Should be simple

[kenberg]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj86hakt9dktcq974&s=sa43hj43da86cakt2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

 

At the table: North (partner) opened one club, I bid 3NT with a private message to the opponents that this showed 16-18. North remembered, as I did not, that we were playing 3NT as 13-15 and passed. Clubs behave and the heart finesse is on, so 6C makes. Only one pair bid it, I have no complaints.

 

However. Let's say I remember that we are playing 3NT as 13-15. What is my call? If you like, I'll stipulate inverted minors (we were not playing them but I like them). I could then temporize with 2C. Partner would bid 2H. Now what? I checked the full disclosure default card for BBO Adv. It says that continuations after 1C-2C-2H are all undefined. It seems to me that bidding 3NT now would probably be taken as having (perhaps just barely) the values for 3NT but with initial concern about hearts. Bidding 2NT is probably not even forcing. Bidding 3C over 2H would, as I understand inverted minors, be passable. Something like an eleven count and no spade stop, and presumably five clubs.

 

If you think I can just lie a little and slightly underbid my hand with my 16 count, up it a little to 17 and the same question arises. Actually I am not fond of "The bid shows 13-15 but if you have 16 you can fake it and bid 3NT anyway". Both ethically and strategically I think it is wrong except if done as the occasional choice with a very bad 16.

 

The one pair that got to 6C did it in the very old fashioned way, playing 1C-3C as forcing. Perhaps they are on to something. It seems we need to borrow from the Hippocratic Oath in designing bridge agreements. First, do no harm. The hand above is not exotic. It should be biddable.

 

Ken

[Blofeld]

I'm not sure that I'd want to be in this slam: it looks like it needs the hearts to come in to make, and something else might go wrong.

[whereagles]

However. Let's say I remember that we are playing 3NT as 13-15. What is my call?

Not playing 4-card inverted minors, you're in a bit of a problem.

 

The French school dug their way out of this by temporizing these 16+ balanced hands with a 1♦ bid. The idea is to keep the bidding low, while trying to gather more information.

 

That might would work on this occasion, but keep in mind slams in the 44 minor fit are EXTREMELY hard to bid. Even more if the suit is clubs.

[mr1303]

I'm passing 3NT if it showed 16-18 as well as North.

 

I've no interest in this slam. I'm going to be a sheep and play 3NT

[Walddk]

I don't think it's a big problem if you play inverted raises, unless the raise to 2mi can contain a 4-card major. I recommend that it can't (just respond 1MA), and then North has an easy rebid of 2NT, 12-14 balanced if you play a strong NT.

 

With 16 flat South has a straightforward raise to 3NT. 6♣? I don't mind staying out of that slam. It's below par.

 

Roland

[han]

I agree with Roland, 1C-2C-2NT-3NT seems a good auction to a good spot.

[Gerben42]

If playing Inv. minors which this pair is not, then I agree.

 

The one pair that got to 6C did it in the very old fashioned way, playing 1C-3C as forcing. Perhaps they are on to something

 

I don't think 3C as forcing is a bad idea but it takes too much space (it's better than classical and having to invent something on the important forcing hands) so that's why I prefer inv. minors instead.

[kenberg]

Staying out of this slam is fine, agreed. Partner's hand is unknown when I must choose my first call. If a direct 3NT showed 16-18 or maybe 15-17, then we could often reach the good slams and stay out of the bad ones after I make this call. If partner has a little more (and perhaps some shape because of the non-NT opening) then 6C should be a good bet and we can probably get there if I can show my values. So my issue is how to reach the good slams and stay out of bad slams when the 3NT call is unavailable. I agree entirely that reaching 6C on 4-4 fits ain't easy, but we should try.

 

 

Whereagles points out that the French (I suppose only some French) start with a 1D response. If this is understood as possibly fake then maybe so, but somehow later I must then convince partner I do have clubs, don't have diamonds, and have 16 points. Not easy.

 

Starting with a four card inverted minor raise sounds best to me (if it wouldn't freak partner out to not have five), but I still am uncertain that 1C-2C-2H-3NT would be taken as a 16 count. Lacking discussion, and maybe with discussion, it sounds to me like maybe 13 or 14 with a heart weakness. I guess it depends on whether 1C-2C-2H-2NT is forcing or not. Perhaps it should be but I think most play it as passable, in which case I must bid 3NT if I want to play game. That means that 3NT doesn't show 16.

 

 

It's true that with the N hand I would bid 2NT over 2C, but I think there are a lot of 2H bidders out there when holding Jxx in spades.

 

 

Inverted minors perhaps are not as well defined as they should be. Possibly after 1C-2C-2H the only passable bid should be 3C, making 2NT game forcing and 3NT stronger. That would work here but I doubt most folks play it that way. Possibly I am mistaken.

 

On this particular hand I took twelve tricks in NT since the opening lead was a small diamond and the ten held the trick. It was imps, so no one cares. The 6NT bidders (there were several) were not favored with this lead.

 

Thanks for the comments,

Ken

[luke warm]

another plug for weak nt and game forcing (2D) stayman

[Winstonm]

If inverted has to hold a 5-card suit, then the only sensible call is 1D. Even then the continuations aren't clear unless playing something like xyz. Depending on agreement, with xyz it might go 1C-1D-1H-2D-2N-3C or 1C-1D-1N-2D-2N-3C if playing a Walsh style - either way you can make the club slam try on the way to 3N.

 

Or, you can just bid 3N the first time and get to the par spot. :rolleyes:

 

Winston

[awm]

I'd start with 2♣ (inverted). My next bid is probably 3♦ (a clear cuebid in search of a club slam). If partner signs off in 3NT over this I will respect it. I'd expect partner to sign off with pretty much any 12-14 balanced with only 3 clubs, so not much chance of reaching a moysian slam.

[Sigi_BC84]

However. Let's say I remember that we are playing 3NT as 13-15. What is my call?

Not playing 4-card inverted minors, you're in a bit of a problem.

 

The French school dug their way out of this by temporizing these 16+ balanced hands with a 1♦ bid. The idea is to keep the bidding low, while trying to gather more information.

 

That might would work on this occasion, but keep in mind slams in the 44 minor fit are EXTREMELY hard to bid. Even more if the suit is clubs.

Alright, we have a 1-in-a-1000-boards gadget for these kinds of hands. 1♣-1♦ is walsh style, so doesn't necessarily promise "real" diamonds, just denies a 4-card-major unless responder is strong enough to reverse. More importantly, it also includes hands with slam interest in a minor.

 

Opener would in this case rebid 1NT, passing over his major; we won't miss a possible major suit game as responder can bid his major with 12+ points, establishing a game force. In all other cases he is either balanced or the diamonds are real, so no trouble either (long clubs w/o game/slam interest would have used an inverted raise).

 

Now for the gadget: 1♣-1♦;1nt-2♣* asks for openers distribution. You can play all sorts of stuff here, symmetric relay or some GF relay structure. We have something simplistic which allows you to relay out all interesting distributional information, thereby easily finding the correct strain for a slam.

 

The major drawback of this approach is that almost nobody of the people who are playing our system remembers the correct responses when the sequence finally comes up. If you have a GF relay available over your 1nt opener anyway you can play it here and have no trouble.

 

Apart from that I agree that these minor suits slams are otherwise hard to find because technically you shouldn't use inverted minors without 5+ support (especially not when supporting clubs).

 

--Sigi

[kenberg]

I remember that someone on one of the threads saying he wouldn't play inverted minors with a casual partner because there is widespread disagreement about exactly what means what. I have thought that the following might be reasonable:

 

Inverted may have four cards, but only with game forcing values. If he has non-game forcing values he will always have five and he will always rebid the minor over any two level suit rebid from opener. In that case, 1C-2C-2H-2N is game forcing.

 

I have no idea if this approach works well in practice since I have never found anyone to play it that way. This hand would be an advertisement for it. That's not my reason for posting it, I really am interested in how to handle the balanced 16-17 when partner opens a minor.

 

Recently I was discussing a convention that I don't play (there are many). The opponents pre-alerted 1m-2H as showing one of three types of hands: Strong jump shift in hearts, invitational balanced, or something else that I forget. We had a chance to talk after the round and she explained that the biggest advantage is that then you can revert to 1m-2NT as 13-15 (or on occasion 19-20) balanced and forcing. Often it doesn't matter if the bidding goes 1m-3NT on 13-15 but sometimes partner will have shape and be very uncertain whether the proper contract is 3NT, 5m or 6m (or perhaps 5 or 6 in the other minor). Over 2NT you get to suggest this and still get out in 3NT. That's useful, just as bidding 3NT on the current hand as 16-18 is useful, but I suffer from convention overload and so will probably not adopt this 2H convention. At least not until I find out what the other hand type is.

[Codo]

Hi Ken, I know two tools which had worked here:

 

1. My pd forced me to play 1 minor 2 NT to show 16+, Fit in the minor and no shortness. I dislike this idea, but it had worked exactly with this hand...

 

2. I have the agrrement, that 4 in "my minor" is always RCKB in an uncotested auction. So I had bid 2 ♣ followed by 4 NT.

 

In my opinion the first version is not needed and a natural 2 NT call is better, but 4 m is always RKCB is quite easy to handle...

[joshs]

Well in my usual methods:

1m-2N 13-15 or 18+

1m-3N 16-17 usually 4333 , usually 4 cards in the other minor

1m-2m Game Forcing

1m-2H 11-12 balanced (sometimes I play this as multi meaning)

1m-2S limit raise

 

Now this auction might go:

1C-2C-2H-3N(16-17)-P

 

The key things playing inverted minors:

a. How far are you forced?

b. What sets up a game force? What promises a rebid?

c. Consequently, what do jumps to 3N (by either player) show.

 

These agreements often change depending on:

a. If you play weak NT or strong NT

b. If you play 1m-2N as forcing or not

 

As a result, there really aren't terribly standard agreements. E.G. Is 1C-2C-3N 18-19 or just a good 14?

[whereagles]

Alright, we have a 1-in-a-1000-boards gadget for these kinds of hands. 

 

(...) technically you shouldn't use inverted minors without 5+ support

1. Actually, in French standard played "by the book", the auction

 

1♣-1♦

 

can be 3 cards if responder has a balanced 5-7 or 16+ (with balanced 8-10/11-12/13-15 bid 1/2/3NT). If opener supports diamonds, then he has 5+ clubs, in which case responder can easily dig his way out of the fake raise.

 

 

2. Inverted raises can actually be made from 3+ card support. 5 cards is really not necessary. HOWEVER, you have to have gadgets that can cope with these sort of raises. It's not enough to play inverted raises "the usual way" and hope for the best.

[Sigi_BC84]

Alright, we have a 1-in-a-1000-boards gadget for these kinds of hands. 

 

(...) technically you shouldn't use inverted minors without 5+ support

1. Actually, in French standard played "by the book", the auction

1♣-1♦

can be 3 cards if responder has a balanced 5-7 or 16+ (with balanced 8-10/11-12/13-15 bid 1/2/3NT). If opener supports diamonds, then he has 5+ clubs, in which case responder can easily dig his way out of the fake raise.

Our system is derived from French standard, so I'm not surprised that their treatment is very close to ours (we also bid 1♦ with 5-7 bal (can be ♦ fragment) and 1NT with 8-9 bal). A suit rebid after 1♣-1♦ always shows unbal with longer clubs (else rebid NT which may contain 1-2 4majors).

 

2. Inverted raises can actually be made from 3+ card support. 5 cards is really not necessary. HOWEVER, you have to have gadgets that can cope with these sort of raises. It's not enough to play inverted raises "the usual way" and hope for the best.

I would be very interested in such a gadget.

 

Also, since me and p have recurring discussions after delicate inverted minors auctions regard strength, minimum rebids, yadayada I would be interested in a proven "conservative" structure for these raises (unlike Josh's method, which is nice but would prevent us from using WJS in majors).

 

Another thing I'd like to poll for is how you treat a "game-force" after an inverted minors auction: do you play it as 100% forcing to game (be it 5minor even) or only as forcing to 3NT?

 

--Sigi

[joshs]

Alright, we have a 1-in-a-1000-boards gadget for these kinds of hands. 

 

(...) technically you shouldn't use inverted minors without 5+ support

1. Actually, in French standard played "by the book", the auction

1♣-1♦

can be 3 cards if responder has a balanced 5-7 or 16+ (with balanced 8-10/11-12/13-15 bid 1/2/3NT). If opener supports diamonds, then he has 5+ clubs, in which case responder can easily dig his way out of the fake raise.

Our system is derived from French standard, so I'm not surprised that their treatment is very close to ours (we also bid 1♦ with 5-7 bal (can be ♦ fragment) and 1NT with 8-9 bal). A suit rebid after 1♣-1♦ always shows unbal with longer clubs (else rebid NT which may contain 1-2 4majors).

 

2. Inverted raises can actually be made from 3+ card support. 5 cards is really not necessary. HOWEVER, you have to have gadgets that can cope with these sort of raises. It's not enough to play inverted raises "the usual way" and hope for the best.

I would be very interested in such a gadget.

 

Also, since me and p have recurring discussions after delicate inverted minors auctions regard strength, minimum rebids, yadayada I would be interested in a proven "conservative" structure for these raises (unlike Josh's method, which is nice but would prevent us from using WJS in majors).

 

Another thing I'd like to poll for is how you treat a "game-force" after an inverted minors auction: do you play it as 100% forcing to game (be it 5minor even) or only as forcing to 3NT?

 

--Sigi

I think the original K-S system advocated raising 1D to 2 on (32)35 or 3334 shape with 9-11 HCP. I have no idea what they rebid over 1D-2D-3C with those hands. Does anyone know classic K-S?

[kenberg]

Thanks to everyone.

 

Joshs: Apparently this jump shift into the major to deal with some of the difficulties associated with minor suit auctions is becoming popular. The way you outline is different in detail from what I have been encountering locally (although aren't you also from the DC area?), but the spirit is the same. For somewhat serious but not wholly obsessed players like myself, it's easy to say "The Hell with the minors, who cares" but really that is passing up a fine source of good results since so many players find this area unsettled. I do like my strong jump shifts though.

 

My partner likes to play 1C-2C-3NT as 14 and while I agree to do so, I am trying to change his mind. It seems to me that if you have 14 and want to play game you can always do something non-passable and then bid the game. So you don't really have a problem if you hold 14 but can't bid 3N immediately because it shows 18. On the other hand, if 1C-2C-3N is defined as showing 14 and what you have is 18, it would be very nice to show your 18 quickly and unequivically in one bid. You can't. So defining it as 18 seems clear to me. Not to pard. I'm easy.

 

K

[whereagles]

I would be very interested in such a gadget.

I think posted my gadgetry for this situation about 2 or 3 months ago.

 

here it is. (Might be slightly outdated, though.)

[paulhar]

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15? 13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not. Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

[whereagles]

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15? 13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not. Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

[paulhar]

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15?  13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not.  Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

It was addressed to the original poster who wanted to know what to do with his 16-18 point hand when he played 1x-3NT as 13-15. My point was simply that if he played the 3NT response as 16-18, he would not have to ask what to do with 13-15; he would have known. So, for people that play as infrequently as I do (which may have included the asker), playing the 3NT response as 16-18 usefully solves a problem whereas playing it as 13-15 creates a hole of ambiguity.

[kenberg]

Without an agreement on what to do with this hand, why would you play the 3NT response 13-15?  13-15 point hands are typically easy to show; 16-18 point hands are not.  Covering some of the 16-18ers with a 3NT response seems sensible.

Was that addressed to me?

It was addressed to the original poster who wanted to know what to do with his 16-18 point hand when he played 1x-3NT as 13-15. My point was simply that if he played the 3NT response as 16-18, he would not have to ask what to do with 13-15; he would have known. So, for people that play as infrequently as I do (which may have included the asker), playing the 3NT response as 16-18 usefully solves a problem whereas playing it as 13-15 creates a hole of ambiguity.

I agree, Paul. It has become more-or-less standard to play 1m-3NT as 13-15. It seems to me that this is an error unless there is some established way to handle the stronger hands. With 13-15 you can get to game which is usually where it ends. With more, you need a way to show your strength without distorting the auction so that partner cn judge the chances of a slam. After this hand, I decided it was past time to address the issue. Either we need a definite way to handle the balanced 16-17 point hands, or we need to revert to the historical method of using 3NT. I have now agreed with one partner that 1m-3NT is the 16-17 balanced. This seems right to me. I intend to think some more about this.

 

Ken

[awm]

I think the reasoning is that bidding 3NT over 1m can make it hard to find slams. There are many hands where opener has fairly minimum values with a bit of extra shape, and needs to know whether to pass or bid. The principle is that with 13-15 hcp, you usually want to play 3NT. Bidding it directly deters partner from looking for slams: shapely minimums for partner should just pass. With 16-17 hcp there will often be a fitting slam, and it can be good to bid more slowly and let partner pattern out.