BBO Discussion Forums: Minor Suit Mayhem - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Minor Suit Mayhem Part 2: Inverted Minor Suit Raises

#1 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-17, 00:20

Inverted Minor Suit Raises according to my source are not part of 2/1. Yet they would certainly appear to be superior to standard treatments. So why not just make them standard, or is my source hopelessly outdated? If so, does anyone have the title of a good up to date book on 2/1 incorporating all the latest recommended bidding sequences?

Shep’s website has a nice treatment for Inverted Minor Suit Raises. It can be found here.
1

#2 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,341
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-July-17, 01:12

Whether they are superior depends on the rest of your methods. You can play inverted minors, or criss-cross for that matter, independently of 2/1. For a start, after a 1 opening there is no 2/1 response; while after a 1 opening it is optional whether to play 2 as a GF, although most seem to these days for consistency. So only 1 responses have any releveance to 2/1 and 1 - 2 does not affect your diamond raise structure. I would suggest that the (vast) majority playing 2/1 do indead play some form of forcing minor suit raise.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#3 User is offline   trevahound 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 2008-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Burien (Seattle) Washington

Posted 2012-July-17, 12:40

View Post32519, on 2012-July-17, 00:20, said:

Inverted Minor Suit Raises according to my source are not part of 2/1. Yet they would certainly appear to be superior to standard treatments. So why not just make them standard, or is my source hopelessly outdated? If so, does anyone have the title of a good up to date book on 2/1 incorporating all the latest recommended bidding sequences?

Shep’s website has a nice treatment for Inverted Minor Suit Raises. It can be found here.



I added inverted minors when I was learning, considering them sophisticated and advanced. After time, though, I removed them, and they are currently one of my three or four least favorite conventions. When partner opens 1 or 1 (in a non-club system), being forced to bid 1nt with an average 8 count and 5 in partner's suit is worse than perverse, usually wrongsiding the NT in addition to being wildly misdiscreptive. I need a simple raise when I have a hand worth a simple raise (and partner being able to re-raise directly to 3m when short in the M's wins too).

I think a system must have a way to preemptively raise, make a simply raise, a way to invitationally raise, and a way to make a forcing raise for each suit if in a non-competitive auction.

A very simple solution is to get rid of weak jump shifts (another convention I do not wish to play), and use some of your formerly weak 2 level responses for your forcing minor raises. I use 2 for my club raise, and 2 for my diamond raise (using 2 for the non-inv. 5 4-5 hands that are awkward otherwise).
"I suggest a chapter on "strongest dummy opposite my free bids." For example, someone might wonder how I once put this hand down as dummy in a spade contract: AQ10xxx void AKQxx KQ. Did I start with Michaels? Did I cuebid until partner was forced to pick one of my suits? No, I was just playing with Brian (6S made when the trump king dropped singleton)." David Wright
1

#4 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-17, 23:36

I've seen a number of posts criticizing Max Hardy's methods, so I'm not too keen on getting his book on 2/1. Anyone have a suggestion on a modern up to date book on 2/1?
1

#5 User is offline   chasetb 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 702
  • Joined: 2009-December-20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Podunk, backwater USA

Posted 2012-July-18, 15:57

Well, I learned most of my 2/1 stuff from Workbook on the Two Over One System by Mike Lawrence, but the book's as old as I am (24 years old). I know Audrey Grant partnered with Eric Rodwell for 2 Over 1 Game Force, but have never read it nor know of anyone else who has. The reviews on Amazon are pretty positive, but one review (the 2-star one) claims Lawrence's book is better.

http://www.amazon.co...ds=Eric+Rodwell
"It's not enough to win the tricks that belong to you. Try also for some that belong to the opponents."

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."

"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."

-Alfred Sheinwold
1

#6 User is offline   Flem72 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 2011-March-04

Posted 2012-July-18, 19:41

View Post32519, on 2012-July-17, 23:36, said:

I've seen a number of posts criticizing Max Hardy's methods, so I'm not too keen on getting his book on 2/1. Anyone have a suggestion on a modern up to date book on 2/1?


Look, Hardy's latest two 2/1 books are not just about his methods--they present a survey (these are not the Hardy originals). IMHO, especially the 2nd one (_Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century_) is good, basic outline stuff with more than a few alternative structures thrown in. Thing is, Mr. Hardy is not the best writer out there....Lawrence's CDs, _Two over One System_ and _Conventions_ are a lot more entertaining. I flipped through the Rodwell/Grant book and shelved it.
1

#7 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,930
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-July-18, 22:16

Agree with Flem. I hated Hardy's writing style, but I slogged through it anyway. There's some good stuff in there — and in some of his other books. You could also take a look at Steve Robinson's Washington Standard.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#8 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-19, 02:01

Some play Inverted Minors as –
1. Game Force (with or without a 4-card major)
2. Game Invitational (denying a 4-card major)

Which sort of systems would include method 1? It’s certainly not part of any system that I am familiar with. This would appear to be a “partnership agreement” thing.

What then does this sequence promise: 1-2? Natural below GF strength?
1

#9 User is online   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,696
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Leeds (UK)
  • Interests:Every topic that may come up in Scientific American

Posted 2012-July-19, 05:51

View Post32519, on 2012-July-19, 02:01, said:

What then does this sequence promise: 1-2? Natural below GF strength?

The simplest thing to play is that it is natural GF. This means that 1-2NT and 1-3 are invitational. Otherwise you have to put some of the invitational hands into the 2 response.
It ain't just an emoticon, it's a big DOT with eyes and a tongue hanging from the mouth in it. --- MrAce
East has 10 points, South has 6 and West has 8. Complicated mathematical deduction will lead to the conclusion that North does not have 17-19. --- mgoetze
0

#10 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,930
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-July-19, 09:19

Romex has these agreements:

1. 1-2 is GF unless responder rebids clubs in the second round (which indicates invitational values and a club suit).
2. 1-2 is GF with 4+ (often 5+) diamonds, and denies a four card major.
3. 1-3 is invitational with diamond support, no four card major. It says nothing about clubs.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#11 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-19, 23:50

What is the expert standard treatment when there is interference over your Inverted Minor Suit Raises e.g. 1-Pass-2-2M? Since the 2 bid is merely game invitational, 10-11 HCP (usually) and denying a 4-card major, what do opener’s next set of bids mean? And how is partner expected to react to each option?
1

#12 User is offline   trevahound 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 2008-September-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Burien (Seattle) Washington

Posted 2012-July-20, 16:50

View Post32519, on 2012-July-19, 23:50, said:

What is the expert standard treatment when there is interference over your Inverted Minor Suit Raises e.g. 1-Pass-2-2M? Since the 2 bid is merely game invitational, 10-11 HCP (usually) and denying a 4-card major, what do opener’s next set of bids mean? And how is partner expected to react to each option?



It's not even remotely expert standard, but if you do use idle jump shifts for your strong minor raises (either 2m+1, or similar), you can keep that structure on over double, and not have to remember flip flop (as 2nt stays natural). You give up WJS into one of RHO's suits, or fit jumps if that's what a jump on the 2 level would be for you (much better than weak, imo).

Over interference higher than double, you have the cue bid for the big raise, just as if partner opened 1M, and 2m for the simple raise.

To the extent that there is a standard, I think it's to have inverted minors off after any interference, and to flip flop 2nt and 3m's meanings -- 2nt becomes the preemptive raise to 3m, and 3m becomes the big value raise (right-siding the NT).

EDIT -- sorry, I didn't read carefully. I think "standard" is to play the raise as forcing through 2nt, but in all my partnerships we play the equiv. raise as forcing through 3m. Thus, whatever your meta agreements are on passing vs bidding the level you're forced to would apply, as would direct doubles vs indirect.
"I suggest a chapter on "strongest dummy opposite my free bids." For example, someone might wonder how I once put this hand down as dummy in a spade contract: AQ10xxx void AKQxx KQ. Did I start with Michaels? Did I cuebid until partner was forced to pick one of my suits? No, I was just playing with Brian (6S made when the trump king dropped singleton)." David Wright
1

#13 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-23, 04:21

Didn't fully undstand what trevahound suggested. How about this?

1-Pass-2-2M
Now what?
X = Penalty? Asking for stopper to play NT? (other major stopped)
2NT = Invitational to 3NT? (the suit bid by opps is stopped)
3m= To play, hand more suitable for offence than defence?
3M = GF cue, shortness in opps suit? Inviting a slam try cue bid sequence?
3NT = To play? (the suit bid by opponents is well stopped)
1

#14 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-July-25, 23:37

What is the expert standard treatment when there is a double over your Inverted Minor Suit Raises in this sequence: 1-Pass-2-X?

What would the double mean? My guess is that it would be a takeout for the majors (much like 2 over 1NT = takeout for the majors when playing Multi-Landy).
1

#15 User is offline   SteveMoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 2012-May-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati Unit 124
  • Interests:Family, Travel, Bridge Tournaments and Writing. Youth Bridge

Posted 2012-July-27, 22:14

View Post32519, on 2012-July-23, 04:21, said:

Didn't fully undstand what trevahound suggested. How about this?

1-Pass-2-2M
Now what?
X = Penalty? Asking for stopper to play NT? (other major stopped)
2NT = Invitational to 3NT? (the suit bid by opps is stopped)
3m= To play, hand more suitable for offence than defence?
3M = GF cue, shortness in opps suit? Inviting a slam try cue bid sequence?
3NT = To play? (the suit bid by opponents is well stopped)


Several adjustments:
Pass to show a (balanced) minimum with or without stop in M.
Dbl = Balance of Power - 3 cards in M and 23+ HCP for our side. Invites partner to pass for penalties with 3+ M cards.
2OM = Concentration of strength, good 13+, GF, looking first for NT. Not necessarily 4 cards, but might be 5!!! Usually asking for stop in M or om.
2N = Lebensohlish - to stop in 3. (Bidding with bal minimum means we are at 2N on 21 HCP too often. Have 23 HCP for our side before bidding 2N).
3 = GF, 54+ or stop concentration for NT (M shortness implied 0-2). Explore 3N stoppers first.
3 = 5+ cards, 13+, with M shortness (0-2).
3M = Splinter for
3N = Stop in M, balanced hand.

Remember "One Ask Two Show". There are 3 suits to scan for stoppers in NT. Opener will bid OM or om whichever is lower ranking stopper (strength fragment). Responder can show full M stopper by bidding NT, or a partial stop by cuebidding 3M. 3M as a stopper showing bid leaves 2 suits unknown and no space to find out - better assing this a short suit slammish try...
"Carpe Liceor". Think - the first 90 seconds are more important than the next 7 minutes.
Be the partner you want to play with. Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
Learning Points
Unit 124
Steve Moese
1

#16 User is offline   SteveMoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 2012-May-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati Unit 124
  • Interests:Family, Travel, Bridge Tournaments and Writing. Youth Bridge

Posted 2012-July-27, 22:40

FWIW, inverted minor raises trace to Kaplan Sheinwold and 5-card Majors Western Style both precursors to 2/1 GF.
The link you offered is a good reference for inverted raises. The standard treatment is that inverted raises are off in competition - having a simple/constructive raise is more valuable when competing, and 2N Jordan or the popular "Flip Flop" (2N preempts and 3m Invited) take care of invitational+ hands in competition. [Flip Flop hopes to right side 3NT].

For 1-2 you choose (does NOT deny a 4-cad major). GF or Inv+ (rebidding 3 cancels the GF). I prefer GF. (Then 1 - 3 shows 6+s and 10-11 HCP). The immediate GF simplifies many auctions, particularly those that would otherwise start out 1-1 when responde holds 4 spades.

I play 1-2 as Natural 5+ cards and GF with one partner. We judge no value for a weak J/S here, and this bid does NOT deny a 4-card major.

However, many experts here play J/S in the om is INV+ for opener's m. This keeps the simple raise intact (weak or constructive). Over interference, we play Flip/Flop.
"Carpe Liceor". Think - the first 90 seconds are more important than the next 7 minutes.
Be the partner you want to play with. Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
Learning Points
Unit 124
Steve Moese
1

#17 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,930
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-July-28, 06:15

View PostSteveMoe, on 2012-July-27, 22:40, said:

However, many experts here play J/S in the om is INV+ for opener's m. This keeps the simple raise intact (weak or constructive). Over interference, we play Flip/Flop.

Some folks play 1m-2m as GF, and the criss-cross raise (1-2 or 1-3) as invitational. They have to choose between Eastern style (1-2-2-3 is invitational with clubs) and giving up showing the invitational hand with long clubs. There is also the problem that 1-3 takes up a lot of bidding space, particularly compared to 1-2.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#18 User is offline   SteveMoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 2012-May-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati Unit 124
  • Interests:Family, Travel, Bridge Tournaments and Writing. Youth Bridge

Posted 2012-July-29, 13:05

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-July-28, 06:15, said:

Some folks play 1m-2m as GF, and the criss-cross raise (1-2 or 1-3) as invitational. They have to choose between Eastern style (1-2-2-3 is invitational with clubs) and giving up showing the invitational hand with long clubs. There is also the problem that 1-3 takes up a lot of bidding space, particularly compared to 1-2.

Ed, great add! Thanks!
Steve
"Carpe Liceor". Think - the first 90 seconds are more important than the next 7 minutes.
Be the partner you want to play with. Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
Learning Points
Unit 124
Steve Moese
1

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users