Zelandakh, on 2011-August-23, 05:00, said:
1H - 1S; 1N = min without 4 spades...now 2C is GF relay and you have more information
1H - 1S; 2C = 4 spades...now 2D = GF relay, 1 step higher but with only a few hand types to relay out
1H - 1S; 2D or higher = max without 4 spades....you are already in GF relays with fewer hand types than after 1H - 2C, plus your invitational hands can also relay
The only major disadvantage of this method (aside from ACBL regs) is that the GF is not immediately established. I do not think this makes up for the 3 big advantages of the invitational relay approach (in addition to the above, the third is that your other simple responses can be played as non-forcing).
This is interesting, but I guess the question still remains for those in the ACBL -- which is better, 1H - 2C = GF relay or 2/1 GF (since I assume that artificial bids are permitted in GF auctions).
Quote
The situation is less clear over a 1S spade opening since here the INV+ relay approach is a step higher. I think the 2 methods are roughly equal in this case.
And better than 2/1GF? What do you think? (Personally, I prefer to dispense with all of this and just play weak-style 2/1; OK, mike777?)
I think that one advantage of a strong NT is that you can open all 11-counts. My regular partner is becoming so convinced of the efficacy of this that I fear he is going to talk me into playing strong NT . If my partner is right, then 2/1 GF players are losing out badly due to the necessity of tightening up their openers.