[fromageGB]

awm, on 2012-January-02, 11:53, said:

I'm a little confused by the number of people who raise on 1354 but not 0364. It seems to me that:

(1) The alternative call in both cases is 2♣. But 2♣ is much less likely to be the right contract on 0364 than 1354.
(2) The latter hand is a better dummy for hearts, and I would be more concerned about missing 4♥ here than with 1354.

Can someone explain the reasoning to me here? (I would raise on both hands)

The alternative call on 0364 is 2♦ for me, not 2♣. I would rather bid 2♥ than 2♣, but prefer to show my 6 card diamond suit rather than immediately fix on hearts. If partner has a further bid I will be delighted to support or pass hearts, but when he is a weak hand with a 3433 shape, the 6-3 fit is likely to score better than the 4-3 fit, but I agree it's a close call. But yes, 2♥ rather than 2♣.

[wank]

fromageGB, on 2012-January-02, 12:06, said:

The alternative call on 0364 is 2♦ for me, not 2♣. I would rather bid 2♥ than 2♣, but prefer to show my 6 card diamond suit rather than immediately fix on hearts. If partner has a further bid I will be delighted to support or pass hearts, but when he is a weak hand with a 3433 shape, the 6-3 fit is likely to score better than the 4-3 fit, but I agree it's a close call. But yes, 2♥ rather than 2♣.

partner doesn't have a 3433 shape when you play 2♦, i promise you.

[Flameous]

In unbalanced ♦ context and transfer rebids by opener, I raise with all but 0355 but then again I have differentiated 3 and 4 card raises.
With 6+♦ I have the choice of not showing support but usually do. I tend to rebid diamonds only with really minimum hands and good spots or 7+ suits obviously.
I'm not too happy doing it with 4351/4360 shapes, but it makes the complete structure work quite nicely. Playing natural methods, I'd always bid spades there. (And probably agree that later heart bid doesn't show extra strength as it usually does)

[phil_20686]

awm, on 2012-January-02, 11:53, said:

I'm a little confused by the number of people who raise on 1354 but not 0364. It seems to me that:

(1) The alternative call in both cases is 2♣. But 2♣ is much less likely to be the right contract on 0364 than 1354.
(2) The latter hand is a better dummy for hearts, and I would be more concerned about missing 4♥ here than with 1354.

Can someone explain the reasoning to me here? (I would raise on both hands)

Because if partner gives preference to diamonds over clubs, showing a weak hand, it is more likely that you have a good diamond fit. Partner could just have a 4432 7 count, for example.

Alternatively, most people play that if you rebid the minor then give preference back to partners majors it shows extras. So they could be planning to do that on the grounds that a hand with a void always has extras......

[Vampyr]

Do SAYC and 2/1GF assume some form of checkback Stayman? If so, the inclusion of some of the shapes is a little puzzling.

[gwnn]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-06, 06:18, said:

Do SAYC and 2/1GF assume some form of checkback Stayman? If so, the inclusion of some of the shapes is a little puzzling.

The idea goes that sometimes it is right to raise because 2M is better than 1N (when partner has less than checkback strength). I am not an adherent of this idea, but I admit that there are (is a significant number of) hands where it works. In fact the litmus test of raising on 3 is especially (but not exclusively) at partscore level because that's where we have the least amount of room to decide on our best contract.