Zelandakh, on 2020-September-08, 10:45, said:
Have you tried 1♠ as "either/or"? That is an option that has gradually increased in popularity over many years. The 2♠ rebid on this hand is an illustration of why it tends to work out despite the initial ambiguity.
Yes, that was quite common in the Netherlands when I played there in the early 00s. I'm not a fan.
For one thing, the auction
1
♣-1
♦
-1
♥-1
♠
3
♠-?
is awkward. You can't make control bids as 4m
♥ is now natural. It's worse if opener bids 4
♠, and I would be nervous about the continuations if opener raises spades on something like Axx-xxxx-A-Axxxx. But OK maybe they don't do that.
Then there's the issue that with 3-4-1-5 or 1-4-3-5 and 16 points, opener can't bid a weak 1NT or 2
♣. Maybe 2NT now shows either of those hands. But then I wouldn't know if 3
♣ or 3
♦ at responder's 3rd turn would be forcing. I suppose it would have to be, most minimum hands can just pass 2NT. Or maybe 3
♣ should be non-forcing and 3
♦ forcing?
The auction
1
♣-1
♦
1
♥-1
♠
2
♣-2
♦????
could be construed as a weak hand with 4
♠-6
♦ or as a gf hand with diamonds. Assuming 2
♦ is weak, 3
♦ can't be both forcing and invitational.
1
♣-1
♦
1
♥-1
♠
2
♣-3
♣????
could be invitational, or could be forcing. Who knows.
Basically, there are lots of follow ups where I would be concerned that I would be guessing partner's hand type based on UI.
It's of course small problems, and very solvable problems, but it's just not worth it worrying about it. I am happy to play 1
♠ as FSF. It's probably not optimal to play it as a GF, but if we want something sophisticated we would be playing T-Walsh anyway.
If you don't have an agreement, you don't have an illegal agreement. Except in the ACBL, where apparently you can have an agreement even if you don't have one :) --- Blackshoe