inverted minor or something else?

[jillybean]

Not meant to be a personal critisim of either player, but it appears to me both players misjudged their hand strength. The 3C bid appears too strong for most other posters and myself, while the pass (to me) seems too timid with the known 9+ card club fit. Opener's hand evaluates up (IMO) to 20-21 in light of the good club fit. All it really takes is 4 club tricks out of the 9-card fit to make 3N most likely.

I agree and I did say earlier that I failed to bid on.

[jdonn]

Opener's hand evaluates up (IMO) to 20-21 in light of the good club fit.  All it really takes is 4 club tricks out of the 9-card fit to make 3N most likely.

...With the OP Dummy.

 

What if the 3C raise had been on something like

x_Qxx_xxxx_KJxxx ?

 

That hand is far more typical of a Preemptive 3C raise than the OP one is.

What do you think one example will prove? You made partner short in our weakest suit, supposing the majors were reversed? Supposing partner had the ten of clubs? Supposing I give a hand of Jxx x xxxx KQJxx?

[kenberg]

Fred has already said it in general terms, but the issue for S on this hand is whether N might have did 3C with the AQTxx replaced by JT854 (and the rest of the hand the same). If so, 3N will not be a favorite. (oops, I have been scooped in the alternative hands department)

 

 

I'm an old fashioned guy so I like my 1C-3C bids to be such that S can bid 3N with some hope of making it. You could replace the AQTxx by KJTxx (keep the Qxx in hearts) and 3N still has a shot though obviously it could fail. So something like

 

xx

Jxx

xxx

KJTxxx

 

is my preferred lower limit. Opposite an 18 count 3N could be dicey, but it will probably have a play and I expect partner to bid it. With less I make the unfashionable call of Pass.

 

I have, at times, played 1C-2D as a club raise giving three ways to raise clubs. It has merit, as 1C-3C can now be real crap while 2D shows less than 2C but some decent values. I prefer the natural (and strong) 2D. But I play this version of criss-cross raises if a partner likes them. As Codo says, tastes differ. You can be playing either way and get a hand where you wish you were playing the other way.

 

The issues of taste also come up for the range of 1C-1N. I prefer 6-10 but even going back to Goren you see arguments for 8-10, the idea being that you have the whole one level in suits to find a bid when you hold 6 or 7 points. That's true. And if not playing inverted minors I might buy it. But if partner opens 1C and I hold Kxx/ Qxx/ xxx/Qxxx I obviously cannot bid an inverted 2C nor (imo) an inverted 3C, so I must choose between 1D and pass. I prefer to be able to bid 1NT. Actually I prefer 1N even playing Goren (or SAYC) but at least there I can bid 2C if 1N is systemically unavailable to me. I have never cared much for the idea that 1N shows 8-10 but when you hold the above hand you just stretch and bid 1N anyway. To me, that means you are not playing 8-10.

[Winstonm]

Opener's hand evaluates up (IMO) to 20-21 in light of the good club fit.   All it really takes is 4 club tricks out of the 9-card fit to make 3N most likely.

...With the OP Dummy.

 

What if the 3C raise had been on something like

x_Qxx_xxxx_KJxxx ?

 

That hand is far more typical of a Preemptive 3C raise than the OP one is.

If you are playing imps, you don't need as much reason to bid close games as at matchpoints. But even at matchpoints you are more likely to find a decently fitting hand than not. (If 3C can be made on 0-7 HCP, that is different and would depend on vulnerability what to expect.)

 

There is no particular reason to assume spades are always going to be attacked, that we will not be able to counter, or that the spade suit will defeat us.

 

Yes, we most likely will fail given the hand you presented. There are many other weak hands where we have a good chance to make:

xx, xxx, xxx, AJ10xx

J10x, xx, xxx, KQxxx

xxx, xx, xxx, KQ10xx

xx, xxx, xxx, AQ10xx

 

and on and on....

[Winstonm]

Not meant to be a personal critisim of either player, but it appears to me both players misjudged their hand strength.  The 3C bid appears too strong for most other posters and myself, while the pass (to me) seems too timid with the known 9+ card club fit.  Opener's hand evaluates up (IMO) to 20-21 in light of the good club fit.  All it really takes is 4 club tricks out of the 9-card fit to make 3N most likely.

I agree and I did say earlier that I failed to bid on.

If you thought (or simply were worried because of unknown style) you might see something like xx, xx, xxxx, QJxxx, I wouldn't be too hard on myself because then you would have had a tough guess and we all guess wrong part of the time.

[Winstonm]

I have, at times, played 1C-2D as a club raise giving three ways to raise clubs. It has merit, as 1C-3C can now be real crap while 2D shows less than 2C but some decent values. I prefer the natural (and strong) 2D. But I play this version of criss-cross raises if a partner likes them. As Codo says, tastes differ. You can be playing either way and get a hand where you wish you were playing the other way.

 

Ken - Here's a thought - play crisscross (2D/3C) as a transfer to show either a very weak or very strong hand. You end up with 4 minor raises.

[kenberg]

That's an interesting idea.

 

I do like 1C-2D as a SJS, and when playing 2/1 I like 1D-3C as invitational with good clubs, but if I am going to trade those meanings for crisscross then I might as well get the most from the trade! Seems good.

[Winstonm]

That's an interesting idea.

 

I do like 1C-2D as a SJS, and when playing 2/1 I like 1D-3C as invitational with good clubs, but if I am going to trade those meanings for crisscross then I might as well get the most from the trade! Seems good.

Ken,

 

If you come up with a good structure feel free to use the idea - that is something The Bridge World might like as Bridge World Standard uses inverted minor raises and they published my piece on inverted minor follow up bidding by opener to show shape.

[foo]

Opener's hand evaluates up (IMO) to 20-21 in light of the good club fit.   All it really takes is 4 club tricks out of the 9-card fit to make 3N most likely.

...With the OP Dummy.

 

What if the 3C raise had been on something like

x_Qxx_xxxx_KJxxx ?

 

That hand is far more typical of a Preemptive 3C raise than the OP one is.

What do you think one example will prove? You made partner short in our weakest suit, supposing the majors were reversed? Supposing partner had the ten of clubs? Supposing I give a hand of Jxx_x_xxxx_KQJxx ?

*sigh* it was supposed to be a =representative= example of an entire class. Fine:

(x_hxx_xxxx)_hhxxx

(x_xxx_hxxx)_hhxxx

(x_hxx_hxxx)_hxxxx

where "h" is any of (A, K, Q, K, T) and the hand has <= 7 HCP

 

That's 3*3*(number of 3 honor combinations adding up to <= 7 HCP) examples.

 

One can extend the idea to provide even more examples as one wishes.

 

None or almost none of the specific hands generated by filling in such patterns according to the rules above will result in a dummy where 3N rates to make opposite the given opening hand.

That's my point.

 

As for your example of Jxx_x_xxxx_KQJxx , this is a hand with a suit that will play for 1 loser opposite a small stiff. If Opener has Ax or better, this is a hand that with a suit that will play for no losers most of the time.

IOW, your example is worth 4+ tricks.

Are you really claiming such a hand should be evaluated as being equivalent to the average 0-7 HCP hand with a long suit in it?

[Winstonm]

Are you really claiming such a hand should be evaluated as being equivalent to the average 0-7 HCP hand with a long suit in it?

 

I didn't see anything about 0-7 HCP. All I saw was the statement that you play inverted minors. If you use the range 0-7 then that would make a difference - I think it is a lousy range but that is only my view.

 

Your point is valid - a singleton spade won't be a postive. You forget there are many more hands that do not hold a singleton spade so worrying about one group of hands is unproductive.

 

Give partner in clubs KQ10xx and nothing else but a randomly generated rest of hand and I would bet that 3N is right mathematically.

[jdonn]

Give partner in clubs KQ10xx and nothing else but a randomly generated rest of hand and I would bet that 3N is right mathematically.

Of course if it's even remotely close mathematically it's right in practice, since they will often fail to make the best lead.

[dburn]

That's an interesting idea.

 

I do like 1C-2D as a SJS,  and when playing 2/1 I like 1D-3C as invitational with good clubs, but if I am going to trade those meanings for crisscross then I might as well  get the most from the trade! Seems good.

Not that I play any of these things myself, but it has often occurred to me to wonder why people do not use 1♣-2♦ as two-way: either a strong jump shift in diamonds or a limit raise in clubs. After all, there is plenty of room.

[qwery_hi]

I have, at times, played 1C-2D as a club raise giving three ways to raise clubs. It has merit, as 1C-3C can now be real crap while 2D shows less than 2C but some decent values. I prefer the natural (and strong) 2D. But I play this version of criss-cross raises if a partner likes them. As Codo says, tastes differ. You can be playing either way and get a hand where you wish you were playing the other way.

 

Ken - Here's a thought - play crisscross (2D/3C) as a transfer to show either a very weak or very strong hand. You end up with 4 minor raises.

Can you explain this a bit more? I don't understand what is the suit being transfered to

here. Thanks

[Fluffy]

My partner bid 3♣ here and when dummy went down I thought the hand was far too strong, we missed a good game. I have to take responsibility for not bidding again, I was incorrectly thinking 3♣ was much weaker than this. When we were discussing the hand later he said 3m is 5 card support, 8or less HCP which seems to be the standard definition. Still, I consider this hand stronger as do most people who responded.

 

Not only am I having to remember agreements but now I need to take notice and remember styles. My partners bidding in relation to my own style, is aggressive in some sequences and then timid in others. Normal of course but I'm afraid that I am running out of brain cells to store all this.  :)

For what it's worth I agree this hand is not a weakish 3club bid.

 

If 1nt shows 8-10 and a balanced hand without a 4 card major, why invent bids?

 

This just seems like another in a long line of hands, do we bid constructive or do we try and steal. :)

I don't know what you are showing with 2♣ or 3♣ but it seems clear you have a range in between where you have no bid. This is not playable.

[kenberg]

Avery,

 

I'll explain the way I have used it:

 

1C-3C is very weak. Partner will bid over this only if very shapely and then it is apt to be as a further preempt.

 

1C-2C is forcing, at least a limit raise and maybe much more.

 

1C-2D is in between. It shows clubs, too weak to bid 2C, too strong for 3C. For example, the hand shown at the beginning of this thread.

 

Similar remarks apply to 1D-2D, 1D-3D, and 1D-3C.

 

What I understand Winston to be saying is that you could make the 1C-2D to be a dual meaning bid, either very weak or very strong, but still showing clubs. So 1C-3C would be on something like the hand given bu jillybean, 1C-2D would be at one extreme or the other.

 

As you can see, the dburn suggestion is different: 1C-2D is either a weak club hand or a strong diamond hand. Even 1D-3C, although it takes a lot more room, could be played this way. Opener expects the weak hand and bids 3D expecting a pass. If responder has the strong club hand, he doesn't pass.

 

I have played the single meaning version of this at various times. It has merit and the dual meanig version (either one of them) no doubt is an improvement. My emotional predilection is not to use artificial bids unless they are really needed, and I generally find I can do without these. But I play them upon request.

[Gerben42]

The misunderstanding was exactly as Fred had suggested: Opener thought he was supposed to pass with 18 balanced, whereas responder expected partner to bid 3NT with that. With a pickup partner, I would bid 3NT with 18-19 balanced and expect to make it.

 

To everyone who brought in their favourite gadgets: This is not the place for them!

 

Point 1: You do not need a singleton for 1♣ - 3♣!

Point 2: Gadgets exist, but you can win the world championship without them.

Point 3: Kathryn, try to avoid playing different things with different partners. I know that's impossible, but in some situations, they should adjust and not you.

[Winstonm]

I have, at times, played 1C-2D as a club raise giving three ways to raise clubs. It has merit, as 1C-3C can now be real crap while 2D shows less than 2C but some decent values. I prefer the natural (and strong) 2D. But I play this version of criss-cross raises if a partner likes them. As Codo says, tastes differ. You can be playing either way and get a hand where you wish you were playing the other way.

 

Ken - Here's a thought - play crisscross (2D/3C) as a transfer to show either a very weak or very strong hand. You end up with 4 minor raises.

Can you explain this a bit more? I don't understand what is the suit being transfered to

here. Thanks

Sure.

 

Crisscross (2D over 1C opening or 3C over 1D) is normally used as an artificial raise of the opened minor. Instead, term them transfers - 2D=3C and 3C=3D.

 

The one thing a transfer does is force a response - therefore the one who forces the transfer can bid again, so he can show two different had types.

 

My thinking would be this - using inverted minors and crisscross transfers:

 

Single raise = limit or game force, forcing one round

Jump raise = 6-8

Crisscross transfer = weak 0-5 (transfer and pass) or a slam try (Bid a control or possibly short suit after the transfer is accepted.)

[P_Marlowe]

If 1nt shows 8-10 and a balanced hand without a 4 card major, why invent bids?

This isnt the limit of a 1nt response in 2/1 is it?

It is.

 

The point is, that the 1NT in the discussed seq. occurres after

a minor suit opening.

Even playing 2/1 2NT would show 11-12 bal., unless you play

something art., a minor suit raise, what do I know.

 

Forcing NT gets only played after major suit openings.

 

One example, where this is partially relevant is

 

1D - 2C

 

an ugly start of an auction, and at least some play that

2C is not gf, even if they play that 2/1 response after any

other start is forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

I don't know if this is on-topic or not, but I happen to agree quite strongly with Jeff Rubens of The Bridge World that inverted minors should include hands of 4-card support. This makes a hand like xxx, KQx, xxx, KQxx easier to bid. It also helps with the 1m-2NT question, allowing that bid to resume its 12-14 or 13-15 forcing role.

 

My suggestion in Bridge World was to use 1m-2m-2NT the same way we would use

a 1N rebid - balanced minimum and that's all it says - nothing about which suits are stopped. Therefore, a balanced minimum opposite a balanced minimum could stop in 2N in my structure.

 

1C-2C

2N-P

[kenberg]

Inverted minors are probably, on balance, a plus but they have been around for something like forty years and people still seem to be searching for the best way to handle them.

 

A partner and I had also decided at one point to play that 1m-2m could sometimes be on 4. We had our reasons but I think I will restrain myself here.

 

Anyway, taking Fred's comments to heart is a really good idea. 1m-3m cannot be played as maybe very weak and maybe just under 1m-2m. There are a variety of ways of following up on this fact as is apparent from the posts. My own preference, with at least the merit of simplicity, is to pass the very weak hands so that 1m-3m invites 3N with a balanced 18 count.

[qwery_hi]

To make sure that I understand this correctly, I'll try and recap what I got from this thread.

 

After 1♣ -

1D : could be 6-7 HCP balanced or diamonds.

1NT : 8-10 HCP, no 4 major, balanced / semi-balanced.

2♣ :

   I. 11+ HCP , 4+ clubs

   II. 6-7 HCP hands unsuitable for 1D

   III. 8-10 HCP hands unsuitable for 1NT.

2♦ : Transfer to 3♣, and then :

   I. pass = 0-6 HCP, 5+ clubs

   II. other responses show GF with 5+ clubs.

2NT : 11-12 exactly 3-3-4-3

3NT : 13-15 exactly 3-3-4-3

 

Note that the hands with less than 10 HCP in the 2♣ will almost always have 5+ clubs.

[Gerben42]

If you want a complete natural scheme:

 

1♣ - ?

 

1♦ = 4+♦ (either 5+♦ or 10+ HCP)

1♥♠ = 4+card, 4♦ 4M possible.

1NT = 6 - 9, no 4-card major, may have 4♦.

2♣ = 10+, 4+♣ (can be 4 cards if balanced 10-12, or some 16+ hands perhaps)

2♦♥♠ = 6 - 9, 6-card suit (or Strong Jump Shifts if you play that - this however is not part of my "beginner" system" because it violates the first principle of staying low with good hands)

2NT = 13 - 15, balanced without 4-card major

3♣ = 6 - 9, 5+♣

3NT = Does not exist

 

No doubt this is not "standard", but it is simple, natural and it works.

[RichMor]

Suggestion: Define the range of 3C in terms of what partner is expected to do if he holds 18-19 balanced.

 

It is fine if you decide 3C means "I want you to Pass with 18-19 balanced".

 

It is fine if you decide 3C means "I want you to bid 3NT with 18-19 balanced".

 

But it can only mean one of these things - it is not fine if opener doesn't know what to do whenever he has 18-19 balanced.

 

Once you and your partner have made this decision, you won't have as much trouble deciding when to bid 3C.

 

Whatever you decide, you will likely sometimes judge to "psych" a 3C bid on some hands that are slightly out of range (for tactical reasons and/or for lack of a better alternative).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This explanation also agrees with the original K-S (weak 1 NT) definition of an inverted double raise: a hand that should not make game facing an expected 15 to 17 HCP.