Your turn to bid

[jogs]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq76432hqj62daqc8&w=s85ha973dkj7ca542&n=sajthkt5dt865cjt3&e=sk9h84d9432ckq976&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1cp2c2s3c3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This was the whole deal. I passed 3♠ and just made it when both spade and diamond finesses failed. I think we should be in game. Don't know how though, since i also believed i have a clear pass.

 

Doesn't 3♠ go down with a small heart lead? Assuming IMPs mini, wouldn't much of the field be defending 3♣? 20/20 split of the HCP. Play for plus scores.

[MrAce]

Doesn't 3♠ go down with a small heart lead? Assuming IMPs mini, wouldn't much of the field be defending 3♣? 20/20 split of the HCP. Play for plus scores.

 

I do not think they can defeat 3♠ but i gtg work now, will check it later.

[Cyberyeti]

Doesn't 3♠ go down with a small heart lead? Assuming IMPs mini, wouldn't much of the field be defending 3♣? 20/20 split of the HCP. Play for plus scores.

 

Only if you hook the spade, if you play ace and another you just lose a trick in each suit

[jogs]

I do not think they can defeat 3♠ but i gtg work now, will check it later.

 

They defend DD. You play normally. Lose to ♠K, ♥A, heart ruff, ♦K, and ♣A.

[mikeh]

Just because your view of an inverted raise doesn't match theirs is not their problem, all inverted means is that 2♣>3♣. For us this is a point away from an inverted raise, and all they said was that it was F1 not FG so you shouldn't expect a huge amount more than this.

Wrong analysis.

 

Say the opps announce 1♠P 2N as Jacoby 2N and it turns out that they meant, by that, that it showed 6♥ and fewer than 7 hcp. Would you argue that they committed no wrong, because their view of a jacoby 2N doesn't match yours?

 

Now if all they said was F1, and no more, that is different, tho it should prompt some questions. However, if they announced 'inverted' that would, imo, be misleading since the common meaning of inverted minors is possession of 9-10+ hcp, and there is nothing about the East hand that justifies any upgrade. If for them inverted means a decent 8 count or more, I have no trouble with it so long as they announce it.

 

I don't care what their names are. Indeed, I would argue that the greater one's reputation, the more one should practice active ethics. However, let me stress, if they announced F1, and nothing more, then I don't have any difficulty with it. The Op used the term inverted.

[Cyberyeti]

They defend DD. You play normally. Lose to ♠K, ♥A, heart ruff, ♦K, and ♣A.

 

Depends on many things including how many clubs are required for 1♣ and thus how many for the inverted raise.

 

If they lead a heart and duck, you assume they're 4-2 and there's a ruff coming, if 5 are required for the invert, opener has a max of 4 therefore depending on system may not be able to have 3♠/2♥ as he'd have opened 1♦ so opener has the 4♥ so you play spades by playing ace and another. You only go off if opener is 4234 and responder is 0445 where he might not sell to 3♠.

[steve2005]

it's hard to bid 20 pt games and be right. even this hand lose dummies T♥ and not nearly as good

[Cyberyeti]

Wrong analysis.

 

Say the opps announce 1♠P 2N as Jacoby 2N and it turns out that they meant, by that, that it showed 6♥ and fewer than 7 hcp. Would you argue that they committed no wrong, because their view of a jacoby 2N doesn't match yours?

 

Now if all they said was F1, and no more, that is different, tho it should prompt some questions. However, if they announced 'inverted' that would, imo, be misleading since the common meaning of inverted minors is possession of 9-10+ hcp, and there is nothing about the East hand that justifies any upgrade. If for them inverted means a decent 8 count or more, I have no trouble with it so long as they announce it.

 

I don't care what their names are. Indeed, I would argue that the greater one's reputation, the more one should practice active ethics. However, let me stress, if they announced F1, and nothing more, then I don't have any difficulty with it. The Op used the term inverted.

 

Jacoby has a GF element usually associated with it, that is off planet different. I play 1M-2N as sound raise to 3 or better and announce it as that, not Jacoby.

 

Playing something that is usually 9+ as 8+ is a bit different (particularly if they routinely invert on 4 card support as we do). Would you have old school Acol players who (change of suit) 2/1 on an 8 count alert that all the time, because you'd be laughed out of court on this side of the Atlantic, and inverting on the same as you 2/1 would not be abnormal. I reiterate, all inverted tells you is that 2m is a better hand than 3m, that is the inversion and if it's F1 you should only expect somewhere between 8+ and 11+ points as their minimum, much as you would for a non GF 2/1. Opps also weren't asked if this was some sort of deviation or routine. Inverted F1 is actually a better description than F1 as it tells you there was a weaker raise available (rather than a catchall 1N).

[HighLow21]

This was the whole deal. I passed 3♠ and just made it when both spade and diamond finesses failed. I think we should be in game. Don't know how though, since i also believed i have a clear pass.

Honestly you don't belong in game in my opinion--though I empathize with the feeling when 3♠ comes back to you. The hand isn't that distributional and they have half the deck. If you play spades the wrong way, they have a heart ruff available. I don't see the point of stretching to a thin non-vulnerable game when even 3♠ is not cold.

[aguahombre]

Jacoby has a GF element usually associated with it, that is off planet different. I play 1M-2N as sound raise to 3 or better and announce it as that, not Jacoby.

 

Playing something that is usually 9+ as 8+ is a bit different (particularly if they routinely invert on 4 card support as we do). Would you have old school Acol players who (change of suit) 2/1 on an 8 count alert that all the time, because you'd be laughed out of court on this side of the Atlantic, and inverting on the same as you 2/1 would not be abnormal. I reiterate, all inverted tells you is that 2m is a better hand than 3m, that is the inversion and if it's F1 you should only expect somewhere between 8+ and 11+ points as their minimum, much as you would for a non GF 2/1. Opps also weren't asked if this was some sort of deviation or routine. Inverted F1 is actually a better description than F1 as it tells you there was a weaker raise available (rather than a catchall 1N).

There is always a problem when labels and names are used as alleged disclosure. When the people who do so are using a treatment differently than it is described in most written texts, people who have read the texts are misinformed.

 

Forget "HCP" for a moment --- a simple 1-2 raise of a minor which is invitational to game or stronger in support strength (suit or NT unspecified) is an inverted raise in common usage. A jump raise of the minor might be truly weak or it might be mixed. These agreements are the real disclosure..not some name.

 

In the OP case, the opening bid itself, if within their agreed standards, is evidence enough that the Response was not invitational or better; yet it was improperly labelled as such.

 

We describe the simple raise as 11+ support points, which could include distribution. If Responder had held KX X XXXX KQXXX, it would have been properly described/disclosed by us in that fashion. Just that little change from the OP hand is enough that proper disclosure should steer the opponents away from a bad game in this case.

 

The OP hand might be invitational in Fantunes or Roth/Stone. It clearly is not invitational for the pair in question, because we can plainly see what they open 1m on. They, and others, need to stop misleading the opponents with labels and disclose what the bids are showing.

[Cyberyeti]

There is always a problem when labels and names are used as alleged disclosure. When the people who do so are using a treatment differently than it is described in most written texts, people who have read the texts are misinformed.

 

Forget "HCP" for a moment --- a simple 1-2 raise of a minor which is invitational to game or stronger in support strength (suit or NT unspecified) is an inverted raise in common usage. A jump raise of the minor might be truly weak or it might be mixed. These agreements are the real disclosure..not some name.

 

In the OP case, the opening bid itself, if within their agreed standards, is evidence enough that the Response was not invitational or better; yet it was improperly labelled as such.

 

We describe the simple raise as 11+ support points, which could include distribution. If Responder had held KX X XXXX KQXXX, it would have been properly described/disclosed by us in that fashion. Just that little change from the OP hand is enough that proper disclosure should steer the opponents away from a bad game in this case.

 

The OP hand might be invitational in Fantunes or Roth/Stone. It clearly is not invitational for the pair in question, because we can plainly see what they open 1m on. They, and others, need to stop misleading the opponents with labels and disclose what the bids are showing.

 

Opposite a 12-22 1♣ an invitational raise can be almost anything. If the hand had ♠KJ instead of Kx does it suddenly become invitational ? Nobody's ever questioned our description of inverted, and this is very close to one of ours.

[helene_t]

Playing weak notrump I think an "inverted" raise on an 8-count is normal. That said, if you explain an agreement by naming a convention then I think you assume the responsibility in case opps misunderstand, unless their interpretation is crazy.

 

This EW pair apparently play strong notrump so "Inverted" is clearly misleading and I think NS would have had a decent chance of getting the board adjusted if they had made 10 tricks. (Assuming that 2♣ was not a misbid).

[ggwhiz]

As helene says...

 

We play our inverted as a game force and it's played that way nearly 50-50 locally.

 

I have never heard an experienced player explain it without a point range here.

[Cyberyeti]

As helene says...

 

We play our inverted as a game force and it's played that way nearly 50-50 locally.

 

I have never heard an experienced player explain it without a point range here.

 

I've always heard it explained either just as "inverted" or "inverted FG"/"inverted F1". If I care, I then ask what their idea of an inverted raise is.

[MrAce]

I find TD adjusting score comments funny to be honest.

 

-S could have asked their range if he was interested, he did not.

 

-E is allowed to make psyche or mis evaluate his hand, especially the difference between original minimum inverted minor and his bid is only 1 hcp.

 

-Even if you somehow proved that there was a misleading you have to convince TD that you have a reasonable 4 ♠ bid, had they alerted "it can be as low as 8 hcp" You don't have that. Just because they can be 8 hcp, shall we bid 4♠ ignoring the + part ? Placing all the remaining hcps for pd ? It does not work as Helene thinks it does. Misleading does not mean auto adjustment. You have to be damaged by that. You have to show that you or your pd would bid differently had you known it was not 9+ but 8+

 

http://www.gabrial-u...ns/INVERTED.HTM

 

http://en.wikipedia....Inverted_minors

 

I would suggest to keep the money if i was an appeal member.

[helene_t]

Personally I wouldn't consider bidding 4♠ even given correct (?) explanation of the 2♣ bid. But there are several good players here who would have bid 4♠ with the south hand and I believe that 4♠ becomes more atractive if 2♣ is known not to promise the expected 10 HCPs or so.

 

Of course I know that MI in itself doesn't lead to adjustment :)

[whereagles]

Even if RHO has a legitimate 2♣ bid, the fact that opps didn't try for game indicates partner's 3♠ bid rates to be a sound one. Also, recall that an inverted raise can be made on less than 11 HCP if the shape is right.

 

Finally, note that the bidding hints at pard having raised on a flattish hand. That's further evidence he has a decent raise.

[blackshoe]

They defend DD. You play normally. Lose to ♠K, ♥A, heart ruff, ♦K, and ♣A.

If they can find the small heart lead, I can find the correct play in trumps.

[blackshoe]

They, and others, need to stop misleading the opponents with labels and disclose what the bids are showing.

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

[ggwhiz]

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

 

I don't question their ethics but their form is highly objectionable.

 

If I have to extract the information I need, then pass my partner is in a possible UI spot for no other reason. We'll talk ethics if they claim UI after and I've seen it done by a couple of pairs that are known locally as "They who must be drilled".

 

Granted, none of that happened here but maybe it should have. A bit of interrogation before the 2♠ bid followed by partners (whatever) actions.... I would consider AI for improper disclosure but have no idea if that's kosher.

[mikeh]

Why do we assume that this pair bids 2m on this hand by agreement? The only evidence we have is that responder did bid 2m. That is not sufficient evidence to rule they have an agreement. As for ethics, it should require a lot more evidence than this to question a player's ethics.

I, for one, didn't question their ethics as a result of this action nor do I see anyone else doing so. The OP explanation of the raise was 'inverted forcing one round', iirc.

 

If, and this is a big if, the raise was consistent with their agreed methods, then their disclosure, for north American players, was at the least somewhat casual, and incomplete and ought to be known by them to be misleading, since in NA, inverted usually starts at 10+ hcp. That isn't the same as accusing them of being unethical. We all have lapses from time to time and I'd hate to be judged on my lapses rather than my normal actions.

 

By contrast if E simply chose to make a non-systemic call, that happened to work well, then more power to him. I would, if I harboured any concerns, make a mental note, merely because I have encountered pairs who routinely distort their actions, such that their partner knows and plays for it, and those people I despise. I would never assume that any pair did that, but I am no longer so naïve that I won't be alive to the possibility.

 

If their announcement was merely F1, then in a casual game or online I wouldn't have an issue...I think that I would, especially online where partner can't know I asked, ask about what that meant, and it is an interesting question as to whether they ought to volunteer this unusual approach without being asked...personally, I like to think I would. But I have long since learned that just because I would act in a certain way doesn't give me the right to criticize others who prefer to act differently.

[aguahombre]

 

By contrast if E simply chose to make a non-systemic call, that happened to work well, then....

What am I missing? The systemic call which was incorrectly disclosed, or the choice to make a non-systemic call (whichever it was), worked to the advantage of the other side...dissuading us from bidding a non-making game which we might have bid with the correct information.