[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-February-20, 02:18, said:

Hand 1 I cannot see North offering 3NT with these cards.

On hand 2, would North have been able to bid 2N with a 3343 minimum? Your 2♦ carries a lot of load - it is weaker than normal, seems to carry 4-card raises more often than others, and also can include 4-card majors; if you still can't distinguish on the 2nd round, that sounds pretty hopeless. E.g. your example hand xxx Kxx AKxx xxx should surely bid 2N? If this is possible, and if 3♦ usually has a 5-th diamond, then South was nuts to pass it out IMO - game is fabulous opposite xxx xxx AKxxx xx.

3♦ is the default rebid on a minimum that can't sensibly bid anything else. 2N would suggest the stops (which given my clubs he won't have).

AKxxx and out would not start with 2♦, this hand prompted discussions, I feel the 5th diamond is enormous and it's not close to minimum.

Bear in mind our 1♦ GUARANTEES 4 so 4 card raises are normal and several times more common than 5.

[Cyberyeti]

HardVector, on 2019-February-19, 21:50, said:

I think you fail to appreciate the strength of the controls you have for a diamond contract. The clubs are great, the spades are great if partner has the K, and the hearts are not a problem. All you need is for partner to have some decent diamonds, and they DID just make an inverted minor bid. The splinter basically asks the question "Do you have the hearts to play in 3n"? If not, go for 5 diamonds with 6 diamonds a possibility. Of course, you will reject all this if you want to continue with the idea of having a 4 card major when you make an inverted minor bid.

We've been playing this system for 20 years, this is the first time it's really caused a problem, and we could have got round it with different views on valuation.

I really don't want to splinter and get to some terrible 3N/5♦ contracts. What is partner expected to do with say KJx, Kxxx, Kxxx, xx or Kxx, KJx, Kxxxx, xx, I'm happy to be in 3♦ opposite those.

[apollo1201]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-21, 03:32, said:

What is partner expected to do with say KJx, Kxxx, Kxxx, xx or Kxx, KJx, Kxxxx, xx, I'm happy to be in 3♦ opposite those.

Bid 1NT to play the hand and protect all those K’s?

[Cyberyeti]

apollo1201, on 2019-February-21, 11:59, said:

Bid 1NT to play the hand and protect all those K’s?

too good, we never bid 1N on 10 counts (unless downgrading and these are not downgrades).

[rmnka447]

Part of the problem with hand 2 may be the system if you allow inverted raises with a 4 card major. Now opener must rebid 2 ♠ to avoid potentially missing a 4-4 ♠ fit. After that, 3 ♦ by responder pushes you out of being able to consider 3 NT as a landing place.

Without a possibility of a 4 card major in responder's hand opener might consider rebidding 3 ♣ instead of 2 ♠. Then if responder rebids 3 ♦ opener can rebid 3 ♠ which would give responder the option of bidding 3 NT with ♥ stopped or trying for 5 ♦. The 3 ♠ bid after 3 ♦ has to show extras. If responder instead rebids 3 ♥, then opener can try
3 NT.

[HardVector]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-21, 03:32, said:

We've been playing this system for 20 years, this is the first time it's really caused a problem, and we could have got round it with different views on valuation.

I really don't want to splinter and get to some terrible 3N/5♦ contracts. What is partner expected to do with say KJx, Kxxx, Kxxx, xx or Kxx, KJx, Kxxxx, xx, I'm happy to be in 3♦ opposite those.

With the first hand, my recommended action would be to bid 1h, not inverted, so getting to 5d would never be an issue. With hand 2, 3n would need a bit of luck, you would need the A♦ in the right spot, but that's it. If you didn't feel like bidding 3n, however, nobody said that 5d was necessary (unless you're playing imps). The hand clearly downgrades after the splinter, so you should be able to stop in 4d, or make a shot at 4s by now bidding 3s (this should show 3 as the 2d bid would deny 4...oh, wait...you don't do that).

[mikeh]

I wouldn't worry overly much about the first one. Make South's hearts Qxx or Jxx, and 4S is a better contract than 3N.

On the second, I think that playing inverted minors where the single raise could be as weak as 9 hcp is poor, but my experience is in a strong 1N method (14-16 at present) or in a 10-12 method (many years ago).

I also think that putting 4 card majors in the inverted bid is asking for trouble, since one of the main problems with playing inverted minors is the need (or at least the desirability) of having methods that allow both opener and responder to define strength and shape. It is basic theory that the more possibilities available, the more difficult it is to be able to show them in a sensible fashion.

Here, as opener, wild horses could not keep me from forcing to game with my prime 15 with shape. Will game always make? No. Will game almost always have some play? Yes.

In my current methods:

1D 2D 1D is 4+ , and 2d is limit or better
2H 2S 2H is artificial gf, 2S says responder has a limit raise
2N 3C 2N asks shortness, 3C denies shortness
3D 3S 3D is a stall, asking responder to cue controls. 3S shows a spade control and denies a heart control


At this stage, opener knows that 5D is a heavy favourite, even if partner has only 4 diamonds. However, with his weak diamonds, and no safe way to be sure that partner has a pure limit raise with no wastage, he isn't looking for slam and will/should bid 5D.

I think that it is appalling bad valuation for South to avoid game, even opposite a potential 9 count. I don't use hcp for assessing hands (with adjustments for shape, etc) but if I did, surely the South hand is worth at least a 17 count, with the stiff and the known fit. I don't use the LTC for these purposes either, but again doing so leads to forcing to game: South has a LTC of at most 5...and counting diamonds as 3 is ignoring the raise.

I know how easy it is to be 'right' when looking at all the hands, but this really would be embarrassing to miss game here. Even 1D 3D old-fashioned limit should surely get one to 5D.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2019-February-21, 15:35, said:

On the second, I think that playing inverted minors where the single raise could be as weak as 9 hcp is poor, but my experience is in a strong 1N method (14-16 at present) or in a 10-12 method (many years ago).

I also think that putting 4 card majors in the inverted bid is asking for trouble, since one of the main problems with playing inverted minors is the need (or at least the desirability) of having methods that allow both opener and responder to define strength and shape. It is basic theory that the more possibilities available, the more difficult it is to be able to show them in a sensible fashion.

I agree you can't play this method playing strong NT, the key is that you don't need 2N for weak and balanced so it is GF.

It is only a problem for us in the following circumstances:

Partner has honours ONLY in partner's major and diamonds, but <4 of partner's major and minimumish values. As I said, this hasn't happened to us before in 20 years.

We play different methods over 1♣-2♣ with an artificial 2♦ which would handle this hand easily with the minors reversed as 2♦ shows extras and partner will commit to game, so this may be why we've not seen the issue before, it's a diamonds only problem.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-21, 16:28, said:

I agree you can't play this method playing strong NT, the key is that you don't need 2N for weak and balanced so it is GF.

It is only a problem for us in the following circumstances:

Partner has honours ONLY in partner's major and diamonds, but <4 of partner's major and minimumish values. As I said, this hasn't happened to us before in 20 years.

We play different methods over 1♣-2♣ with an artificial 2♦ which would handle this hand easily with the minors reversed as 2♦ shows extras and partner will commit to game, so this may be why we've not seen the issue before, it's a diamonds only problem.

If I understand correctly (and I am drawing inferences here so may well be mistaken) the main problem you have is that you have bundled 4 card major hands into your inverted response. I don't understand why you do that: I have played a lot of weak 1N methods, including 12-14, 11-14, 11-13, 10-12. Good methods after 1m 1M make finding the minor suit pretty simple, so I really don't know why you do this, not to mention that you are vulnerable to preemption, to at least a modest degree [for example, 1D (P) 2D (3C)...yes you can probably back into a major much of the time, but when 2D could be based on a 9 count, it becomes far more difficult than it need be, both to find the major and to know who has what strength].

In any event, the need to untangle the majors means, I am guessing, that you have to have opener's rebids of 2M as natural, which imo is an amazing misuse of bidding space principles. I've played two quite different but detailed inverted minor methods, and central to each was the availability of 2M for opener in an artificial meaning.

In my current method, 2H is most gf hands, and 2S is an unbalanced non-gf hand, with 2N being balanced non-forcing (if I played weak 1N,I'd suggest 2H be unbalanced less than gf, 2S be unbalanced gf, and 2N the strong 1N, and lump 'bigger than 1N' into either 2S or 2N or make it a 3N bid). You can use 2N as a gf, balanced or unbalanced, but then must start untangling shape at the 3-level. Generally speaking, especially when 3N remains in the picture, as it surely must even on unbalanced hands, the lower the partners begin bounding shape and strength the more effective the system will be.

Anyway, given that you've played your style for 20 years, I suspect you aren't about to change (altho I have made major changes in my methods many times over the years. Indeed, in two of the three serious and reasonably long-term partnerships I have played, we made significant changes every year. I find this very useful: it keeps me from getting stale, and allows us to learn from others).

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2019-February-21, 17:40, said:

If I understand correctly (and I am drawing inferences here so may well be mistaken) the main problem you have is that you have bundled 4 card major hands into your inverted response. I don't understand why you do that: I have played a lot of weak 1N methods, including 12-14, 11-14, 11-13, 10-12. Good methods after 1m 1M make finding the minor suit pretty simple, so I really don't know why you do this, not to mention that you are vulnerable to preemption, to at least a modest degree [for example, 1D (P) 2D (3C)...yes you can probably back into a major much of the time, but when 2D could be based on a 9 count, it becomes far more difficult than it need be, both to find the major and to know who has what strength].

In any event, the need to untangle the majors means, I am guessing, that you have to have opener's rebids of 2M as natural, which imo is an amazing misuse of bidding space principles. I've played two quite different but detailed inverted minor methods, and central to each was the availability of 2M for opener in an artificial meaning.

In my current method, 2H is most gf hands, and 2S is an unbalanced non-gf hand, with 2N being balanced non-forcing (if I played weak 1N,I'd suggest 2H be unbalanced less than gf, 2S be unbalanced gf, and 2N the strong 1N, and lump 'bigger than 1N' into either 2S or 2N or make it a 3N bid). You can use 2N as a gf, balanced or unbalanced, but then must start untangling shape at the 3-level. Generally speaking, especially when 3N remains in the picture, as it surely must even on unbalanced hands, the lower the partners begin bounding shape and strength the more effective the system will be.

Anyway, given that you've played your style for 20 years, I suspect you aren't about to change (altho I have made major changes in my methods many times over the years. Indeed, in two of the three serious and reasonably long-term partnerships I have played, we made significant changes every year. I find this very useful: it keeps me from getting stale, and allows us to learn from others).

Part of the reasoning is that in auctions where responder bids diamonds on the second round, you know most of the time whether they've got 3 or 4+ (we also play fit jumps requiring a good suit, so you have auctions where you know partner has a broken 5 card suit when taking 4M/3N decisions).

We are quite prepared to change system where it's not working well, but this up to now has worked well.