[Douglas43]

KingCovert, on 2020-June-15, 15:05, said:

I'd suggest that you read MikeH's response in between yours and this one. We disagree on 2S vs 2NT, but, the process is clearly correct. You have to define bids within the context of available options. 3S is weak and to some extent preemptive. It does not inherently guarantee 4 spades, but, most bids of 3S without 4 spades are insanity, especially vulnerable. Nonetheless, 4 spades is not a requirement, even though it's clearly advisable and this is fundamentally why we won't agree on this.

If you want to say that you play different meanings for 2♠ and 3♠ given that you have fit jumps or transfers available, that's absolutely fine, but, it's also a pointless argument. When talking about what's standard, there's no value in bringing in non-standard treatments, even if I do agree they are effective treatments.

If 2S shows 0-9 and 3♠, 3S shows 0-9 and 4♠, and 2NT shows all limit raises, well that's a horrible set of agreements. Sounds like a great way to play losing bridge.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. I usually play 4 card majors, so helpful to see the thinking involved with 5CM. For what it's worth my partnership responds 2NT as Jacoby when unpassed / uninterrupted and 2NT = sound / hcp based raise to 3 or more when passed, after doubles and after overcalls. Even then a direct raise to 3 has to be playable opposite a 4 card suit so normally 8 losers and say 6 /7 hcp. We lose some pre-emption compared to 5 card majors, but it seems to average out