| |
Granville is specifically used in a forcing NoTrump situation over a 1♥ opening. Over partner's 1♥ opening, the meanings of 1♠ and 1NT are reversed! A 1NT bid promises 4+ ♠'s (or 5 in some versions) and a 1♠ bid is the Forcing NoTrump (denying 4+ ♠'s). This means that after the ‘forcing NT bid' of 1♠, then opener does not have to bid a 3 card minor, but can simply bid 1NT. I cannot see that the 5 card version has any sense, so we shall limit this discussion to 4+ card ♠ suits. Of course, if responder has a 4 card ♠ suit, then the auction cannot go 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - pass as the initial response would have been 1NT (showing ♠' s and forcing). And if the responder has a ♠ suit and bids 1NT, then opener is forced to bid without ♠ support and may have to bid the 3 card minor on this occasion. |
|
| |
So, swings and roundabouts really. Works when responder does not have a ♠ suit but is inferior when he does. I guess that the odds are very slightly in favour of not having 4+ ♠ 's, so the convention does perhaps have a slight mathematical advantage; but a similar convention is unavailable with a 1♠ opening. There also appear to be some other disadvantages with the convention. One important one is that 2♣ in the sequence 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ is frequently used as Checkback, looking for 3 card ♠ support; this is not possible using the Granville convention. |
|
