inverting 1s 1nt response to a heart

[awm]

Adam why can't you play it with kaplan inversion? Just have the rebids be transfers around clubs with 2♣ natural.

I think you're misunderstanding some things. The issues are:

 

(1) Under this method, opener's 1NT=♦ rebid is mostly forcing, because it could be a very unbalanced hand. So we would not be able to play 1NT in your style, whereas my non-forcing 1NT response allows me to bid 1♥-1NT pass, meaning I am only unable to play 1NT when responder has spades.

 

(2) I'm not interested in raising spades after 1♥-1♠*(forcing notrump). I'm interested in raising spades after responder shows spades! But after 1♥-1NT*(spades) I need my 2♦ rebid as natural. It's 1♥-1♠ where I have the extra step.

 

(3) The forcing notrump type response is normally limited to less than game force. So the auction 1♥-(forcing notrump)-2♦ natural is not problematic. However, the auction 1♥-(shows spades)-2♦ is problematic, because responder could easily have a game force. Playing Kaplan Inversion, we'd have 1♥-1NT*(spades) and then opener rebids 2♦ and we're stuck with 3♣ game force.

 

(4) The issue I referred to is that opposite a light opening there are potentially two invitational ranges. There is the 13-14 invite (would GF opposite a "real" opening bid, but not when we open lots of random 9-counts) and the 11-12 invite (normal invite). My approach to this involves playing non GF 2/1 bids, such that 1M-(2/1)-(rebid)-2M/2NT shows the 13-14 invite, whereas 1M-1NT is only semi-forcing and the 11-12 invite bids on over opener's rebid (if any; also this rebid can also be 2M since we usually pass the opener with less than 8 or so and doubleton support). However, this does not help in the auctions where responder has spades, because the spade-showing response is 100% forcing and contains both types of invites plus some game forcing hands. In other words, again there is a problem with 1♥-(shows spades)-(rebid in a minor) because responder can have either invite or a GF, whereas the analogous "forcing notrump" sequences include only the weaker invite.

 

(5) ACBL General Chart rules are annoying.

[jdonn]

1 is just trading advantages (your way can't show flannery hands when responder doesn't have spades), 2 is a complete diversion, and 4 doesn't matter to me. But 3 is definitely true and 5 has to be considered in practice. I may try to think this out more sometime.

[awm]

Well I'm not sure how (2) is a complete diversion.

 

I think that after 1♥-(shows spades), having two different raises to two spades is a massive win. This lets me stop at the two-level frequently where others might've made an aggressive raise to 3♠ and had partner pass, or where others might've tried an aggressive game try after the raise to 2♠ and found opener with a bad hand. Playing 2♠ instead of 3♠ is a huge winner at both MP and IMPs. People even come in and get hammered sometimes because we can pass out 2♠ with just a bit short of game values.

 

As for the flannery-type hands, the semi-forcing notrump leaves me pretty happy bidding 1♥-1NT pass on a high percentage of these. So I'm not sure this is just trading advantages.

 

I agree that (4) is irrelevant if you're not opening super-light, and that (5) is irrelevant if you don't live in ACBL-land (or if you play exclusively mid-chart events).

[jdonn]

Well there are other advantages to kaplan inversion. My point is I was just wondering if there is a good reason that it wouldn't work to play both at once. You would give up certain advantages of one method and gain certain advantages of the other. 1 and 2 just list some of the advantages given up which doesn't really show anything.

[gwnn]

lol Frederick, now there are 3-4 americans who hate you :P, nevermind, you are not alone, they hate me as well :)

Some of them have hated me for years, so I might as well use that to my advantage ;)

Just for the record: I don't like what I've heard and read about the way ACBL works.

Only reply to posts that are not awkward to reply to! That's how I work too sometimes, it works admirably. :)