[aguahombre]

 whereagles, on 2014-October-29, 18:42, said:

I'm not claiming it's standard. Just that people don't go all-out to avoid it, as they do in Europe.

I probably am not a people, but I roost in the Western Hemisphere and go all out to avoid it. And, I think it is an important element in uncluttering a lot of auctions when Opener can be counted on to hold two of a suit. It eliminates checkbacks with a 6-cd major unless slammish (thus revealing slam intent at a very low level). It allows 6 key-card RKC in certain cases. And in general reduces the number of times I have to try to think.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-29, 14:48, said:

With "any" balanced minimum, Opener can rebid 1NT after a 1D response to 1C. 1C-1D-2D can be a true reverse.

Reverse? You are raising partner's suit. Requiring extra values to do this is unplayable.

[Vampyr]

 whereagles, on 2014-October-29, 18:42, said:

I'm not claiming it's standard. Just that people don't go all-out to avoid it, as they do in Europe.

You must have a lot more in-depth international experience than the average forum poster. Most of us who go just 2 or 3 times a year to a tournament outside our own country do not learn the majority tendencies of our own opponents in situations like this, let alone all players in the entire country. Or continent.

PS "this" side of the pond normally refers to the UK, so it is misleading to use the term when you don't even know what the practice is in the UK.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-29, 21:30, said:

Reverse? You are raising partner's suit. Requiring extra values to do this is unplayable.

I think you mean you don't understand it. 1C-1D might be a "suit" or might be some 3-3-3-4 6-7 count too weak to bid 1NT (8-10). Or it might be some 3-3-3-4 11-12 count to weak to respond 2NT which is forcing. Therefore, with a balanced (3-2) 4-4 minimum, Opener rebids 1N (same with 2-2-4-5 which opened 1C with intent to rebid 1NT. (2-1) 4-6 rebids 2C.

Because of the possibility 1D was a stall with a 3-card suit, the 2D "raise", as you put it, becomes a true reverse. It is quite playable; whether you want to play it is your own decision. But, you are probably viewing from Acol -- which is a whole different animal and which I would never say is unplayable. We view it from a Walsh response framework where the 1D response denies a major unless game-force. Opener knows this when he opens and plans his rebids.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-30, 00:22, said:

I think you mean you don't understand it.

Yes, I should have said that methods that don't permit opener to raise responder with an unbalanced minimum are much more complicated than anything I play.

EDIT: it is kind of rude to edit a post after it has been quoted (in full) by another poster. In this instance it makes me look idiotic since you added an explanation of your methods, which are odd but not overly complicated.

Anyway writing this in another post would have been more appropriate.

[helene_t]

Inverted minors by opener has the same rationale as im by responder. Otoh I don't think it's so great to rebid 1nt with a stiff in an unbid suit. So making the single raise forcing works best in a style in which 4d5c minimums is opened 1d or, alternatively, the 1d response promises four.
A couple of decent pairs in Lancaster played that. I think I only saw it in action once but it was at a time in which I played a reckless preempt style so it was almost impossible that opps could have an uncontested minor suit auction.

[jallerton]

 aguahombre, on 2014-October-30, 00:22, said:

I think you mean you don't understand it. 1C-1D might be a "suit" or might be some 3-3-3-4 6-7 count too weak to bid 1NT (8-10). Or it might be some 3-3-3-4 11-12 count to weak to respond 2NT which is forcing. Therefore, with a balanced (3-2) 4-4 minimum, Opener rebids 1N (same with 2-2-4-5 which opened 1C with intent to rebid 1NT. (2-1) 4-6 rebids 2C.

Because of the possibility 1D was a stall with a 3-card suit, the 2D "raise", as you put it, becomes a true reverse. It is quite playable; whether you want to play it is your own decision. But, you are probably viewing from Acol -- which is a whole different animal and which I would never say is unplayable. We view it from a Walsh response framework where the 1D response denies a major unless game-force. Opener knows this when he opens and plans his rebids.

What does Opener rebid with a (31)45 shape after 1♣-1♦ in your style? Or is he supposed to open 1♦ on that?

[aguahombre]

 jallerton, on 2014-October-30, 02:13, said:

What does Opener rebid with a (31)45 shape after 1♣-1♦ in your style? Or is he supposed to open 1♦ on that?

He prepares before Opening to go with 1D, then 2C or 1C, then 2C...usually the former, but with great clubs and crappy diamonds maybe 1C and rebid clubs.

The 2-2-4-5's also prepare in the same way:

--1NT rebid after 1C
--Open 1NT in range
--1D, then 2C with total nothing in the majors?
--1C, then reverse in range

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-30, 00:35, said:

EDIT: it is kind of rude to edit a post after it has been quoted (in full) by another poster. In this instance it makes me look idiotic since you added an explanation of your methods, which are odd but not overly complicated.

That was not my intent, Steph. I got sidetracked with a bit of real life stuff in between the post and the edit --meaning to expand it all along, and should have acknowledged that fact --especially when it was a response to a specific poster.