Inverted minors problem

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&n=sathj8djt8732cak8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp2ddp2h]133|200[/hv]

 

Partner opens 1D (could be 3 if 4432 shape only) and you bid 2D, inverted, forcing for 1 round, to 3D.

 

What do you call here?

[dkham]

To keep 3NT as an option I'd try 3♣.

[ahydra]

3H (ask stop)

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Weak/strong no trump ? ie if it's 4432 what's the range ? What's the agreement on partner's pass, does he bid 3♦ with most bad hands ? Do we have some form of good/bad 2N available ?

 

I'm going to bid clubs or look for a heart stop for 3N but knowledge of the rest of the system would help as to how I do so.

[RMB1]

3♣ or 3♦ or 3♥ depending.

 

I was going to ask:

Weak/strong no trump ? ie if it's 4432 what's the range ? What's the agreement on partner's pass, does he bid 3♦ with most bad hands ? Do we have some form of good/bad 2N available ?

[mr1303]

We play strong NT. Over 1D P 2D P, partner would normally bid a stopper, or no trumps with all other suits stopped, or 3D with an unbalanced minimum, or something else sensible. 3H/3S/4C would be splinters (although obviously 4C would be rare).

 

You have no specific agreement after the double, but you can assume something similar (with xx being some strongish hand looking for a penalty).

[CamHenry]

We play strong NT. Over 1D P 2D P, partner would normally bid a stopper, or no trumps with all other suits stopped, or 3D with an unbalanced minimum, or something else sensible. 3H/3S/4C would be splinters (although obviously 4C would be rare).

 

You have no specific agreement after the double, but you can assume something similar (with xx being some strongish hand looking for a penalty).

 

In that case, partner's pass sounds like it's a balanced minimum (as he'd show a stopper or a secondary suit if he had one, and XX with a big hand). The method I like here is "notional Lebensohl" - assume the auction has been 1NT - (2H) - ?, but you have some additional information. In this method, I bid 2NT, then 3NT after partner bids 3C. I think that describes my hand quite nicely. Unfortunately, if you haven't discussed partner's pass after the double, this looks like a bit of a risk(!).

 

I've still got enough values that I want to play 3NT if there's a heart stop around, and without discussion I'd expect 3♥ to ask for one. The risk is that partner takes this as showing a stopper, but bridge logic seems to say "if I had a heart stopper I'd bid it to protect the tenaces/minor honours". In particular, since I have Jx rather than Jxx, I don't want to play 3NT this side.

 

If partner denies a heart stop, I probably subside in 4♦. We're likely to be missing two cashing hearts, and the odds of partner having enough top diamonds, spade king and there being no slow black loser are slim.

[blackshoe]

I got rid of the double and triple posts. B-)

 

I'm with Cyber on those questions. Given the answers, I'd bid 3♥, asking for a stopper. Don't play Lebensohl here, although that's a good idea.

[Cyberyeti]

We play strong NT. Over 1D P 2D P, partner would normally bid a stopper, or no trumps with all other suits stopped, or 3D with an unbalanced minimum, or something else sensible. 3H/3S/4C would be splinters (although obviously 4C would be rare).

 

You have no specific agreement after the double, but you can assume something similar (with xx being some strongish hand looking for a penalty).

I missed one question, does the inverted raise deny 4M ? I'm guessing the bidding of stops suggests it does.

 

I agree with CamHenry pass should be a balanced minimum if 4M is denied by the raise, otherwise you might bid 2♠ with 4.

 

That said what do I do now ? Probably 3♥ GF looking for stop, but it's far from certain 3N is the right spot if the diamonds don't run, give partner Kxx, Axx, KQxxx, xx and 5♦ is cold but 3N isn't.

[the_clown]

3♣ looks best, over 3♦, I would bid 3♠ showing a stop and denying a ♥ stop.

 

Over 3♣ partner should bid stoppers or 3♦ if he is min.

[TimG]

2♦ was not alerted (or described properly)? I'm with the others in driving past 3♦. There is probably a case for stopping in 4♦ if there is no heart stopper, but I think I'd take a shot at 5♦.

[helene_t]

Since this is the laws forum, maybe the issue is whether it is safe to assume that pass would be forcing? In that case, maybe pass is an LA.

[mr1303]

Ah ha

 

Some of you have started to twig that this is a ruling issue.

 

Partner did alert 2D, but when asked he explained that he couldn't remember whether or not the partnership were playing inverted minors or not.

 

I was wondering, given the UI suggests not bidding 3D (since partner will probably pass this bid), is bidding 3D an LA.

 

What actually happened was that the player holding this hand bid 3D, then after 3H by LHO and another pass from partner, this hand bid 4D which ended the auction.

[WellSpyder]

given the UI suggests not bidding 3D (since partner will probably pass this bid), is bidding 3D an LA.

Given that the UI suggests NOT bidding 3D, why does it matter whether or not 3D is a LA? If the bidder did not choose a bid suggested by the UI, then that is the end of it. (There might be an issue if the UI suggests 3D over pass, and pass is an LA, but I'm not sure about either think in that chain....)

[Finch]

I don't understand why the UI either suggests or doesn't suggest bidding 3D. Unless we are playing inverted raises as game forcing (an uncommon agreement in the UK), 3D is not forcing whether or not 2D was inverted.

[kenrexford]

IMO, bidding 3♦ was incredible active ethics. A cue or a call of 3♣ (latter being my preference) stand out. 3♦ is way weak, non-forcing, and clearly the ethical call, IMO.

[TimG]

IMO, bidding 3♦ was incredible active ethics. A cue or a call of 3♣ (latter being my preference) stand out. 3♦ is way weak, non-forcing, and clearly the ethical call, IMO.

 

I don't know why you would call it incredibly active ethics to make a NF call when you have a hand that is worth a GF (or at least a hand that would drive past 3♦).

 

I can understand your point if you think 3♦ would normally be forcing after an inverted 2♦, but NF opposite a non-inverted 2♦.

[kenrexford]

I don't know why you would call it incredibly active ethics to make a NF call when you have a hand that is worth a GF (or at least a hand that would drive past 3♦).

 

I can understand your point if you think 3♦ would normally be forcing after an inverted 2♦, but NF opposite a non-inverted 2♦.

 

 

I am looking at the heart of the person making the call. If a minor suit game requires 28 points (textbook range) and if partner has 11+ HCP, we end up about 2-4 point shy of 5♦. With only J-x in their suit, and partner passing, 3NT looks reasonably remote. Thus, deciding that not making great noise is a reasonable alternative is perhaps overboard but certainly honorable.

[lalldonn]

Obviously 3♦ is not an LA. I would choose them from between 2♠, 3♣, and 3♥. I can't really imagine anything but those.

[gnasher]

Obviously 3♦ is not an LA. I would choose them from between 2♠, 3♣, and 3♥. I can't really imagine anything but those.

I can imagine passing. In fact, I'd almost certainly choose that on the unpolluted auction.

 

It's a convenient way of finding out whether partner has a heart stop, and I can show my club values on the next round. It seems natural that a direct 3♣ shows a second suit, whereas a delayed 3♣ shows a stopper. Similarly, an immediate 2♠ ought to show more concentration, like AKx.

 

If pass is an LA, it's also the one least suggested by the UI.

[lalldonn]

I would not have considered pass an LA either, notwithstanding you choosing it. You state spades shows concentration but clubs shows a suit, which I don't think is a normal distinction to make between the two unbid suits. I would also think you are screwed if the next hand bids 3♥ as you have not yet shown anything at all beyond the 2♦ bid. You will have to double then, or bid 3♠, neither of which sounds like this hand with 6 card support and club concentration. I just don't see the point.

 

Of course it doesn't matter what I think of it if enough other people would consider or choose it or whatever the law says. However I doubt many would choose it, and I really doubt any would choose it or even think of it among the class of players who don't know what 1♦ p 2♦ means in their system.

[gnasher]

I would not have considered pass an LA either, notwithstanding you choosing it. You state spades shows concentration but clubs shows a suit, which I don't think is a normal distinction to make between the two unbid suits. I would also think you are screwed if the next hand bids 3♥ as you have not yet shown anything at all beyond the 2♦ bid. You will have to double then, or bid 3♠, neither of which sounds like this hand with 6 card support and club concentration. I just don't see the point.

My idea was that we can have four or five clubs, but we can't have four spades. AKx is near to a maximum spade holding, but not near to a maximum club holding.

 

If they raised to 3♥, I would bid 3♠. This is starting to sound a bit Rexfordian, but presumably that shows (1) game-forcing values, (2) spades not good enough to bid on the previous round and (3) too many diamonds to make a penalty double. Something like what I've got, in fact.

 

I agree that this analysis may not be relevant to the actual ruling, though players of all standards can forget their methods.

[lalldonn]

I agree that this analysis may not be relevant to the actual ruling, though players of all standards can forget their methods.

What is the most highly-ranked player (in whatever terms you prefer) that you think would forget something as basic in his system as what 1♦ p 2♦ shows?

[gnasher]

What is the most highly-ranked player (in whatever terms you prefer) that you think would forget something as basic in his system as what 1♦ p 2♦ shows?

At least as high as me. I'm certainly capable of temporarily forgetting my system, and inverted minors aren't ubiquitous in England (which is where the original poster plays).

 

A few days ago one of my opponents forgot that 1♣-1x(transfer)-1NT showed 18-20 balanced. That was a player who has represented England at junior level.

 

In any case, we're talking about the partner of the forgetter, aren't we? Good players sometimes play in scratch partnerships, or in partnerships of uneven strength.

[lalldonn]

It's not so much that inverted minors are something everyone plays as much as it is that it's on the convention card (or is it not in England?) Opener's rebids generally aren't so of course one is more likely to forget those.

 

In any case, we're talking about the partner of the forgetter, aren't we? Good players sometimes play in scratch partnerships, or in partnerships of uneven strength.

If your partner isn't a good player and you are then you definitely don't want to pass. It would be totally impractical, they might even pass it out.