Ingberman continuations and inferences

[ahydra]

Partner and I are having an extended discussion about an interesting hand from the other night:

 

♠KQJxx

♥AQJ8xx

♦x

♣x

 

The auction started 1C (2+)-1H; 2D reverse, whereupon we play Ingberman, so 2S would be ART weak relay and all higher bids are GF.

 

There are a few problems for this hand to think about:

1) is 2H forcing? (We do play weak jump shifts showing 6c 4-7)

2) how to show the spades, if 2S is the weak relay? 3S sounds very much like a splinter for diamonds.

3) what would you expect for a "weird" sequence such as 2S; 3C-3S (I'm weak but I'm not weak) or 2NT; 3C-3S (I have a spade stop, but I don't)?

 

This is our first time playing Ingberman, so we would both appreciate any insight those with more experience might have to offer.

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

I think the relay is either weak or quite strong. It seems that your hand fits the latter. Your “weird” sequence sounds OK. 2♥ should be forcing. Well, this is the way I play, (not for the lowest reverse, because we show several hand-types with this, but for other reverses).

 

Awkward if you are a bit weaker. Perhaps someone who has thought it through more thoroughly can help.

[nullve]

2S would be ART weak relay and all higher bids are GF.

This is Blackout, not Ingberman.

[Fluffy]

I would had bid 1 spade to be able to next bid 3 hearts on most continuations (like this one)

 

if you play that 2 spades is the weak relay everything else is forcing, including 2 hearts, some people allow 2 hearts to be ambiguous, but it is still 1 round forcing. Teh rest are clearly game forcing

[Vampyr]

This is Blackout, not Ingberman.

 

I do not know what “Blackout” is, but the treatment in the OP is definitely Ingberman. Of course, convention names are ambiguous. How would you describe Ingberman?

[nullve]

I do not know what “Blackout” is, but the treatment in the OP is definitely Ingberman. Of course, convention names are ambiguous. How would you describe Ingberman?

Ingberman always uses 2N as the (not always) weak relay.

[smerriman]

Ingberman always uses 2N as the (not always) weak relay.

That's lebensohl. Ingberman is specifically the idea of using the 4th suit instead of 2NT when it's cheaper, at least as taught by mikeh.

[nullve]

That's lebensohl. Ingberman is specifically the idea of using the 4th suit instead of 2NT when it's cheaper.

I was going to add that that article is probably the source of the confusion. (See e.g. https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/59356-article-on-reverse/.)