Consensus?

[Cyberyeti]

Are you sure it is a 4-4 fit ?

Opener may only be bidding "stoppers" up-the-line on the 2-level.

If Opener is required to have a 4 card Major to bid 2M, what does he do on the 2-level without a 4 card major ? Normally, 2NT would show stops in BOTH majors.

Of course I am, we don't bid stoppers, a suit is a suit.

 

We play a weak no trump, so either he opened a weak no trump or he bids 2N (15+ bal after which bids are stops) or 3♣ (no extras guaranteed 5-4) or 3♦ 6 diamonds weak.

 

As an aside over 1♣-2♣ we play 2♦ as the ask which makes handling 4M even easier.

[gordontd]

Only one I remember:

 

AQx

Qxx

Qxxx

Kx

 

Kx

x

AKJTxx

Axxx

 

N opened 1D; I bid 3H; it went down.

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

Presumably you got an artificial adjusted score because of the misboard?

[gordontd]

I have a feeling this topic has been discussed and rediscussed many times.

 

Here is a quote from a respected expert ( another Message Board from 2005 ):

 

"1D-2D! denies a 4-card major and ... there is NO REASON to play it otherwise.

If you play it could have a 4-card major, then you will confuse the auction trying to checkback for a 4-4 major fit.

Whereas, if you have a 4-card major, you bid it first, and if no fit is found, use 4th Suit GF and next raise Opener's minor to establish the minor suit fit. You will probably still be at a lower level than ( you would ) otherwise. So, it is counter productive to allow the single raise to have a 4-card major."

It's entirely playable in a weak-NT system (because a 2NT rebid is game-forcing) to allow a 4cM in a forcing minor-suit raise.

 

That you produce a six-year-old quotation from an un-named expert from an un-named place doesn't alter this.

[Finch]

I have a feeling this topic has been discussed and rediscussed many times.

 

Here is a quote from a respected expert ( another Message Board from 2005 ):

 

"1D-2D! denies a 4-card major and ... there is NO REASON to play it otherwise.

If you play it could have a 4-card major, then you will confuse the auction trying to checkback for a 4-4 major fit.

Whereas, if you have a 4-card major, you bid it first, and if no fit is found, use 4th Suit GF and next raise Opener's minor to establish the minor suit fit. You will probably still be at a lower level than ( you would ) otherwise. So, it is counter productive to allow the single raise to have a 4-card major."

 

Let me paraphrase this quote: If you play it could have a 4-card major you will confuse the auction if you don't have solid agreements.

It's facile to say you can "use 4th suit GF" because (i) after, say, 1C - 1H - 2C there isn't a fourth suit and you have to invent another suit first, and (ii) after, say, 1D - 1S - 2C - 2H you might be lucky and partner bids at a minimum level, but even then you haven't distinguished between 3-card and 4-card diamond support. Or after 1C - 1H - 1NT, how do you tell partner you have 5-card club support easily?

 

FWIW we play that: 1m - 3M is a void splinter (it doesn't come up much, but it's useful when it does, and the pre-emptive 3M bid is also pretty rare)

We play that an inverted raise can have a 4-card major if responder is potentially interested in slam, particularly with 5-card support for the minor.

 

We don't have the problem that we "don't know" if we have a fit, because we don't bid stoppers up the line - this has always struck me as a pretty stupid method. We play 1C - 2C - 2D as artificial, including all weak NTs (with artificial continuations), and 1C - 2C - 2M as natural unbalanced.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

OK, OK....

I agree that whatever you play "you need solid agreements" as Frances said.

 

So, here is another quote -- this time from the "Coaches Corner" of Pitbulls ...but this one is in favor of your side of the argument:

 

"Some people play Inverted Minors DENIES a 4 card major. This is wrong , very WRONG. If you want to force to game and have 5 or more of partners suit , make an inverted minor rather than bid your 4 card major. No amount of arguments will ever convince me you can play “catch up “ to describe hands like xx AKxx AKxxx xx when you respond a heart to a partners diamond opener. You must go into contortions with 4th suit forcing and partner never gets a clear picture of your hand. Result usually is 3NT instead of +1370."

[kenrexford]

Let me paraphrase this quote: If you play it could have a 4-card major you will confuse the auction if you don't have solid agreements.

It's facile to say you can "use 4th suit GF" because (i) after, say, 1C - 1H - 2C there isn't a fourth suit and you have to invent another suit first, and (ii) after, say, 1D - 1S - 2C - 2H you might be lucky and partner bids at a minimum level, but even then you haven't distinguished between 3-card and 4-card diamond support. Or after 1C - 1H - 1NT, how do you tell partner you have 5-card club support easily?

 

FWIW we play that: 1m - 3M is a void splinter (it doesn't come up much, but it's useful when it does, and the pre-emptive 3M bid is also pretty rare)

We play that an inverted raise can have a 4-card major if responder is potentially interested in slam, particularly with 5-card support for the minor.

 

We don't have the problem that we "don't know" if we have a fit, because we don't bid stoppers up the line - this has always struck me as a pretty stupid method. We play 1C - 2C - 2D as artificial, including all weak NTs (with artificial continuations), and 1C - 2C - 2M as natural unbalanced.

 

I cannot agree with this paragraph more. The idiot idea of stoppers up-the-line implies somehow that agreement on a minor means that we are headed to 3NT, period, as long as we have stoppers. That's so mundane. As a result, in a discussed partnership, I do something very similar. Waitings with many hands, bids with unbalanced hands, etc. Makes finding major fits very plausible.

[JLOGIC]

BUT WHAT ABOUT STOPPERS?????????

[TWO4BRIDGE]

BUT WHAT ABOUT STOPPERS?????????

Good question.

 

I don't know if the "modified" Inverted ( does NOT deny 4 cds M ) posters here play the Kokish version.

 

With Kokish, only ONE side of the table is allowed to explore for 4-4 fits -- namely the Responder.

That means the Opener can bid a Major suit "stopper" at the 2-level, suppressing for the moment that he may have a 4 card Major.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT:

@ Ken.... Why don't you tells us how you really feel about showing stoppers "up-the-line " .

Edited October 15, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[Cyberyeti]

Good question.

 

I don't know if the "modified" Inverted ( does NOT deny 4 cds M ) posters here play the Kokish version.

 

With Kokish, only ONE side of the table is allowed to explore for 4-4 fits -- namely the Responder.

That means the Opener can bid a Major suit "stopper" at the 2-level, suppressing for the moment that he may have a 4 card Major.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT:

@ Ken.... Why don't you tells us how you really feel about showing stoppers "up-the-line " .

We certainly don't. Some auctions are clearly stops eg 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♥ is a heart stop with no club stop as opener denied 4 hearts when he bid 2♠, but most of the time suits are natural.

[gnasher]

I agree with Ken.

 

(I agree with Frances too, but that seems rather less noteworthy.)

[Finch]

BUT WHAT ABOUT STOPPERS?????????

 

Don't tell anyone, but with a balanced 13-count opposite a balanced 13-count and no 8-card major suit fit, we're usually prepared to try 3NT without confirming we have every suit stopped first.

I sometimes open 1NT without every suit stopped too.

[kenrexford]

Stoppers are for losers.

 

Actually, I find some auctions rather humorous...

 

Opener: I have diamonds.

Responder: Me too.

Opener: Let's see what the opponents should lead. I think a heart would be a bad idea for them.

Responder: I think a club might be a bad idea; I'm thinking they should lead a spade.

Opener: I have a partial stopper in spades -- what exact honor should they lead to kill your spade ten?

Responder: Maybe try the Jack as a surrounding play?

[jmcw]

Stoppers are for losers.

 

Actually, I find some auctions rather humorous...

 

Opener: I have diamonds.

Responder: Me too.

Opener: Let's see what the opponents should lead. I think a heart would be a bad idea for them.

Responder: I think a club might be a bad idea; I'm thinking they should lead a spade.

Opener: I have a partial stopper in spades -- what exact honor should they lead to kill your spade ten?

Responder: Maybe try the Jack as a surrounding play?

 

OK try this

1♦ I have ♦

2♦ Me too.

3NT I'm more or less balanced

P

Down 3 and we're cold for 5♦

 

P.S. Splinter

[the hog]

Anybody who is anybody DENIES a 4 card major with an inverted minor raise.

 

NO this is not correct. While for me it certainly does deny a 4 card M, I have played against a number of very good pairs for whom it does not.

Btw. In answer to the original question - splinter for me.

[kenrexford]

OK try this

1♦ I have ♦

2♦ Me too.

3NT I'm more or less balanced

P

Down 3 and we're cold for 5♦

 

P.S. Splinter

 

OK, try this:

 

1NT (I'm more or less balanced)

3NT (me too)

 

Down 3 and we're cold for 5♦.

[jmcw]

OK, try this:

 

1NT (I'm more or less balanced)

3NT (me too)

 

Down 3 and we're cold for 5♦.

 

Push

Next board :)

[aguahombre]

Push

Next board :)

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

 

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

[Zelandakh]

I play another option that noone has mentioned yet, 1D - 3M as a fit jump with 4+ diamonds, a good 5+ in the major and GF strength. Of the other possibilities I think preemptive is better than a simple splinter but Frances' void splinter appeals alot more. Whatever you choose it needs to be some kind of highly defined picture bid imho.

[Cyberyeti]

I play another option that noone has mentioned yet, 1D - 3M as a fit jump with 4+ diamonds, a good 5+ in the major and GF strength. Of the other possibilities I think preemptive is better than a simple splinter but Frances' void splinter appeals alot more. Whatever you choose it needs to be some kind of highly defined picture bid imho.

I play 2♠ as this (or the one suited rock crusher).

[kenrexford]

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

 

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

 

Actually, there is another idea out there. That is, the ENTIRE game need not be about stoppers.

 

The hyperbolic point that was made earlier, not intending to be hyperbolic, was that all calls after a minor is raised are notrump probes or cues. That seems like a joke, but it turned out to be intentional.

 

By the same token, pointing out that not even worrying about stoppers at all is playable was meant to illustrate the opposing point of view, namely that perhaps the overkill is there when your sole focus is on stoppers. Shape also is important, as unbalanced hands produce more slams generally and may offers better conditions for Moysian fits.

 

All in all, though, zooming 3NT contracts certainly have something to be said for them in these sequences, where neither opponent has felt the need or ability to introduce any suits. The simple raise is very parallel to:

 

1♦-P-1NT-P-3NT

1♦-P-2NT-P-3NT

1♦-P-1NT-P-2NT-P-3NT

 

In all of these three situations, I doubt many if any would treat new suit calls in the midst of all this as checkbacks for stoppers. Even if you did, I doubt many if any would be able to describe the last time that came up reliably.

 

So, why all of the probing nonsense after minor raises?

[Free]

I've heard many claiming they never never never have a 4 card Major, but I've seen some of them do it anyway on extreme hands. A nice example was xxxx-A-A-AKQxxxx and his partner opened 1♣... I was kibitzing at the table, so I didn't have to make a choice, but I think it has merit to raise instead of bidding 1♠, especially if partner likes to raise on a 3 card suit.

[Finch]

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

 

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

 

Some people agree with you that it's cheating to get to 3NT without a stop. Look at page 15 from this bulletin from Poznan: Bullein

Our opponents "correctly" found out that they had no diamond stop and played in a zero percent 5♣ contract.

We found out we were balanced opposite balanced (2♦, 2♥ and 3♣ were all alerted and artificial) and played in 3NT which was at least a 60% contract in spite of having no diamond stop, and gained 11 imps for our pains.

[han]

Indeed a well deserved pickup Frances! Strange pass by your counterpart on the next hand by the way, where you made the (to me) normal looking 2C overcall.

 

After 1C - p - 2C, your partner's 2D bid showed a 12-14 balanced hand, correct? What was 2H?

[pooltuna]

True. So, now we have at least two auctions (opening NT and inverted minor) where, for fear of giving information to the opponents, we don't exchange useful information...and roll the dice.

 

I propose a game, not called Bridge, where we are given the final contract and everyting is dependent upon the blind defense and declarer play.

 

 

Knowing when to do one or the other is called judgement :)

[nige1]

The efficient, up-to-date approach is some variation of Minor-Suit Swiss (One of Eric Crowhurst's many brilliant suggestions in Precision Bidding in Acol 1974): A jump to three of a major is a kind of fit-jump. It shows game-going values with four cards in the bid major and support for opener's minor.

• In natural systems (like Acol), four-card support for the minor suffices.
• In artificial systems (like 2/1) where a minor opener could be Canapé with as few as three cards, it might be better to insist on five cards in opener's minor :)
• If you allow an inverted minor-raise to include a four-card major then you can insist that the jump shows at least five of the bid major (as weil as support for opener's minor). That is the treatment I prefer..