how will you respond?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqhxxxdatxxckjtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♦ (P) ?[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1 inverted minors, what is your response?

[jdonn]

2♦ seems perfect. You don't want to bid 3♦ which could be so much weaker.

[kenrexford]

2♦. I could see merits to 1♥ also, but not quite with this hand.

[benlessard]

1Nt looks normal.

[655321]

2♦ looks normal here.

 

If you decide the hand is too weak for an inverted raise (I disagree), then you make whatever bid is right in your system. If you have a bid to show a diamond raise stronger than a preempt, but weaker than a limit raise you make that bid. If the hand fits your definition of a 3♦ bid you bid 3♦. If you have a hand with diamond support, less than a limit raise, but no bid to show the hand, you have to bid 1NT.

[jillybean]

Ok, next question. How do you play inverted minors and the follow-ups. If responder rebids 3m it is nf?

If you play 1♦:2♦ here as 1 round force, is 1♦:2♣ game force? (playing 2/1)

 

Ive only recently started playing inverted minors and my partner wants to play it as game forcing - Im not so sure that this is how it was intended to be played.

[P_Marlowe]

Ok, next question.  How do you play inverted minors and the follow-ups. If responder rebids 3m it is nf?

If you play 1♦:2♦ here as 1 round force, is 1♦:2♣ game force?  (playing 2/1)

 

Ive only recently started playing inverted minors and my partner wants to play it as game forcing - Im not so sure that this is how it was intended to be played.

3m is the weakest bid either player can make,

2m forces the partnership to play at leats 3m

or 2NT, 3m says: "nothing more to tell and that

one has min. values for his own bidding".

 

The meaning of a 2C response in the sequence

 

1D - 2C

 

does not change, if you played it before as forcing

upto ???, it is still only forcing upto.

.....................................................................

Inv. minors are inv.+, but there are variants out there

(criss-cross, flip-flop), which incooperate game forcing

raises.

 

But I would strongly suggest, that you start with the

simpler variant.

Inverted minor raises dont come up very often,

assuming you play the standard agreement set for inv.

minors (denying 4 card majors), and also assuming, that

you dont play more than 30-40 boards per week in the

partnership.

Hence making more the bid come up even less by adding

additional requirements is a good way to create disasters

due to misunderstandings / forgetting the agreements.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I dislike to use 1 ♦ 2 ♦ with 4 card support and 10 HCPS, so I would bid 1 NT in the given circumstances.

 

However since some years I play that

1 ♦ 2 ♦ shows 12+ 4+ Diamonds

1 ♦ 3 ♣ shows 9-11 HCPs, 4+ Diamonds

1 ♦ 3 ♦ shows 4-8 HCPS, 5+ Diamonds

 

I think this is of a much bigger value then whatever use you had for 3 Club before.

Inv. minor is close to a GF, (depending on your opening style).

With this approach you can make your partner happy. Whatever he thinks is appropreate as a GF is your lower limit for 2 Diamond and 3 Club shows the hand with fit and a lesser HCPs.

 

After 1 ♣, it works similar, but here 2 ♦ shows the intermed. hand.

 

The follow ups after 1 Diamond 2 Diamond are open to discussion. The polish style is to show length in other suits first, even if you cannot have a good fit there. I really like that.

Another approach is to show controls.

 

Anyway: Easiest way of playing inv. minor is that 2 NT and 3 Diamond from both sides are min. and non forcing and any new suit bid means the same as it had meant after 1 Heart 2 Heart. (But I doubt that this is the best way...)

[jtfanclub]

I happen to like 2♣, and raising 2♦ to 3♦. But I understand that for some people that would show a stronger hand.

 

I would be willing to wager that our club fit is better than our diamond fit more often than the other way around.

[jdonn]

I happen to like 2♣, and raising 2♦ to 3♦. But I understand that for some people that would show a stronger hand.

 

I would be willing to wager that our club fit is better than our diamond fit more often than the other way around.

LOL so you believe that when partner opens 1♦ he averages less than 1 more diamonds than clubs? Ok then!

[BillHiggin]

If your partner wants the single raise to be GF, then that is not the standard inverted minor treatment and it is up to him to define the agreements on how to show the invitational raise (criss-cross is one way).

 

Invitational hands with no major can be difficult over a 1♦ opening in 2/1. Such hands might be balanced or with either or both minors. Either you cram off shape invites into 1N or use some inv+ bids to help out. A 1♣ opening is easier to respond to because you have a nice 1♦ response available.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

 

I think that this hand is a pretty clear cut 2♦ response.

 

As for rebids over 2♦... You and your partner are going to need to decide how much "science" you want to play.

 

In particualr, if you are playing a strong NT system, I think that there is a lot of merit to using

 

1m - 2m

2m+1

 

To show a minimum hand that is unsuitable for any other bid. (This typically shows a minimum strength balanced hand). Using step as a pudding rebid will allow you to make your higher bids more specific and more descriptive. However, this type of structure also adds a fair amount of complexity....

[jtfanclub]

I happen to like 2♣, and raising 2♦ to 3♦.  But I understand that for some people that would show a stronger hand.

 

I would be willing to wager that our club fit is better than our diamond fit more often than the other way around.

LOL so you believe that when partner opens 1♦ he averages less than 1 more diamonds than clubs? Ok then!

No...median vs. mean.

 

I am saying partner is more likely to have an equal number of diamonds and clubs than he is to have 2 or more diamonds than clubs. This is not the same as saying that the average (mean) number of diamonds is only one higher than the average number of clubs.

 

This assumes 'better minor' for (43)33 and 1♦ for 4-4 and 5-5 in the minors.

[jdonn]

I happen to like 2♣, and raising 2♦ to 3♦.  But I understand that for some people that would show a stronger hand.

 

I would be willing to wager that our club fit is better than our diamond fit more often than the other way around.

LOL so you believe that when partner opens 1♦ he averages less than 1 more diamonds than clubs? Ok then!

No...median vs. mean.

 

I am saying partner is more likely to have an equal number of diamonds and clubs than he is to have 2 or more diamonds than clubs. This is not the same as saying that the average (mean) number of diamonds is only one higher than the average number of clubs.

 

This assumes 'better minor' for (43)33 and 1♦ for 4-4 and 5-5 in the minors.

Yes I misstated your claim, which is an equally silly conclusion. Even moreso when you consider it in the context of responder holding this hand (when opener is quite likely to have club shortness).

 

Opening 1♦ with 3-3 in the minors is completely nonstandard by the way, and a great many also don't always (or ever!) open 1♦ when 4-4 in the minors, although that is more controversial.

[awm]

It seems like there are three questions to be answered here.

 

1. What is your bid with this distribution and a hand too weak to limit raise?

 

Basically you have two options. You can bid 1NT, or you can bid 3♦. There are obvious problems with each; 1NT might play the hand from the wrong side (especially with a weak three-card major like this hand) and also might be a much worse contract than a diamond partial. Bidding 3♦ might get us too high, especially if partner has only a three-card diamond suit. I think most people prefer to bid 1NT on this hand type (Ken Rexford excluded of course, who would find it obvious to bid his three-card major).

 

2. Is this particular hand worth a limit raise?

 

It's close. This is really not a very good ten-count. But given the awkwardness of the alternatives, it is probably right to upgrade this hand to a limit raise. In general when your choices are to distort your distribution (by bidding 1NT with a singleton in an unbid suit for example) or to overbid slightly in order to describe your shape accurately, it is often better to take the overbid.

 

3. Is 1♦-2♣ game forcing in 2/1?

 

There is not a clear answer to this question. On the west coast of the US, most would say yes, 2♣ is game force. On the east coast I gather most make the opposite answer. I have no idea what the European answer is (although a smaller percentage of Europeans play 2/1 so maybe it is not as relevant). Anyway you and your partner will have to come to a decision on this. But bidding 2♣ certainly shows invitational or better values, and I would not consider it on the hand from this thread (surely 2♦ is a better bid than 2♣).

[jtfanclub]

Opening 1♦ with 3-3 in the minors is completely nonstandard by the way, and a great many also don't always (or ever!) open 1♦ when 4-4 in the minors, although that is more controversial.

OK, well, if you don't open better minor with 3-3 and 1♦ with 4-4, then clearly you shouldn't bid 2♣.

 

If you are playing with the 3-3 better/4-4 1♦ concept (which I thought was standard in BBO Basic, but now I'll have to check), then bidding 2♦ risks a 4-3 fit, while bidding 2♣ will always get you into an 8 card fit unless partner has the infamous 4-4-3-2. I happen to think this hand is worth a full 10 count- the singleton Q is bad, but I like the tens, especially KJTxx. If 2♣ promises more than 10 in your area, well, don't bid it.

 

I don't like 1NT with this hand. I'm expecting the opponents to bid a major, and after that I'm kind of stuck. Nothing wrong with 2♦, but if I can show the clubs without breaking the system I'd prefer it.

[TimG]

I would be willing to wager that our club fit is better than our diamond fit more often than the other way around.

How much?

 

For shape constraints, I will agree that opener has no five-card or longer major and that opener's diamonds are at least as long as clubs (meaning that you always open 1♦ with equal length minors, even when 33).

 

I'll write a dealer script to match these conditions (which I will post here so that you and others may review it) to be run over a sample size of 100,000 deals. Someone else can run the script and report the results (including initial random seed so that they can be independently confirmed).

[jtfanclub]

How much?

 

a priori odds:

 

Clubs are better on:

1/2 of 4333 (5.25)

1/6 of 4432 (3.6)

1/2 of 4441 (1.5)

1/6 of 5521 (.5)

1/6 of 5530 (.15)

Total: 11% of all hands.

 

Even on:

1/4 of 4333 (2.6)

1/4 of 4432 (5.4)

1/12 of 5431 (2.15)

1/12 of 5422 (.9)

1/6 of 5440 (.2)

1/12 of 6511 (.05)

1/12 of 6520 (.05)

Total: 11.35% of all hands

 

Diamonds better on:

 

1/6 of 4432: (3.6)

1/4 of 4441: (.75)

1/4 of 5332: (3.9)

1/6 of 5431: (2.15)

1/6 of 5422: (1.75)

1/12 of 5440: (.1)

1/4 of 6322: (1.4)

1/4 of 6421: ( 1.2)

1/4 of 6331: (.9)

1/4 of 6430 (.3)

1/4 of 7xxx (1.0)

Total: 17.05% of all hands

 

That's before you look at responder's hand, and if you never open 1NT.

 

So you're right, the median fit with diamonds is better. I take everything back.

[jdonn]

How much?

$10?

You really want to bet that, even giving you the ridiculously favorable assumption that equal length always opens 1♦, when you hold 4-5 in the minors as responder then opener's minors are

 

33

44

55

 

more often than they are

 

42

41

53

52

51

50

64

63

62

61

60

7.... etc etc

 

? Can I get a piece of the action?

[Lobowolf]

For shape constraints, I will agree that opener has no five-card or longer major and that opener's diamonds are at least as long as clubs (meaning that you always open 1♦ with equal length minors, even when 33).

4♦ 5♣ & lacking strength to reverse?! Or is that passe?

[TimG]

How much?

$10?

$10 it is.

 

Here's the script. I can run it, too, or an independent 3rd party can.

 

 

predeal north SQ, H543, DAT53, CKJT32

 

# south

 

# s_hcp = hcp(south)>11 && hcp(south)<20

s_shape = hearts(south)<5 && spades(south)<5 &&

diamonds(south)>=clubs(south)

 

 

south_ok=s_shape

 

# counting

 

dia = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) > (clubs(south) + clubs(north))

clu = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) < (clubs(south) + clubs(north))

equ = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) == (clubs(south) + clubs(north))

 

# condition

 

condition south_ok

generate 50000000

produce 100000

 

# actions

 

action

average "diamonds south" diamonds(south),

average "clubs south" clubs(south),

average "diamond fit longer" dia,

average "equal fits" equ,

average "club fit longer" clu,

frequency "diamond club combination for opener" (diamonds(south), 3, 5, clubs(south), 3, 5),

[jtfanclub]

How much?

$10?

$10 it is.

You can run it, I'm curious as to the result. But even a priori, the odds were better for a diamond fit- jdonn was right, and so were you. And the actual odds will be lower than the a priori odds, since 1NT and responder's shape will both tend to favor the unbalanced diamond hand.

 

Tell me your paypal ID, and I'll send you the money. The lesson is more likely to sink in that way. B)

[Lobowolf]

I could see merits to 1♥ also, but not quite with this hand.

Ditto, but if it were just a little bit weaker on the same distribution... If partner bids and subsequently plays hearts, the 3-card heart suit is comprised of weak hearts and is in the hand with the singleton. If partner doesn't have hearts, he's guaranteed to have 4 diamonds (1♦ showing 4 except when 4432), and if partner bids 1♠ or 1NT, I have an easy 2♦ rebid. The only thing I hate is if partner raises hearts on 3-card support, which seems extremely unlikely here, and even then, we may defend spades or declare diamonds, rather than declaring hearts.

[gwnn]

I could see merits to 1♥ also, but not quite with this hand.

Ditto, but if it were just a little bit weaker on the same distribution... If partner bids and subsequently plays hearts, the 3-card heart suit is comprised of weak hearts and is in the hand with the singleton. If partner doesn't have hearts, he's guaranteed to have 4 diamonds (1♦ showing 4 except when 4432), and if partner bids 1♠ or 1NT, I have an easy 2♦ rebid. The only thing I hate is if partner raises hearts on 3-card support, which seems extremely unlikely here, and even then, we may defend spades or declare diamonds, rather than declaring hearts.

extremely unlikely? what if partner has a singleton club?

[Lobowolf]

I could see merits to 1♥ also, but not quite with this hand.

Ditto, but if it were just a little bit weaker on the same distribution... If partner bids and subsequently plays hearts, the 3-card heart suit is comprised of weak hearts and is in the hand with the singleton. If partner doesn't have hearts, he's guaranteed to have 4 diamonds (1♦ showing 4 except when 4432), and if partner bids 1♠ or 1NT, I have an easy 2♦ rebid. The only thing I hate is if partner raises hearts on 3-card support, which seems extremely unlikely here, and even then, we may defend spades or declare diamonds, rather than declaring hearts.

extremely unlikely? what if partner has a singleton club?

He'd have to have exactly 3 hearts to go with his singleton club, and he'd also have to have at most 3 spades. I assume he'd rebid a 7-card diamond suit, so he'd have to be precisely 3-3-6-1 and opt to raise hearts rather then rebid his 6-card diamond suit, which I imagine he'd do some of the time. This is pretty much the parlay I meant by "extremely unlikely." I think a very, very small minority of 1♦ openers will be 3-3-6-1 with cards such that a 2♥ rebid looks preferable to a 2♦ rebid. The overwehlming majority of 1♦ openers will have one of the following:

 

1) a 1♠ rebid

2) a 1NT rebid

3) a 2♣ rebid (also very unlikely, granted)

4) a 2♦ rebid

5) a 2♥ rebid based on a 4-card suit

 

None of these responses bothers me at all. Neither does a 3♦ rebid, while I'm at it. If partner plays a 3-3 fit when he's 3-3-6-1, well...I have a nice partner.