0=3=8=2, IMPs, 1S-(P)-?

[AlexOgan]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=shxxxdkjt9xxxxcax]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner deals and opens 1S.

 

What's your plan? I'm intentionally not specifying methods... curious about plans opposite a 2/1-style 1S as well as a Precision-style 1S.

 

If you bid 1NT forcing, partner will bid 2H.

 

Alex

[inquiry]

I play 1M - 3m as invitional with a six plus suit, generally a singleton or void in partners major (could be two small, however) and around 10/11 hcp. This hand falls short of the hcp range, but the quality and length of the suit more than compensates.

[ArcLight]

I think this ♦ suit is too strong for an invitational jump shift (3♦).

despite the potential wastage in spades, I would bid 2♦ GF in 2/1.

 

5♦ has a fair chance.

 

Let the opps try sacrificing at a high level, and going down doubled.

[pbleighton]

I think this D suit is too strong for an invitational jump shift (3D).

despite the potential wastage in spades, I would bid 2♦ GF in 2/1.

 

5D has a fair chance.

 

Let the opps try sacrificing at a high level, and going down doubled.

 

Agree.

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

I think this ♦ suit is too strong for an invitational jump shift (3♦).

despite the potential wastage in spades, I would bid 2♦ GF in 2/1.

 

5♦ has a fair chance.

 

Let the opps try sacrificing at a high level, and going down doubled.

Why should they sacrifice when it is unlikely 5D is making?

[ArcLight]

>Why should they sacrifice when it is unlikely 5D is making?

 

I did not say to bid 5♦ directly, that would be foolish. I said bid 2♦.

 

I said 5♦ has a fair chance, and by bidding 2♦ we have a way to get there.

 

I think 3♦ would probably end the auction, and 3NT may not be right for this hand, unless pard has just the right cards.

 

By bidding 2♦ we can always end up in 4♦ if we cant play in 3NT.

 

The opponents may choose to get involved and might be doubled as well.

[inquiry]

>Why should they sacrifice when it is unlikely 5D is making?

 

I did not say to bid 5♦ directly, that would be foolish. I said bid 2♦.

 

I said 5♦ has a fair chance, and by bidding 2♦ we have a way to get there.

 

I think 3♦ would probably end the auction, and 3NT may not be right for this hand, unless pard has just the right cards.

 

By bidding 2♦ we can always end up in 4♦ if we cant play in 3NT.

 

The opponents may choose to get involved and might be doubled as well.

Well, you didn't say you were going to bid 5♦ directly, but you did say you were going to bid a game forcing 2♦. Were do you think the auction is going to end up? It really will not stop short of 3NT or 5♦. In fact, I guess you will end up in 5♦ (or more) a great percentage of time.

 

Second, I disagree with your premise that 3♦ "will probably end the auction." Do you play invitational jumpshifts at all? This is not a preemptive jump shift and the auction does not stop in 3♦ when partner has a diamond fit very often, and NEVER when he has a diamond fit and extras or any number of strong hands, as I said, for me the invitational jump shift promises around 11 hcp (good 10 to bad 12), and I guess partner bids again as often as he passes.

 

And since the bid denies a spade fit and shows values, the opponents enter that auction at their own risk.

[jdonn]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

[pclayton]

Agree with Ben. If pard cant move over 3D, what do we have?

[ArcLight]

Second, I disagree with your premise that 3♦ "will probably end the auction." Do you play invitational jumpshifts at all? This is not a preemptive jump shift and the auction does not stop in 3♦ when partner has a diamond fit very often, and NEVER when he has a diamond fit and extras or any number of strong hands, as I said, for me the invitational jump shift promises around 11 hcp (good 10 to bad 12), and I guess partner bids again as often as he passes.

 

And since the bid denies a spade fit and shows values, the opponents enter that auction at their own risk.

>Well, you didn't say you were going to bid 5♦ directly, but you did say you were going to bid a game forcing 2♦. Were do you think the auction is going to end up? It really will not stop short of 3NT or 5♦.

 

Why not? With the Mike Lawrence version of 2/1 you can stop in 4m with no fit if 3NT unsuitable. Its rare, but it does happen.

 

 

>In fact, I guess you will end up in 5♦ (or more) a great percentage of time.

 

Could be, and in those cases I think we have a >50% chance of making it.

Pard won't get us there with a ♦ void and no aces.

 

 

>Second, I disagree with your premise that 3♦ "will probably end the auction." Do you play invitational jumpshifts at all? This is not a preemptive jump shift and the auction does not stop in 3♦ when partner has a diamond fit very often, and NEVER when he has a diamond fit and extras or any number of strong hands, as I said, for me the invitational jump shift promises around 11 hcp (good 10 to bad 12), and I guess partner bids again as often as he passes.

 

I should rephrase that. It may end the auction, and it may end us in a horrendous 3NT. I guess I can pull 3NT to 4♦

 

If pard has a ♦ fit he may play in 3NT rather than 5♦.

After 1♠ - 3♦, 3NT - ?

What do we do? Pass? Bid 4♦?

What will pard do over 4♦? Pass or 5?

 

 

The problem with the Invitational Jump Shift is it usually shows 6-7 cards in that suit. We have 8, with fillers.

Will pard expect this hand if we bid 4♦ over 3NT?

[Apollo81]

If I am playing an invitational 3♦ then i will bid that.

 

If I am playing 2/1 not forcing to game then I will bid 2♦ and then 3♦

 

If neither of the above apply I will bid 1NT and then diamonds as many times as necessary (unless partner rebids 3♥ over 3♦ I suppose)

[pclayton]

The problem playing 2/1 and responding 2♦ on this collection is that if we pull 3N to 4♦, its not a signoff, its a slam try.

 

Lawrence specifically talks about a sequence like:

 

1♠ - 2♦

2♥ - 3♦

3♠ - 4♦

 

as being non-forcing.

 

You could not convince me that:

 

1♠ - 2♦

2♠ - 3♦

3N - 4♦

 

would be construed as a signoff.

 

Thats why I like 3♦ if its invitational. It immediately limits the hand and lets us get out and show the extra diamond length.

[jdonn]

The problem with the Invitational Jump Shift is it usually shows 6-7 cards in that suit. We have 8, with fillers.

Will pard expect this hand if we bid 4♦ over 3NT?

Well what in blazes do you think he should expect when we pull 3NT, a 1363 11 count??

[cherdano]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

Yup. And this auction still doesn't give up on slam, if partner drives to slam after 3D-3N-4D, he will probably be right, whereas I would be very afraid of seeing dummy if I start 2♦ and end up in 6♦.

 

Arend

[bid_em_up]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand?

 

Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that.

 

Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now.

 

However, I would tend to believe that most players do not play this as part of a 2/1 system. As such, that leaves you with

1) 1N forcing or 2) 2D game force.

 

I dont think 1N is out of this world, at all....if you are not playing 1M-3m as invitational, in a 2/1 context. The hand simply isn't good enough for a 2/1 GF bid, imo, as I do not believe we will be able to convince partner this is our holding otherwise.

 

I have no problem bidding:

 

1♠-1N-

2♥-3♦

3X-4♦

 

where X is 3♠ or 3N. I think the pull of 3N to 4D in this sequence is non-forcing, since we initially limited our hand with 1N. But I might sit for 3N, as partner may well be 5-4-2-2, holding Qx or Ax of diamonds, he may also have the stiff Q, which would allow the suit to come in with just one loser.

 

If partner bids 3H over 3D, I will raise to 4H. This may be one of the few times I would actually put an eight card suit down in dummy.

[cherdano]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand?

 

Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that.

 

Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now.

I do. There is a very strong case to play jump shifts over 1M as either invitational, or constructive 6-9. Or to play it as a strong jump shift if you play "2/1 GF except rebid". Otherwise you are bidding all one-suiters with 6-12 points the same way.

[pclayton]

Me too.

 

With an intelligent partner, I play all 3 level jump shifts as invitational. Mini-splinters come up once a year, and Bergen is OK, but not that useful anymore, since players don't have the same trepidation coming in over a 3 level fit auction.

[jdonn]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand?

 

Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that.

 

Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now.

WTF, Ben tells the truth but I'm a liar?? Oh well you "bought it", it sounded pretty painful for you. I play 3m invitational with every single partner with whom I play 2/1 except for my parents who don't know the bid and aren't comfortable with it. Every single one! And this has been true for at least 3 or 4 years. Are you some sort of mind reader or what?

 

I have always hated Bergen raises, I find WJS pointless, and where the heck did mini-splinters come from, almost no one plays those at least not anywhere I have ever lived.

[bid_em_up]

The invitational 3♦ bid (which I always play) seems reasonable, but of course if partner bids 3NT I'm pulling to 4♦. This is the only auction (besides responding 1NT which I think is not of this planet) that will let me play a partscore while not understating my hand.

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand?

 

Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that.

 

Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now.

WTF, Ben tells the truth but I'm a liar?? Oh well you "bought it", it sounded pretty painful for you. I play 3m invitational with every single partner with whom I play 2/1 except for my parents who don't know the bid and aren't comfortable with it. Every single one! And this has been true for at least 3 or 4 years. Are you some sort of mind reader or what?

 

I have always hated Bergen raises, I find WJS pointless, and where the heck did mini-splinters come from, almost no one plays those at least not anywhere I have ever lived.

No, thats not what I meant. We all "know" that Ben plays some pretty esoteric stuff, so I can easily buy that he plays it.

 

But seeing as how this was the first I had heard of anyone treating this as invitational, and especially as from a player of your caliber, I was just surprised that you did, considering that the probable majority of US players don't and the popularity of the other methods. But I will take you at your word, is all I meant. Geez. Take a chill pill, man.

 

I'm even more surprised now after seeing Phil and Arend stating they use this also. Is this treatment gaining in popularity and I didn't get the email? :P

 

Mind you, I ask, because I hate bergen and WJS also, and for lack of anything better, I have been playing mini-splinters (so yes, it is played in some places, whether you have lived in them or not :P), but as Phil stated, I am finding them to be ineffective since they come up infrequently. I could have said fit-showing jumps, just as easily, I just pulled three different treatments off the top of my head.

 

So I am somewhat interested in hearing more regarding this treatment.

[cherdano]

No, thats not what I meant. We all "know" that Ben plays some pretty esoteric stuff, so I can easily buy that he plays it.

 

I was just surprised that you did, considering that the probable majority of US players don't and the popularity of the other methods. But I will take you at your word, is all I meant. Geez. Take a chill pill, man.

Actually I am not sure whether the majority of North American experts plays 1M-3m etc. artificially. BWS has strong jumpshifts combined with 2/1-GF-except rebid, but in a vote assuming 2/1 absolute GF, 19% voted for natural construtive jump shifts, 42% for invitational jump shifts, and only 38% for a structure where you cannot show and differentiate between constructive and invitational one-suiters.

(http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwspolls.html, 904)

 

Note also question 905, where only 19% voted for adding Bergen raises. Bergen raises seem to be a BBO (plus maybe club-level) phenomenon.

[bid_em_up]

No, thats not what I meant.  We all "know" that Ben plays some pretty esoteric stuff, so I can easily buy that he plays it.

 

I was just surprised that you did, considering that the probable majority of US players don't and the popularity of the other methods.  But I will take you at your word, is all I meant. Geez. Take a chill pill, man.

Actually I am not sure whether the majority of North American experts plays 1M-3m etc. artificially. BWS has strong jumpshifts combined with 2/1-GF-except rebid, but in a vote assuming 2/1 absolute GF, 19% voted for natural construtive jump shifts, 42% for invitational jump shifts, and only 38% for a structure where you cannot show and differentiate between constructive and invitational one-suiters.

(http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwspolls.html, 904)

 

Note also question 905, where only 19% voted for adding Bergen raises. Bergen raises seem to be a BBO (plus maybe club-level) phenomenon.

There is a big difference between the phrasings of:

 

The probable majority of US players, and

 

The majority of US experts.

 

I will assure you that the majority of US players will play bergen or WJS after 1M opening (or any method other than invitational).

 

I would not make the same statement for US experts.

 

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so). In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

[gingolia]

I have always hated Bergen raises, I find WJS pointless, and where the heck did mini-splinters come from, almost no one plays those at least not anywhere I have ever lived.

I play all jumps as fit jumps with several of my partners ... I thought this was sorta standard but maybe not (or at least maybe not on the auction 1M-3m?)

[cherdano]

Bid_em_up, if you are not surprised about experts playing invitational jumps or similar, why are you surprised Josh does?????

[AlexOgan]

And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so).  In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

Really? What do you think two American experts would play if they were playing together for the first time and had only a few minutes to prepare? I always thought it would be pretty close to BWS.

[awm]

If I sat down with an American expert to play 2/1 I would definitely want to play invitational jumps over 1M. Certainly this is one of the first conventions I suggest when coming up with a set of 2/1 based agreements. And I think at this point most experts are aware of this treatment, even if they don't all prefer it themselves.