Explaining inverted raises

[barmar]

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19. In fact, if you ask something about whether it could be limit raise strength, they will look at you as if you come from a different planet, because "that's not what inverted means". OTOH, that does give me a small advantage when I bid invm (you know, unless they ask...)

In D25 it generally means limit+.

 

There have been threads in rec.games.bridge and General Bridge Forum (and possibly other forums here that I don't read) where some posters have opined that invm w/4cM is playable and even preferable (the main issue being what bids in the major show after the raise -- most play that they just show controlled suits looking for NT, but this requires showing suits naturally). But I don't think I've ever played with anyone who plays that way in real life.

[bluejak]

If you are really not clear on what "inverted" means that's one thing, but assuming you really know what they mean and are just trying to teach them a lesson, I think that is a waste of everyone's time. Do you really do that?

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

 

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

 

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

 

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

[barmar]

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

 

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

 

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

 

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

Are you happy to know that if we ever played together we wouldn't have to spend much time discussing our inverted minor style?

[lalldonn]

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

 

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

 

I rebid 2NT to show a minimum with stops, may be passed. I was flabbergasted by someone in the ACBL who told me only an idiot plays that. Not because he was rude to me - there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically - but because until then I assumed everyone played that.

 

So, you may know what inverted means when an opponent says it, but I don't.

I think the greater problem is you don't seem to know what "if" means. Please combine my first phrase in the quoted post (prior to the comma) with your third sentence in the reply, and then you should realize that everything else you wrote was unnecessary.

 

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[barmar]

But never mind that. You obviously didn't read the context in which the comment was made. Blackshoe has made it clear that after opponents 'explain' by naming their convention he routinely asks them just to teach them some sort of lesson ("maybe one day they'll learn"), not because he actually needs more information to make his next decision. I'm sure he is well meaning but I find that behavior pretty obnoxious. It's not the job of a player to go around slowing down the game on a mission to to fix every technicality that bugs him and educate the world, even if he is also a director. Rationalizing by saying they are wasting the time instead of him is not true. He is the one asking a question he doesn't need the answer to.

It's called "passive-aggression". It may be a popular way to entertain oneself, but I think it rarely works as a teaching method.

[barmar]

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I think what he's saying is that when someone describes a bid as "inverted minors", they're implicitly describing that bid PLUS many of the followon sequences. Just as describing 1NT-2♣ as "Stayman" explains what responder's next bid means, and similarly with Blackwood and its variants. These terms don't just name individual bids, they name a collection of sequences and understandings that are included in that convention.

[Siegmund]

@mycroft:

 

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It is true that the first player I ever met who played it as GF is from District 19. I have even been asked to play it that way by one or two pickup partners in the last couple years. But in AK/ID/MT/UT I would say inv+ is the large majority method, and is certainly what I would assume when hearing an alert. I would not be surprised to learn that GF is popular in BC. I couldn't say what is popular in Seattle and Portland now (but up until 2005 it was inv+ there too.)

 

I guess I am glad it didn't come up when I was at your table last month!

 

***

 

Returning to the main thread, with the 4-way poll:

 

I would say 1 is the technically correct answer, but 2 has an element of truth in that failing to say "denies a 4CM" will rarely cause a problem and failing to say "may include a 4CM" will often cause a problem.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe has made it clear that after opponents 'explain' by naming their convention he routinely asks them just to teach them some sort of lesson ("maybe one day they'll learn"), not because he actually needs more information to make his next decision. I'm sure he is well meaning but I find that behavior pretty obnoxious. It's not the job of a player to go around slowing down the game on a mission to to fix every technicality that bugs him and educate the world, even if he is also a director. Rationalizing by saying they are wasting the time instead of him is not true. He is the one asking a question he doesn't need the answer to.

If that's what you got out of what I said, then clearly I wasn't clear. When someone "explains" his partnership agreement by naming a convention, I know how I understand that convention to work (if it's one that I know), but I don't know how he understands it to work. Since the latter is what I am entitled to know, and what he is required to tell me, I ask for further information. I may hope that others will do the same, and that some day, this player will understand, just from the fact that people keep asking, that his initial naming of the convention is not adequate, but that is by no means my primary purpose in asking. I'm not "on a mission to fix" anything, I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm not asking questions to which I don't need the answer, it is true that the player who provides inadequate explanations is wasting time, whatever you think, and I really don't appreciate your attributing to me attitudes and motives that just aren't mine.

[Zelandakh]

First of all, the entire thread is about explaining 1m - 2m, so the meanings of the other bids doesn't matter. If someone plays it as at least a limit raise then it is 'inverted' (which I agree is legally not an adequate explanation). If they play it as game forcing then it's not. The player who said he plays a single raise as forcing to game never said he is playing inverted minors.

A recent thread - I think I would trust explanations from the OP there more than the average club player. It shows that while you know what you mean by the term, what A.N.Other random person means by it might be somewhat different.

[bluejak]

Nor do you seem aware that we were discussing the auction 1m - 2m, not 1m - 2m - 2♠ or 2NT. It would be very creative for someone to explain either of those two bids as "inverted" but I have yet to come across such a thing, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

 

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

 

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

[WellSpyder]

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

 

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

 

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

It's called "passive-aggression". It may be a popular way to entertain oneself, but I think it rarely works as a teaching method.

 

:rolleyes:

[Zelandakh]

I think what he's saying is that when someone describes a bid as "inverted minors", they're implicitly describing that bid PLUS many of the followon sequences. Just as describing 1NT-2♣ as "Stayman" explains what responder's next bid means, and similarly with Blackwood and its variants. These terms don't just name individual bids, they name a collection of sequences and understandings that are included in that convention.

This seems to be a somewhat dangerous assumption. For example, do you think that the majority of players who explain "Stayman" play the sequence 1NT - 2♣; any - 3♣ as a natural weak takeout? Because that is the (original) meaning in Stayman. Similarly for inverted minors - can you tell me what the standard collection of sequences and understandings is for this? Because I have no idea. Another example is Jacoby 2NT - how many players saying this do you think promise 16+ hcp? Because that is the original form as I understand it. Similarly for rebids by Opener - jumps to show voids came well before jumps to show a side suit. So what is standard? Or does standard just mean what you think it is, regardless of whether Aunty Betty has ever heard of the changes to their favourite convention that they learned 60 years ago?

[lalldonn]

I am sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone by assuming they understood basic bridge. Allow me to explain.

 

The meaning of a 2♣ response to 1♣ is bound up in what can happen thereafter. If players can still find 4-4 major fits, then a 2♣ response shows a different hand from one where players cannot find 4-4 major fits. If a partnership can play in 2NT thereafter, 2♣ shows a different hand from one where the partnership cannot play in 2NT thereafter.

 

Sorry, this seemed so obvious I did not realise I had to spell it out.

Apology accepted, and don't worry, I won't rub it in that what seems so obvious to you is not the least bit relevant to the discussion that was being had. But your post did a great job of solving why the following incredible mystery occurs.

there seems an international agreement that people are allowed to be rude to me specifically

[lalldonn]

If that's what you got out of what I said, then clearly I wasn't clear. When someone "explains" his partnership agreement by naming a convention, I know how I understand that convention to work (if it's one that I know), but I don't know how he understands it to work. Since the latter is what I am entitled to know, and what he is required to tell me, I ask for further information. I may hope that others will do the same, and that some day, this player will understand, just from the fact that people keep asking, that his initial naming of the convention is not adequate, but that is by no means my primary purpose in asking. I'm not "on a mission to fix" anything, I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm not asking questions to which I don't need the answer, it is true that the player who provides inadequate explanations is wasting time, whatever you think, and I really don't appreciate your attributing to me attitudes and motives that just aren't mine.

I'm not attributing anything to you that you didn't say. These are your words.

"..as a player I tend to say "I don't know what that means, can you explain further, please?" Maybe some day they'll learn."

then later clarified to include

"It was a general statement. I do it whenever opps "explain" by naming a convention."

So you do it whenever your opponents explain a convention by naming it, regardless of what information you actually need to make your decision. That's what you said, you do it whenever they explain a convention by naming it! Now, if your opponents explains a 2♣ bid as "stayman" then you ask for more information, you don't consider that a waste of time? How has the opponent wasted time when the past 75 tables to whom he answered 'stayman' were satisfied with the explanation? If I can paraphrase bluejak from past statements, "we are trying to run a bridge game here".

[Phil]

Sometimes you have to read the fine print:

 

Tournament Director

SECTION ONE RESPONSIBILITIES

LAW 81 DUTIES AND POWERS

 

A. Official Status

The Director is the official representative of the sponsoring organization.

 

B. Restrictions and Responsibilities

 

1. Technical Management

The Director is responsible for the technical management of the tournament.

 

2. Observance of Laws and Regulations

The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organization.

 

C. Director's Duties and Powers

The Director's duties and powers normally include the following:

 

1. Assistants

to appoint assistants, as required, to perform his duties.

 

2. Entries

to accept and list entries.

 

3. Conditions of Play

to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants.

 

4. Discipline

to maintain discipline and to insure the orderly progress of the game.

 

5. Law

to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights in the most patronizing way possible and responsibilities thereunder.

 

6. Errors

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

[mycroft]

@mycroft:[re: inverted being limit+ or GF+]

 

I guess I am glad it didn't come up when I was at your table last month!

Nah, no worries. A) I'll tell you what 1♦-2♦ means (rather than "inverted"); B) you'd get it right, because *we* play it the sane way (but I'd say that, wouldn't I? Seriously, though, given the weak NT, "limit" means "GF unless you have the overstrength-weak 2.")

 

Was fun to play against you "last month" (took me a second to figure out what that meant, given that it was 12 days ago).

[bluejak]

Apology accepted, and don't worry, I won't rub it in that what seems so obvious to you is not the least bit relevant to the discussion that was being had. But your post did a great job of solving why the following incredible mystery occurs.

Of course it is relevant. I am just so sorry that I assumed people would know it was relevant without my having to explain in detail.

 

As to why people are rude to me, I was referring to at the table. I understand that after years of the normal rudeness on the internet my courtesy has worn very thin where people who are often offensive are surprised when people are offensive back.

 

But I still do not understand why people are allowed to be rude to me when I am playing, and then I am very courteous to opponents.

[barmar]

This seems to be a somewhat dangerous assumption. For example, do you think that the majority of players who explain "Stayman" play the sequence 1NT - 2♣; any - 3♣ as a natural weak takeout? Because that is the (original) meaning in Stayman. Similarly for inverted minors - can you tell me what the standard collection of sequences and understandings is for this? Because I have no idea. Another example is Jacoby 2NT - how many players saying this do you think promise 16+ hcp? Because that is the original form as I understand it. Similarly for rebids by Opener - jumps to show voids came well before jumps to show a side suit. So what is standard? Or does standard just mean what you think it is, regardless of whether Aunty Betty has ever heard of the changes to their favourite convention that they learned 60 years ago?

I said that the name encompasses many of the followon sequences, not all. And I was certainly not trying to justify using the name of the convention as an explanation. The point you make is the exact reason why the regulations say this isn't allowed, and I fully believe in this principle, and I think I practice it.

 

It doesn't matter what these bids meant 60 years ago. Experienced bridge players know how they're common used these days. They also know what kinds of variations exist, so they know what questions to ask if the explanation is not complete.

 

If the auction goes 1NT-2♣, do you need to know at that moment what a later 3♣ bid would mean? If the 3♣ bid comes up, you can ask for an explanation at that time.

[Vampyr]

 

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19.

 

Not just GF. It is also a limit bid, approximately 10-15; this treatment is apparently fairly common in what I guess is our Home Counties equivalent of District 18 and 19.

 

Note: I am not making this up.

[Vampyr]

As to why people are rude to me, I was referring to at the table. I understand that after years of the normal rudeness on the internet my courtesy has worn very thin where people who are often offensive are surprised when people are offensive back.

 

But I still do not understand why people are allowed to be rude to me when I am playing, and then I am very courteous to opponents.

 

What on earth are you talking about, and what relevance has this to this, or any other, thread?

[Zelandakh]

It doesn't matter what these bids meant 60 years ago. Experienced bridge players know how they're common used these days. They also know what kinds of variations exist, so they know what questions to ask if the explanation is not complete.

And what about inexperienced bridge players? Or players that learned their methods 60 years ago and cannot imagine anyone playing them differently? More than that, I probably qualify under your definition of experienced even when I have not played any high level bridge. Yet I had never heard of inverted meaning game-forcing before reading these forums. Apparently Josh hasn't either and I daresay noone is going to suggest he is not experienced. And this is just for inverted minors, a very common and simple convention. For other conventions the situation might be worse - how many variations of Jacoby 2NT are there around?

 

Even Stayman might be problematic. Say for argument that I have agreed with my partner to play a double of 2♣ as Landy against non-promisary Stayman and clubs against normal (promisary) Stayman. Opponents say Stayman and I hold both majors. If I ask whether that is promisary I am transmitting UI to partner unless I do it every time and the TD believes me. Surely it is better to simply ask what it means and to do this every time someone describes 2♣ as Stayman. Yes it might be a waste of time but why should WE be (potentially) disadvantaged because the opponents could not follow simple instructions?

[RMB1]

... I have agreed with my partner to play a double of 2♣ as Landy against non-promisary Stayman and clubs against normal (promisary) Stayman.

 

Is Stayman normally "promisary"?

Does tradition Stayman (various strengths with 4 card major or weak with clubs) count as "promisary"?

 

The problem you describe is best dealt with by checking your opponents convention card at the start of the round and agreeing with partner whether the opponents' Stayman counts as promisory.

[gnasher]

If I ask whether that is promisary I am transmitting UI to partner unless I do it every time and the TD believes me.

 

If you do it every time, you're not transmitting UI. The question of whether the TD believes you is a separate matter.

 

If you really asked about Stayman every time, though, you would quickly be able to accumulate evidence to show to a sceptical TD, supposing that you were unlucky enough to encounter one.

[bluejak]

What on earth are you talking about, and what relevance has this to this, or any other, thread?

It is just something that happens, makes the game less enjoyable for me, and I think a shame.

 

As to its relevance here, you will have to ask the person who quoted it here.

 

If you do it every time, you're not transmitting UI. The question of whether the TD believes you is a separate matter.

 

If you really asked about Stayman every time, though, you would quickly be able to accumulate evidence to show to a sceptical TD, supposing that you were unlucky enough to encounter one.

I think you would also run into some very annoyed opponents, despite it being your absolute right.

[blackshoe]

I think you would also run into some very annoyed opponents, despite it being your absolute right.

While one "should carefully avoid… action that might cause annoyance…" (Law 74A2) I think that when one has "an absolute right" to take such action, the player who becomes annoyed is just going to have to live with it.