beatrix45 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Neither side vul. Partner deals and opens one ♦. Your RHO passes. Your call with:[hv=pc=n&s=sa83hjt4dk54cqjt4]133|100[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Is 2NT in this system natural and invitational, or is it some sort of raise? Edit: sorry, I think that this is what the OP was wondering, and I cannot say for certain as I have not read the system notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasetb Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 According to this write-up from 10 years ago (the system hasn't changed since then), 1m - 2NT is INV 10-12. In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP. Here's a FD card that covers everything in Bridge Base - Advanced as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 According to this write-up from 10 years ago (the system hasn't changed since then), 1m - 2NT is INV 10-12. In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP. Here's a FD card that covers everything in Bridge Base - Advanced as well.I don't think anyone plays BB - Advanced anymore. "BBO 2/1" probably means "GIB 2/1". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP. Wow when and where was that standard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Wow when and where was that standard? In the USA since the 1930's. It is part of Culbertson and Goren (which became Standard American). The European style of playing it as limit only made started to make inroads from the late fifties. Even BWS did not adopt the invitational treatment till at least the late 80's. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Hi, I would go with 2NT, as long as it is inv.But if I am not 100% sure, I would downgrade the hand, or if you are in the downgrading businessat all, treating this hand as 10HCP should work out reasonable well most of the time. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Hi, I would go with 2NT, as long as it is inv.But if I am not 100% sure, I would downgrade the hand, or if you are in the downgrading businessat all, treating this hand as 10HCP should work out reasonable well most of the time. With kind regardsMarlowe Meh. Well, treating it as a 10 may well work out, but, if I was being water tortured to call this 10 or 12, I'd be closer to the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 In the USA since the 1930's. It is part of Culbertson and Goren (which became Standard American). The European style of playing it as limit only made started to make inroads from the late fifties. Even BWS did not adopt the invitational treatment till at least the late 80's. Right. Then probably that was what I played when I was young. After all, I played that 1M-3M was GF. It wasn't until the late 80s that I began playing duplicate bridge, and of course I knew that I was way behind the times, so I suppose that I assumed that everything I was learning was always so. Not literally always, but you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I learn 1m-2N as invitational in the 1970s, along the lines of "bid what you can make". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 There are stock convention cards on BBO called "GIB 2/1", "BBO Advanced 1.3", and "BBO Advanced (2.1 GF)"; all three indicate that 1m-2N is invitational. There are three stock convention cards that purport to be variations of SAYC (which should be a contradiction in terms), and those three give conflicting answers for this auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I learn 1m-2N as invitational in the 1970s, along the lines of "bid what you can make". This is what I thought learned in the 1970s too, but Phil King's comment planted doubt in my mind, so I am not sure. My system was definitely based on my old Goren's Bridge Complete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 This is what I thought learned in the 1970s too, but Phil King's comment planted doubt in my mind, so I am not sure. My system was definitely based on my old Goren's Bridge Complete http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/GorenBiddingSystem.html I don't like quoting an indirect source, but these guys seem to have read the books concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid. Yes, it is textbook; I think the OP was just wondering whether natural 2NT was available. Or is going to come back and tell us all why a lead-inhibiting heart bid is obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid.I can easily see 3NT making from partner's side and being chance-less from ours. In a nutshell I want to reach contracts with a high success rate, not describe my HCP. Bidding systems may describe meaning of bids, but they are no substitute for judgment Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 I can easily see 3NT making from partner's side and being chance-less from ours. In a nutshell I want to reach contracts with a high success rate, not describe my HCP. Bidding systems may describe meaning of bids, but they are no substitute for judgment So what do you bid - some number of diamonds depending on whether inverted raises are being played? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 So what do you bid - some number of diamonds depending on whether inverted raises are being played?Yes, given the deficiency of the system (I presume 1♦-2♣ being game forcing and 1♦-3♣ showing long clubs invitational) I would bid 2♦, assuming inverted is standard nowadays. I know this is not ideal. If you can not get partner to bid notrumps, it is doubtful you belong there in spite of your flat distribution. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yes, given the deficiency of the system (I presume 1♦-2♣ being game forcing and 1♦-3♣ showing long clubs invitational) I would bid 2♦, assuming inverted is standard nowadays. I know this is not ideal. If you can not get partner to bid notrumps, it is doubtful you belong there in spite of your flat distribution. A simulation with a weak NT opposite would be interesting. I wish I knew how to do one :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegmund Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Should clarify that my 2C vote was based on the linked FD card saying 1D-2C was inv+, not GF (it's very new for me to see anyone playing it GF, so it's still not the first thing I think of.) Given the systems a lot of BBOers are playing, sure, 2NT inv is the practical system bid. Have to say I am a big fan of 2NT still being forcing, and of having 1D-2C and 1D-2D be played more-or-less the same way. But I realize that's not what people are doing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Should clarify that my 2C vote was based on the linked FD card saying 1D-2C was inv+, not GF (it's very new for me to see anyone playing it GF, so it's still not the first thing I think of.) Ah, very interesting. This information may change a lot of people's votes. Perhaps mine -- I am thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Easy 1 NT if you are playing "best hand GIB tourney" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.