I bid one spade, I did not want to bid 3NT direct

[sceptic]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sjt9542ht76d87ck8&w=sak7hq53daqj4ct97&e=s83hakj8d9532ca43&s=sq6h942dkt6cqj652]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     Pass  1♦    Pass

 1♠    Pass  1NT   Pass

 3NT   Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

I bid one spade, I did not want to bid 3NT direct and 2NT could be passed

 

any alternatives ?

[EricK]

I'm not a big fan of manufacturing suits to bid, but if you are going to bid a suit you don't have, why not bid 2♣? It might discourage a ♣ lead and if partner vigorously supports ♣ then you can always put him back into ♦ without raising the level.

[Guest Jlall]

If you have forcing diamond raise your system is seriously flawed. I would probably bid 2C if that was the case. If we land in 3N it may deflect the lead, it allows us to find out if partner has extras and/or shape, and potentially rightsides NT. It may cause partner to misevaluate but I think it's a lot better than any of the other options.

[whereagles]

1. If you have forcing diamond raise your system is seriously flawed.

 

2. I would probably bid 2C if that was the case.

1. Flawed, yes. Seriously flawed... well, that's probably an overstatement. Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

2. And this is how they solve it: bid a 3-card minor if necessary (1C-1D or 1D-2C).

[mike777]

I got a game force raise in D bid...but admit I would have just bid 3nt direct on this one. 4333 shape with 16 hcp and hcp in both majors.

 

Wayne why did you reject 3nt direct?

[glen]

1. If you have forcing diamond raise your system is seriously flawed.

1. Flawed, yes. Seriously flawed... well, that's probably an overstatement. Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

Well he does say (until he edits it), that the system is flawed if you have a forcing diamond raise, so the many people in Europe are bidding flawlessly. However you need to have a forcing minor raise, which you would use here, and if not, then you post here.

[the hog]

Yes, I think he means flawed if you DON'T have a D raise. I really don't like 1S at all. I don't like 2C either, so I would definitely change the system ot incorporate a forcing raise. Without one, I would just bid 3N here. (Mind you, I don't like that bid much either.)

[mike777]

Sure you can miss a d slam but I would think just bidding 3nt and not messing up actual bidding sequences makes you a winner in the long run.

 

Surprised how many prefer to just make a g/f d raise on this balanced 4333 16 hcp hand. Perhaps they expect opener to have a good hand?

[the hog]

Sure you can miss a d slam but I would think just bidding 3nt and not messing up actual bidding sequences makes you a winner in the long run.

 

Surprised how many prefer to just make a g/f d raise on this balanced 4333 16 hcp hand. Perhaps they expect opener to have a good hand?

Not necessarily Mike, but there are many nice minimums opposite where slam has a good play, also where you make 5/6 D and 3NT has no play.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3NT, if available you can of course bid 2D.

 

3NT is only a slight underbid, it shows 13-15 bal.,

I have 16, but on the other hand I ama 4-3-3-3.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

Where? Not here...

 

Just a question from a confused European.

 

If I cannot bid a forcing 2♦ or 2NT I prefer bidding where I live, i.e. 1♠ and not 2♣. Thanks.

[MFA]

Not having a forcing raise is very bad.

[whereagles]

Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

Where? Not here... Just a question from a confused European.

France, Spain, Portugal.

[Fluffy]

Good job, perfect bidding, 2♣ Might be safer, but if you don't bid 3NT is becasue you want to investigate on slam if partenr is strong, then 1♠ is your best descriptive forcing bid.

 

About inverted minors:

 

In my opinion, before learning a convention that solves a problem, you should better face the problem before and try to solve it with natural & logic bidding.

 

If you don't know why you use a convention nor how it helps you, you will most likelly missuse the convention

[gwnn]

1. If you have forcing diamond raise your system is seriously flawed.

 

2. I would probably bid 2C if that was the case.

1. Flawed, yes. Seriously flawed... well, that's probably an overstatement. Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

2. And this is how they solve it: bid a 3-card minor if necessary (1C-1D or 1D-2C).

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

[P_Marlowe]

1. If you have forcing diamond raise your system is seriously flawed.

 

2. I would probably bid 2C if that was the case.

1. Flawed, yes. Seriously flawed... well, that's probably an overstatement. Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

2. And this is how they solve it: bid a 3-card minor if necessary (1C-1D or 1D-2C).

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

Hi

 

3D, a splinter.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[glen]

What we often see, if bidding the hand above without a forcing raise available, is

- puzzled look

- 40 second pause for thinking

- 1♠ response (they are not certain if 3♦ would be a splinter or would be weak and a long suit)

 

If 3-3-2-5 shape, one gets the first two (puzzled look, 40 second pause), then 3NT.

 

As to inverted minors, I prefer not to play them, using instead:

2m: single raise, can be just 4 in m

3m: invite raise

jump in om: forcing raise

 

There are all sorts of versons of "criss-cross" approaches, including:

2m: constructive raise, can be just 4 in m

3m: weak raise

jump in om: limit+ raise

[whereagles]

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

Well, with this one you can, as said above, splinter.

 

But let's change it to

 

AKx

Qxx

xx

KQxxx

 

or, worse, have pard open 1♦ and you have

 

AKx

Qxx

KQxxx

xx

 

Without forcing minor raises you'd have to invent a major or bid 1♦/2♣ on a 2-card suit, respectively. Ok so that's bad, I agree. But many don't bother to include inverted minor raise because

 

1. inverted raises have problems of their own

2. problematic hands like those above are rare anyway

[mike777]

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

Well, with this one you can, as said above, splinter.

 

But let's change it to

 

AKx

Qxx

xx

KQxxx

 

or, worse, have pard open 1♦ and you have

 

AKx

Qxx

KQxxx

xx

 

Without forcing minor raises you'd have to invent a major or bid 1♦/2♣ on a 2-card suit, respectively. Ok so that's bad, I agree. But many don't bother to include inverted minor raise because

 

1. inverted raises have problems of their own

2. problematic hands like those above are rare anyway

With both those hands it seems I have an easy 3nt bid. My hands are balanced, I have hcp in the majors. At MP I am going to ingnore 5 of a minor and at imps 3nt still has a chance when 5 of a minor might go down. The have not lead or overcalled the open suit yet. :P I lose for alot of silly reasons this is not one.

[jdonn]

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

Well, with this one you can, as said above, splinter.

 

But let's change it to

 

AKx

Qxx

xx

KQxxx

 

or, worse, have pard open 1♦ and you have

 

AKx

Qxx

KQxxx

xx

 

Without forcing minor raises you'd have to invent a major or bid 1♦/2♣ on a 2-card suit, respectively. Ok so that's bad, I agree. But many don't bother to include inverted minor raise because

 

1. inverted raises have problems of their own

2. problematic hands like those above are rare anyway

With both those hands it seems I have an easy 3nt bid. My hands are balanced, I have hcp in the majors. At MP I am going to ingnore 5 of a minor and at imps 3nt still has a chance when 5 of a minor might go down. The have not lead or overcalled the open suit yet. :P I lose for alot of silly reasons this is not one.

How about two unstopped suits?

 

Partner opens 1♦

 

KQx

xx

AKxxxx

xx

 

 

How about three?

 

xx

Qx

AKQxxxx

Jx

[mike777]

actual hand I held

 

AKx

Qxx

x

KQxxxx

 

1♣-p-?

Well, with this one you can, as said above, splinter.

 

But let's change it to

 

AKx

Qxx

xx

KQxxx

 

or, worse, have pard open 1♦ and you have

 

AKx

Qxx

KQxxx

xx

 

Without forcing minor raises you'd have to invent a major or bid 1♦/2♣ on a 2-card suit, respectively. Ok so that's bad, I agree. But many don't bother to include inverted minor raise because

 

1. inverted raises have problems of their own

2. problematic hands like those above are rare anyway

With both those hands it seems I have an easy 3nt bid. My hands are balanced, I have hcp in the majors. At MP I am going to ingnore 5 of a minor and at imps 3nt still has a chance when 5 of a minor might go down. The have not lead or overcalled the open suit yet. :P I lose for alot of silly reasons this is not one.

How about two unstopped suits?

 

Partner opens 1♦

 

KQx

xx

AKxxxx

xx

 

 

How about three?

 

xx

Qx

AKQxxxx

Jx

No problem partner opened one diamond and I have an limit raise with one/zero major suits stopped. I bid 2s limit raise(crisscross)...now partner bids his stoppers.

 

With game force and same situation, I bid 3clubs game force..

 

Agree play a minor suit game force bid here if that is your point.

[kenrexford]

IMO, there is nothing wrong or flawed with an approach that allows a three-card major response to a minor opening on GF or bust hands without clear direction, as temporizing bids. The one caveat to this is that the possibility must be understood, with appropriate catering to this possibility. Same for 1♥-P-1♠. Could be GF or bust with three-piece spades on occasion, if the theory is understood and applied by both partners.

[kenberg]

[marcD]

Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises.

 

Where? Not here... Just a question from a confused European.

France, Spain, Portugal.

Cannot speak for Spain or Portugal but I guess that more than 50% of serious players play inverted minors in France now. It still true though that the standard is still old fashionned raises.

[Gerben42]

Some responses to various posts.

 

Inverted minors is not a convention, it's just a different treatment of minor suit raises than the "standard" (whose standard?).

 

***

 

In many countries the "standard" teaches things that are not played by tournament players. These include 16 - 18 NT, Acol two bids and non-inverted minors (i.e. 2m weaker than 3m). These "standard" systems are so resistent to change that beginners have to go through two phases if they want to become tournament players.

 

Phase 1: Learning the "standard" system.

 

Phase 2: Learning the "real" system.

 

Since the "real" system need not be more complicated than the "standard" system this seems kind of backward but as I said, very resistent to change.

 

***

 

No system is perfect but you will have to look hard to find an expert saying it is worse than non-inverted, simply because hands become virtually unbiddable without a forcing raise.