[Stephen Tu]

pescetom, on 2020-September-08, 09:30, said:

No Italians that I know of play strict up-the-line in combination with 5-card majors, everyone would anticipate spades in your example for instance - but the majority would never or almost skip 5-card ♦.

I see the lack of spades as 4SF as a logical consequence of opener not promising clubs, YMMV.

And they all rebid 1♥ with 4=4=3=2 shape over 1♦?
But in any case, you should be able to see that it's really an issue of up-the-line bidding over 1♦ or not; promising a 3rd club really has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you have can have 4=4=2=3 shape, and opener bids 1♥, and responder with 4x5x 7 hcp bids 1♦, the same issues apply, you want to be able to find spade fit without it being GF. Just because 4=4=3=2 is possible or not in 1♣ really has zero to do with it. It's all whether diamonds are bypassed or not with < GF (or < G invitational), which makes opener bypass majors to bid NT (in most schemes). Promising 3+ clubs instead of 2+ clubs has no effect.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2020-September-03, 19:18, said:

FWIW, I strongly prefer 1♠ to be FSF.

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.

[helene_t]

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.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2020-September-08, 15:31, said:

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.

Why do you need to raise to 3♠ here? It is a GF auction so just show the 4414/4405 shape and save the extras for later on.

Hmmm, I think I see the issue with the following auctions. Everyone I know that plays the either/or method plays it as a game force. If you have a weaker 4♠6+♦ hand you either bid spades first or ignore them completely. The second auction is therefore GF with long diamonds; with a weak hand and long diamonds you rebid 2♦ instead of 1♠; with an invitational hand you rebid 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ (and some actually use 2♠ as INV-only 4SF); and with real spades in a weaker hand you would have responded 1♠. Similarly for the third auction - with an invitational hand rebid 2NT or 3♣ rather than 1♠ (or just respond 1♠).

I guess in the end what makes sense depends on your responding structure. If you play the old Acol way that you can reverse as Responder with an invitational hand then the either/or method is, as you point out, not so good. In the more modern style of any RR being a game force, it works out much better.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-08, 18:04, said:

Everyone I know that plays the either/or method plays it as a game force.

Ah right, so 1♠ is a game force which may or may not have spades. That's completely fine. What 2♠ would be, then? 5-6, gf? 5-6, nf? A forcing heart raise?

[sfi]

helene_t, on 2020-September-08, 18:20, said:

Ah right, so 1♠ is a game force which may or may not have spades. That's completely fine. What 2♠ would be, then? 5-6, gf? 5-6, nf? A forcing heart raise?

We play it as a splinter at the moment. It's never come up though.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2020-September-08, 18:20, said:

Ah right, so 1♠ is a game force which may or may not have spades. That's completely fine. What 2♠ would be, then? 5-6, gf? 5-6, nf? A forcing heart raise?

Most seem just to forget about it but I have seen it as a 2NT rebid without a spade stop, which covers one of the main holes left by making 1♠ game forcing. As sfi mentions, a splinter raise for hearts is another sensible meaning.

[Lovera]

helene_t, on 2020-September-03, 19:18, said:

The robots used to play 1♠ as natural and 2♠ as FSF, but now they play 1♠ as FSF and 2♠ as natural.

FWIW, I strongly prefer 1♠ to be FSF. If you play Walsh, responder will have a strong hand if they have four spades, so can afford the rare 2♠ bid. If you don't play Walsh, you can't afford to bid 2♠ with the FSF hands as they will have to cover a lot of ground since opener has shown little other than 11-18 points with 4-5 hearts.

If you play a Walsh style in which responder bids diamonds first with an invitational+ unbalanced hand with 4M and longer diamonds, then 1♠ has natural has merits, I suppose.

Anyway, as others have said, your third bid should be 2♠. I wouldn't call this "treating 1♠ as natural". It's just patterning out.

This FSF is an old but usefull convention. Among the answers this one raise is "rare" too! Is not the case of an up-to-date at the odiernly bidding that is actually competitive and much descriptive i.e. in support/raises or informative (i have an idea) ?(Lovera )