Mini Roman Two Diamonds

[32519]

So your side is playing the Mini Roman 2♦ Convention, any 4441 or 5440 distribution and 11-15 HCP. Across the table partner opens the bidding. Do you fancy your chances with this? Or do you immediately initiate the sign-off sequence?

[hv=pc=n&n=sj98653h2d53caqt4&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2d(Mini%20Roman%202D)p]133|200[/hv]

[helene_t]

3♣. if partner passes it his singleton is probably spades. If he bids 3♦ then I bid 4♠.

[Lord Molyb]

Partner's most likely distribution is 0-5-4-4, so 3 clubs seems like enough.

I don't play this convention, would 3 diamonds over 3 clubs show a singleton/void in clubs?

[32519]

In hindsight, I have a different question: Do you still open the Mini Roman 2♦ in third after partner is already a passed hand? Aren't you placing undue pressure on your own side by doing so when the contract automatically gets pushed to level 3 when partner bids your singleton? South held 1444 (singleton ♠) and 14 HCP.

 

Out of 16 tables, these were the final contracts:

1 = 5♣ (this was the pair who opened the Mini Roman 2♦)

1 = 4♠

6 = 3NT

1 = 3♠

1 = 3♥ (played by E/W)

2 = 2NT

4 = 2♠

16

 

3NT made once on poor defence (down the other 5 times)

2♠ made 4 times

2NT made once

[Bbradley62]

Partner's most likely distribution is 0-5-4-4, so 3 clubs seems like enough. I don't play this convention, would 3 diamonds over 3 clubs show a singleton/void in clubs?

Yes. 2♥, 2♠, 3♣ and 3♦ by responder are all pass-or-correct.

[Bbradley62]

1 = 5♣ (this was the pair who opened the Mini Roman 2♦)

So, it appears that North did not sign off in 3♣, as most posters here indicate they would. How did your auction go?

[32519]

So, it appears that North did not sign off in 3♣, as most posters here indicate they would. How did your auction go?

It wasn't our auction. I was reviewing table results at the end of the hand and was amazed to find someone this high. So I pulled up the hand to see how they got there. This was the actual auction:

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2d(Mini%20Roman%202D)p2n(Asking%20for%20shortness)p3h(1%20below%20shortness)p5cppp]133|100[/hv]

[Bbradley62]

Ok, so North still bid too much. 3♣ probably would have been a reasonable place to play.

[Vampyr]

It wasn't our auction. I was reviewing table results at the end of the hand and was amazed to find someone this high. So I pulled up the hand to see how they got there. This was the actual auction:[/hv]

 

Do you have written bidding where you play?

 

How, exactly, does written bidding work, anyway? Is there a pad people pass around the table?

[32519]

Do you have written bidding where you play?

 

How, exactly, does written bidding work, anyway? Is there a pad people pass around the table?

 

The hand was played on BBO in the Main Bridge Club. Reviewing anything immediately or later on is simple. BBO groups the tables into sets of 16.

[sfi]

Do you have written bidding where you play?

 

How, exactly, does written bidding work, anyway? Is there a pad people pass around the table?

 

You put this in the centre of the table. Each person has a pen and the entire auction is recorded on the top sheet. You circle your partner's bids to alert them. Once the first trick is complete you can remove or cover up the bidding slip, although in practice that rarely happens.

[Vampyr]

You put this in the centre of the table. Each person has a pen and the entire auction is recorded on the top sheet. You circle your partner's bids to alert them. Once the first trick is complete you can remove or cover up the bidding slip, although in practice that rarely happens.

 

How big is it, about A5? Can everyone see it in the centre of the table, or do they move it towards them when they want to write or see what someone else has written?

[sfi]

How big is it, about A5? Can everyone see it in the centre of the table, or do they move it towards them when they want to write or see what someone else has written?

 

If you take an A4 sheet and fold it twice, that's about the size, although they are square. The pad of bidding slips stays in the centre of the table where everyone can see and reach them. Occasionally a bid may be written poorly, but then someone will ask.

 

In practice they work quite well. There is less clutter on the table than when using bidding boxes, and there is a record for the director if required. The disadvantage is that there is more variation in the way a bid is made than when using bidding boxes (the most common example is someone unconsciously putting a period after a sign-off bid), but that's a minor issue.

 

Written bidding and bidding boxes are both used extensively in Australia, even at national levels.

[Vampyr]

In practice they work quite well. There is less clutter on the table than when using bidding boxes, and there is a record for the director if required. The disadvantage is that there is more variation in the way a bid is made than when using bidding boxes (the most common example is someone unconsciously putting a period after a sign-off bid), but that's a minor issue.

 

Has anyone come up with an electronic version? Such a device could double as the scoring machine. There would be a wealth of information available. In theory, of course, the data can be gathered by hand, but I doubt this is practical for a large event.

 

Just one other thing and then I think my curiousity will be satisfied! Is there an issue with the bridge pad falling off the board, especially when there is more than one board on the table?

[bigbenvic]

Has anyone come up with an electronic version? Such a device could double as the scoring machine. There would be a wealth of information available. In theory, of course, the data can be gathered by hand, but I doubt this is practical for a large event.

 

Just one other thing and then I think my curiousity will be satisfied! Is there an issue with the bridge pad falling off the board, especially when there is more than one board on the table?

 

Electric versons probably exist (iPad apps and such) but the devices would be a bit pricey for the clubs to have, at each table.

 

Nah, usually there is a little table beside the playing table, for drinks/notes etc and one of the North/South players keeps the boards on their little table.

 

A lot of players keep the bidding sequences of interesting hands for discussion later, very useful in prompting discussion of what a big here or there should mean. It's very archaic butyou get used to it.

[sfi]

Has anyone come up with an electronic version? Such a device could double as the scoring machine. There would be a wealth of information available. In theory, of course, the data can be gathered by hand, but I doubt this is practical for a large event.

 

Just one other thing and then I think my curiousity will be satisfied! Is there an issue with the bridge pad falling off the board, especially when there is more than one board on the table?

 

I finally found a picture of bidding pads in use at www.milduraweekly.com.au/2012/10/26/bridge-congress-to-prove-battle-of-the-minds/ (for some reason the link function is not working). Click on the picture of a larger version.

 

I haven't seen an electronic version of them. One of the main advantages of the bidding pads is that they are cheap and easy to use, so there is little overhead for the smaller clubs. An electronic equivalent would fill a rather different niche in the bridge equipment sphere.

 

If you are using the normal plastic or metal boards, the bidding pad sits next to it rather than on the board itself (often in a little plastic or wooden holder like the one I linked to earlier. You then have the information about dealer and vulnerability on the board, while the bidding is on the pad. You generally only put one board on the table at a time to make it easier for the East or West player who has to reach over the board to write their bids. Since you have something solid (the pad of bidding slips) and stable (the only thing that is likely to slip is the top sheet if you have ripped it off to use the back for the next auction), there is little fuss for the players.

 

If you have the 'wallet' boards which fold open, the bidding pad can just sit on top of it after everyone has removed their cards. If it has a tendency to slide around, one corner can get tucked into one of the hand pockets.

 

At our club we run the championship nights using bidding boxes, but most of the other sessions use the pads. It is likely to be what people are used to, but there are fewer hassles for newer players.

[Zelandakh]

It wasn't our auction. I was reviewing table results at the end of the hand and was amazed to find someone this high. So I pulled up the hand to see how they got there. This was the actual auction:

As I keep telling you, misusing a convention does not make the convention itself bad. I am not a fan of Mini-Roman but if you are playing it when a suitable hand comes up it is great.

[32519]

As I keep telling you, misusing a convention does not make the convention itself bad. I am not a fan of Mini-Roman but if you are playing it when a suitable hand comes up it is great.

 

As the 4441 hand pattern often creates follow up bidding problems, I don’t have any problem using the Mini-Roman 2♦ in third seat. But it must be with this proviso: Third seat 2♦ opening guarantees that the short suit is in either minor. If the short suit is in either major, in third seat open 1♣ allowing maximum room to land in the best spot.

 

So, if South held 4441 or 4414 with this proviso, then after the 2♦ opening bid, North can blast straight into 4♠ with every expectancy of making the contract.

[manudude03]

A couple of problems with your solution:

1. If opener is 1444 (singleton spade), you run into rebid problems opening 1C (1NT would be an overbid as well as partner would be expecting at least 2 spades.

2. You are making the opening even more rare (4441 shapes is about 3% total ignoring strength restraints)

 

edit: point 3 deleted, thought the OP was 4126

[Flem72]

I think that WNT structures virtually demand some form of m-R. Since the problem hands are mins with short in one of the blacks, I've started playing a stripped-down version: 2D always promises the reds. Now:

 

2N asks range and short. All good responding hands go through 2N. Every other bid by R is to play, except 3S = RKCB for H and 4C = RKCB for D.

 

MINI-ROMAN 2D: Only with short in black suit; 11-14

 

P,2H = to play WE MUST ALERT R'S CALLS THAT ARE NOT FORCING, AND PROBABLY

ALSO INCLUDE THAT POINT IN THE ALERT AFTER 2D.

2S = to play with 6+; O may raise with stiff C and max ALERT, NF

2N = starts all inv or potentially strong sequences, asks stiff and

strength by steps: 3C = C, 11-13; 3D = S, 11-13; 3H = C, 13-14; 3S =

S, 13-14. Now: Any 3-level call is to play; R's 4C or 4D is to play

Games are to play, even 4S or 5C.

4N = RKCB for non-stiff black suit (i.e., after 3C

or 3H, for S; after 3D or 3S, for C). (NOTE: This

works also if you hold a solid or one or ½ loser 6+

suit in the stiff.).

3C = to play with 6+; O may raise with stiff S and max

3D = to play, either preemptive or to make

3H = to play, either preemptive or to make

3S = RKCB for H

3N = to-play

4C = RKCB for D

4,5D = to play, either preemptive or to make

4H = to play, either preemptive or to make

[Zelandakh]

Flem, what are you responding with a weak 5224, 4225 or 5(21)5? You know you want to play in a black suit but there does not appear to be a weak bid to cover this. If you handle these hands via a 2NT response then you should probably change the responses so that 3♣ shows spade shortage (3♦ can ask the strength) and 3♦♥♠ show club shortage so that you can always stop in 3 of the longer black suit.

 

Incidentally, your assertion that WNT structures demand some sort of mini-Roman is an overbid since much depends on the rest of the system and how the responses are organised. That said, my WNT system does have issues with a 4=4=4=1 hand opposite a weak 3=3=2=5 hand. I do not think the problems are common enough to offset losing a preemptive use for the 2♦ opening though. Perhaps I should at least look into this for 4th seat though...

[Flem72]

Flem, what are you responding with a weak 5224, 4225 or 5(21)5? You know you want to play in a black suit but there does not appear to be a weak bid to cover this. If you handle these hands via a 2NT response then you should probably change the responses so that 3♣ shows spade shortage (3♦ can ask the strength) and 3♦♥♠ show club shortage so that you can always stop in 3 of the longer black suit.

 

Incidentally, your assertion that WNT structures demand some sort of mini-Roman is an overbid since much depends on the rest of the system and how the responses are organised. That said, my WNT system does have issues with a 4=4=4=1 hand opposite a weak 3=3=2=5 hand. I do not think the problems are common enough to offset losing a preemptive use for the 2♦ opening though. Perhaps I should at least look into this for 4th seat though...

 

TY: Good suggestion re: 2N responses.