hijacked criss-cross

[jillybean]

[pclayton]

Stolen from the other thread where people suggested inverted minors would have helped here, what about criss-cross for a forcing minor raise?

 

1♣:2♦ = Forcing club raise

1♦:3♣ = Forcing diamond raise

 

I like the ability to make a simple minor raise and use this sequence for a forcing raise. What are the pro's and con's of the 2?

Regardless of what the ACBL cc says, most play this the other way around. The jump shift in the other minor is usually a limit raise, not a forcing raise.

[mike777]

You have CrissCross correct and I love it, love it. I have pushed it many times here on forum....try search of keyword. I cannot think of a bad result as a result from CrissCross. I can think of bad results from my other bids...:lol:

 

Note a limit raise becomes....one minor=2 spades.......

 

1) Note the limit raise is very often an unbalanced hand. Pard still cues stoppers for nt after..or advanced cuebids.

2) Note pls do not ever fudge a forcing raise in crisscross...extras are better.

 

edit crosscross:

 

 

1c=2d=2nt(major suit stoppers)=3c(slamtry)=etc

 

ya with both major suit stoppers you fudge the D suit. ;)

 

btw2...pls note you are not looking for a 4-4 major suit fit after crisscross. ok?

 

btw3...one minor=two minor =weak poor shape

one minor =three minor=weak with more shape.

[skjaeran]

The 2♣+ response structure to minors in my methods are:

 

Over 1♣:

2♣: nat GF

2♦: TRF, 6+♥ WJS (3-7+) or SJS (16+)

2♥: Same with ♠'s

2♠: 8+ - 12- 5+♣'s no 4cM, unbalanced/semibalanced

2NT: nat inv

 

Over 1♦:

2♣: nat 2/1

2♦: nat GF

2M: wjs

2NT: nat inv

3♣: 8+ - 12- 5+♦'s no 4cM, unbalanced/semibalanced

 

I've toyed with the idea to change the structure over 1♦, and use the 1♣ structure there too. Then 2♣'s wld be 2-way, either 2/1 with ♣'s or GF support. But since we don't play pure 2/1 (rebid=inv), there's a problem with the inv ♣ hands over 1♦. This might be solved by 1♦-3♣=nat inv with less than 3 ♦'s and 1♦-2♣-2x-3♣ show inv with 6♣'s and 3♦'s.

[ArcLight]

Not using Inverted Minors or Criss Cross

 

How about:

1♣ - 3♠ Splinter - Game force, slam interest

 

Opener is unhappy with the Spade wastage, lack of trumps, and trump quality.

They might bid 3NT, making.

Or 5 Clubs - making.

[kenberg]

I play inverted minors, which work out pretty well. As to criss-cross, with the jump shift as the forcing raise, I play that sometimes and I have had no trouble but I can foresee possible trouble. For example: Recently we had 1D-2D(inverted)-3NT. Most play this as a balanced hand that is too strong for an opening NT. If we had to bid this 1D-3C, that takes up more room. I assume the regular criss-cross players have some way for opener to bid 3N on 12-14 flat, and also some way to show 18, but I don't know what it is. Maybe the 18 count just takes control but I am not sure how that works either. When I play criss-cross I just hope it doesn't come up. It hasn't yet, but I don't play that much criss-cross.

 

If you play 2/1, including 1D-2C, as a game force there is also another issue. You sometimes get dealt 11 point hands with 6+ clubs, with 1D-2N looking very unappealing. There is something to be said for using 1D-3C to show that hand. This also doesn't come up all that often and when it does you can always bid 2N and pray, if 1D-3C would be a diamond raise.

 

Inverted minors are not perfect. Although I don't play weak no trumps it seems inverted minors work particularly well there because opener will always either have a strong hand or else shape. But they work well enough in a strong nt structure. Sometime back, Justin Lall made some suggestions about how to develop the auction after an inverted raise, but unfortunately I did not copy it down.

[mike777]

ya balanced 18-19 are opened Mexican 2D.

 

In any event I would think it is almost impossible to stay out of a slam with 18 hcp after a forcing minor suit raise. A forcing minor suit raise shows a very good hand.

[kenberg]

ya balanced 18-19 are opened Mexican 2D.

 

In any event I would think it is almost impossible to stay out of a slam with 18 hcp after a forcing minor suit raise. A forcing minor suit raise shows a very good hand.

Once again showing that it is almost impossible to discuss a convention is isolation from the rest of the system.

 

Since I play criss-cross rarely, I'll probably just go on w/o the Mexican 2D. And yes, probably you end in a slam regardless of what you are playing.

 

With the inverted minor, I believe the greatest problem is deciding on the range for 1m-3m. If it covers anything from zippo to just under an inverted raise, this is a problem. I have used a variation of criss-cross here. The jump shift to the other minor shows 5+ cards in opener's suit and 7-9 points. Then 1m-3m is 5+ and few points. There are other approaches.

 

I think the bottom line is that you need some way to bid a strong hand with a minor, as in the problem presented. SAYC, which often but not here has advantages in a pick-up game, gives no forcing raise. With the example hand, a SAYC player has to bid 5C, or 1H on a three card holding, or leave the table. It's crazy. Mostly I see inverted minors as working decently and I have limited experience but no actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems with criss-cross. But you gotta have something. No forcing raise is unplayable.

[pclayton]

I play inverted minors, which work out pretty well. As to criss-cross, with the jump shift as the forcing raise, I play that sometimes and I have had no trouble but I can foresee possible trouble. For example: Recently we had 1D-2D(inverted)-3NT. Most play this as a balanced hand that is too strong for an opening NT. If we had to bid this 1D-3C, that takes up more room. I assume the regular criss-cross players have some way for opener to bid 3N on 12-14 flat, and also some way to show 18, but I don't know what it is. Maybe the 18 count just takes control but I am not sure how that works either. When I play criss-cross I just hope it doesn't come up. It hasn't yet, but I don't play that much criss-cross.

 

If you play 2/1, including 1D-2C, as a game force there is also another issue. You sometimes get dealt 11 point hands with 6+ clubs, with 1D-2N looking very unappealing. There is something to be said for using 1D-3C to show that hand. This also doesn't come up all that often and when it does you can always bid 2N and pray, if 1D-3C would be a diamond raise.

 

Inverted minors are not perfect. Although I don't play weak no trumps it seems inverted minors work particularly well there because opener will always either have a strong hand or else shape. But they work well enough in a strong nt structure. Sometime back, Justin Lall made some suggestions about how to develop the auction after an inverted raise, but unfortunately I did not copy it down.

Ken:

 

I suggest playing 1 min - 2 min - 3N as an offshape hand unsuitable for a 1N opening.

 

1 min - 2 min - 2N should be a one round force, and you can build in the 12-14 balanced as well as the 18-19 balanced.

 

The reason I like 1 min - 2 min as a GF is opener can show shortness with a minimum hand; versus if 2 min is limit raise +, Opener needs to limit his hand with a minimum.

[jdonn]

With the inverted minor, I believe the greatest problem is deciding on the range for 1m-3m. If it covers anything from zippo to just under an inverted raise, this is a problem. I have used a variation of criss-cross here. The jump shift to the other minor shows 5+ cards in opener's suit and 7-9 points. Then 1m-3m is 5+ and few points. There are other approaches.

I think there is a simpler solution, there is a convention (I have never played) that is credited to Grant Baze called "Grant's Hack". The following is copied from a small writeup by Jeff Goldsmith.

 

---

After 1m-3m, the next step is artificial and means, "I want to bid 3NT. Do you think I can make it?" The answers are pretty obvious. For example:

 

1♦-3♦; 3♥?

3♠ = Yes, you can. Bid 3NT.

3NT = Maybe not, but I'll take a shot at it.

4♦ = Not "no," but "hell, no!"

---

 

It seems to me like losing the next bid up on a 1m - 3m auction is certainly no more of a loss than losing a jump shift response in the other minor, so I think this convention is a simple and decent idea.

 

EDIT: Corrected the example auction.

[mikeh]

I currently play criss-cross in three partnerships, but as limit raise or better.. with ken's 12-14 minimum, in one of the partnerships, we would have opened 1N with all such hands and in the other two, on some of the hands... and we would bid 2N over 1♣ - 2♦ when 1N is strong and 3♦ over 3♣.

 

Criss-cross, whichever way you play it, has to be inferior, in theory, to inverted, but my experience with inverted has persuaded me that, for inverted to be worthwhile, one needs a complex set of agreements: which I did have in a former partnership. None of my current partners are interested in that approach, so criss-cross is a decent compromise: I think it works as well as a simple inverted method and far better than either 2N as a forcing raise or having no force available.

 

BTW, I have no problem with responding 1♥ to a 1♦ opener on some 3 card holdings, but the North hand should have fudged via 1♦, not 1♥: 1♦ can often be 3 cards if 1N shows 8-10 or 7-10, as many play. And unless you open 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors (which I know many do for reasons still unclear to me), there is almost no risk of being raised.... and it was the raise that caused the problem on the posted hand.

[kenberg]

Phil, I have toyed with the idea that 1m-2m-2N should be a force even if 2m might be just a limit raise. The logic is something like this: If it's a limit raise and nothing more, it may well play better in 3D than in 2N. If it's the top of a limit raise then what the hell, try 3N. So limit raise values should always be bidding anyway. My usual Thursday night f2f game is mps though, and I am not enough of a believer in this logic to give up the passable 2N. 120 beats 110.

 

I'm not so sure about the 1m-2m as GF. I have played it with some but it is not exactly an everyday occurrence so my experience is limited. You have to be able to do something with the 11 point hand though.

 

jdonn,

I had heard of the Baze Hack but never really checked it out. I can see it as a possibility. Here is another solution from Steve Robinson's Washington Standard (I don't know its origins): 1m-2H is one of three hands:

A strong jump shift

A five card raise of m with less than inverted raise values (a mixed raise I guess it is called)

An invitational nt (11-12 balanced)

 

There are then obvious ways to quickly sort out which but I'll skip the lecture.

 

Thus 1m-3m is truly a preempt. This gadget has the additional feature of allowing 1m-2N to be 13-15, useful if opener has a shapely hand with doubts about NT. It muddies the strong jump shift hand a bit though, or so it seems to me.

 

 

My current solution with a frequent pard is when I don't have much I actually PASS!! Probably I should pre-alert this advanced technique. So 1m-3m is a bit wide range but not on total trash. Maybe 5-9. This seems to be working.

 

 

The thing bout inverted minor auctions is that they don't arise so terribly often and when they do, they mostly are straightforward enough. But not always. And then it gets tough since I really don't have lengthy agreements with anyone.

 

added: Just saw Mike's post. This talk about hacks and three way bids lends support to his contention that inv min needs a little stuff to help it along.

[Trumpace]

Weird. I thought this was about some squeeze :angry: :P :lol:

[blackshoe]

ya balanced 18-19 are opened Mexican 2D.

I was surprised to read, in Kantar and Dimitrescu's four volume opus on conventions, that there is the "Mexican 2D" bid and the "Romex 2D bid", neither of which matches what George Rosenkranz (who invented the convention) currently calls "Mexican 2D". :lol:

 

On reflection, I decided it's a good thing the ACBL says that describing a convention by its name is inadequate disclosure. :angry:

 

Romex uses both inverted minor and criss-cross raises. The former are game forcing, the latter invitational. As I recall, direct splinters in the majors show void, and jump shifts are strong, although I think that last is pretty much a matter of choice.