouldn't be the first time!

I don't know for sure, because at the table they always seem to have the balanced option, but my guess is the same as Zelandakh's.

It's true that they are not guaranteed to have an 8-card fit after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2M, but they are quite likely to do so and the limited nature of the bids means that sometimes Responder can just pass 2M and play in a 4-3 fit. Moreover, some of these hands are no so easy for standard systems anyway. If Opener has a 1435 17-count and Responder a 4342 6-count, standard strong NT Walsh bidders start 1♣-1♠-2♥-?? Meanwhile if Opener if in the 15-16 range and Responder is 9-10, their methods may help to reach some games missed by standard bidders.

Note that after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♦, which I'm assuming shows both minors, they will always have an 8-card fit.

[BRBanger]

phoenix214, on 2015-July-17, 14:45, said:

Well you have the space to assign you get.
Over 1C-1S(not defined)-2C, now you have a million forcing bids available to add some definition - so you can find a fit there -(you can agree on clubs as trumps searching for slam at the level of 3C)
Since responder does not have majors and opener does not have majors - then they rate to have a minor fit. You can have a bid such as 2D or 2H as a force to check what partner has or to use it as some puppet.
Over 1C-1S 2D(strong balanced... TO SAVE SPACE) you can practically again have the same method of asking. Obviously this might be too difficult to remember so there might be better alternatives.

Aleksis, I didn't quite understand your first sentence, but I guess you meant that the 1S response gives us lots of space. I'd be particularly impressed if we can agree clubs and show slam interest "at the level of 3C".

Can you (or anyone else) please help me with the "nebulous 1S" response by offering a scheme for developing the auction, either after 1C-1S-1NT, after 1C-1S-2D (I like the ideas suggested, using this to show 17-19 bal).

Welland - Fallenius, for example, used 2H as INV, 2S as a puppet to 2NT, 2NT forcing and choosing to right-side, 3C to play. But their initial response scheme was different; apart from the "nebulous 1S", 1NT was 11-13 INV, and 2C inverted. Looks quite old-fashioned by today's standards! But note that they attempted to add some definition to the initial "non-Major-showing" responses.

[BRBanger]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-19, 06:39, said:

The Gold-Forrester system changes frequently. I lose track as to what current methods may be; what I last played against may well be not what is current.

Frances, please accept my apology for mis-spelling your name in my previous message!

I lose track too, and that's my problem with trying to understand the thinking behind a system, based solely on the convention card. I have noted a few changes on their card over that last couple of years, but don't understand the reasons why, and don't understand how the auction can develop, because there's insufficient space on the CC for "follow-up" sequences. A lot of the subtleties therefore remain an "unknown". The only obvious thing I can gleam is that they're big on 5cM's!

[BRBanger]

jallerton, on 2015-July-19, 12:41, said:

I don't know for sure, because at the table they always seem to have the balanced option, but my guess is the same as Zelandakh's.

It's true that they are not guaranteed to have an 8-card fit after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2M, but they are quite likely to do so and the limited nature of the bids means that sometimes Responder can just pass 2M and play in a 4-3 fit. Moreover, some of these hands are no so easy for standard systems anyway. If Opener has a 1435 17-count and Responder a 4342 6-count, standard strong NT Walsh bidders start 1♣-1♠-2♥-?? Meanwhile if Opener if in the 15-16 range and Responder is 9-10, their methods may help to reach some games missed by standard bidders.

Note that after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♦, which I'm assuming shows both minors, they will always have an 8-card fit.

Ok, I can see that being able to show 4M and 5c in a 15-18 range(i.e. non-forcing but encouraging) has some benefits to help solve typical problems we may get with standard systems. And if the hands with 6+diamonds are removed, it's very likely that responder has either 3 cards in the M, or 3+c (although my partners usually have 2-4-5-2 shape!).

In principle, though, it's good to see more varied use of the 1C-1D (relay) - 1H sequence (and similarly the 1C-1R-1M sequences for T-Walsh players), taking more advantage of the "free" rebid. I suppose you take your choice as to whether to add some complexity in this interesting area, rather than use 1C-1R-1M to show 3 card support, or just to show a weak NT type.

Another thought, if we take the G-F system where 1C-1M shows 5 (and 2M responses are used to show weakish hands with both M's): If RHO enters the bidding, how best to play double by opener? We don't need a support double / redouble (to show 3 card support). Anyone for penalty doubles with the 17-19 balanced type? Responder can always go back to 2M to play opposite opener's doubleton. Or do we now have to commit to a 2NT rebid...if the re-opening double is for take-out? e.g. 1C-(p)-1S-(2H)-x / 2NT.