[Chamaco]

Hi all !

Assume you play:
- 2/1 GF with 1NT forcing (2/1 is ABSOLUTE GF)
- 1M:3x is NATURAL INVITE with good-long suit, so that 1M:1NT:2M:3x is absolute SIGNOFF

Now assume pard opens, all WHITE, at IMPS, in first seat, ONE SPADE

You hold: A-QT9x-xx-AT98xx

FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD, THIS QUESTION IS NOT ON HAND EVALUATION:
SOME PEOPLE SHALL CONSIDER THIS WORTH A GF, SOME OTHERS WILL DOWNGRADE IT TO LESS THAN INVITATIONAL AFTER OPENER'S 2 SPADES REBID.

In these cases, just improve or wiorsen this hand so that it fits YOUR requirements for an invitational hand.

So, we are dealt an invitational hand with a long minor, a side 4cM, and an Ace stiff in pd suit.

For better or worse, we refuse to bid an immediate 3m invitational (this would bury the potential heart fit)

After 1♠:1NT:2♠,

a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?)

b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ?

c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?

[hrothgar]

Hi Chamaco

a. I would bid 2NT

b. I don't consider this hand suitable for an intermediate jump shift. While I don't use this treatment, I don't think that its playable if you multiplex lots of different hand types into the response. Depending on your opening style / methods, I'd recommend using the jump to show either a single suited hand or some kind of fit jump.

c. Its not my cup of tea. I don't think that it is necessarily flawed, but there are other methods that I prefer.

[cherdano]

Yes this is a problem playing invitational jump shifts. Over 2♠ you can pass or bid 2N, 3♣ seems silly since it is probably not a better contract and won't help you reach game.

[jdonn]

a ) Presuming you consider yourself good enough to invite you simply have to choose between 2NT and 3♠. There is no systematic answer, you just use your judgement and do the best you can. 2NT does have the advantage that you might still back into spades, but you are not likely to end in notrump if you raise spades now.

b ) An immediate 3♣ would definitely be wrong on this hand. Both the side 4 card major and the suit quality are negative features for that choice. One might be bearable if the hand was otherwise ideal, but having both is just too much. In particular the 4 hearts and 2 side aces, this hand is just way too good for play in hearts.

c ) I like playing it and think it's a good method. If by flawed, you mean it can't show every possible hand type, then every method I have ever heard of is flawed. If you were playing strong jump shifts and 2♣ then 3♣ as invitational, you would have a problem on the strong hands with clubs that aren't suitable for an immediate jump shift. If you were playing weak jump shifts and 2/1 GF you would have a problem showing any invitational hand. You simply can't do it all.

[pclayton]

1. We could try 2N to invite, but in a limited opening structure, I'll pass 2♠.

2. Agree with 1N, not 3♣.

3. This is a sensible structure.

[Double !]

fwiw, IMO, the 6-4 invitational hand is an inherent problem playing invitational jump-shifts and 2/1 GF. One alternative is to play 2/1 GF except for responder's rebid of his suit. Another that I have seen played on 1 or 2 occasions is an artificial 2C response to show various hands including the invitational J-S type of hand. IMO, the advent of 2/1GF just because the partnership plays 1M-1NT forcing one round, creates a problem for this type of hand as well as for limit raise hands with 3-card trump support (1M-1NT-2 bananas-3M). IMO, the latter is a poor sequence that can get the partnership too high, especially if playing lighter opening bids, yet seems to be commonly accepted as the way to bid such hands.

DHL

[kenrexford]

With this specific hand, I see 3♠ as less problematic than jdonn. It seems to me that an empathetic partner, who has sat as Responder after 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠, will be eager to introduce 3NT as a possible strain. I agree that his likely 6331 pattern might dissuade him, but that's not destiny. I'm not terribly upset by 4♠, anyway.

[david_c]

Funny, I posted about this on my blog just yesterday. I really, really hate IJS, but seeing as many very sensible people like to play that way I suppose it's just a personal thing.

I suppose if I'd agreed to play this way I'd bid 1NT then 2NT on this hand.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jun 2 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

1. We could try 2N to invite, but in a limited opening structure, I'll pass 2♠.

Jlall, on Jun 2 2007, 05:26 PM, said:

I would pass, and this is why hamman says inv jumpshifts suck.

Chamaco, on Jun 2 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD, THIS QUESTION IS NOT ON HAND EVALUATION:
SOME PEOPLE SHALL CONSIDER THIS WORTH A GF, SOME OTHERS WILL DOWNGRADE IT TO LESS THAN INVITATIONAL AFTER OPENER'S 2 SPADES REBID.

In these cases, just improve or wiorsen this hand so that it fits YOUR requirements for an invitational hand.

[ArcLight]

>I would pass, and this is why hamman says inv jumpshifts suck.

What would Hamman use the bid for, instead of the invitational jump shift?
Fit jump?
Bergen raise?
???

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Jun 2 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Hi all !

Assume you play:
- 2/1 GF with 1NT forcing (2/1 is ABSOLUTE GF)
- 1M:3x is NATURAL INVITE with good-long suit, so that 1M:1NT:2M:3x is absolute SIGNOFF

Now assume pard opens, all WHITE, at IMPS, in first seat, ONE SPADE

You hold: A-QT9x-xx-AT98xx

FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD, THIS QUESTION IS NOT ON HAND EVALUATION:
SOME PEOPLE SHALL CONSIDER THIS WORTH A GF, SOME OTHERS WILL DOWNGRADE IT TO LESS THAN INVITATIONAL AFTER OPENER'S 2 SPADES REBID.

In these cases, just improve or wiorsen this hand so that it fits YOUR requirements for an invitational hand.

So, we are dealt an invitational hand with a long minor, a side 4cM, and an Ace stiff in pd suit.

For better or worse, we refuse to bid an immediate 3m invitational (this would bury the potential heart fit)

After 1♠:1NT:2♠,

a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?)

b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ?

c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?

I think this is really solved by having firm agreements on what an opening bid shows.
If playing with a pickup partner I would bid 2clubs to one spade.
If we agree to open lightish, I respond 1nt and pass 2s.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Jun 2 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

I think this is really solved by having firm agreements on what an opening bid shows.
If playing with a pickup partner I would bid 2clubs to one spade.
If we agree to open lightish, I respond 1nt and pass 2s.

The original poster made a very big effort to essentially say he was only interested in the discussion of what an invitational hand like this does now. He did not want people to answer that they would have forced to game immediately (playing 2/1 as stated), or would pass now, if that's the case he said just alter the hand until you consider it specifically invitational. At least 3 of the posters seem to not have even read the original post before answering...

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 2 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

I think this is really solved by having firm agreements on what an opening bid shows.
If playing with a pickup partner I would bid 2clubs to one spade.
If we agree to open lightish, I respond 1nt and pass 2s.

The original poster made a very big effort to essentially say he was only interested in the discussion of what an invitational hand like this does now. He did not want people to answer that they would have forced to game immediately (playing 2/1 as stated), or would pass now, if that's the case he said just alter the hand until you consider it specifically invitational. At least 3 of the posters seem to not have even read the original post before answering...

I have discussed this type of situation as have many others often.

If you are going to assume this hand is invite then rebid 2nt with long minor, with or without side 4 card major. 2nt=invite yes?

BTW what limitations the poster is placing on this problem is at the very least confusing.

[jdonn]

He said nothing confusing, in fact he was very direct and straightforward. Meanwhile if you feel the discussion he tried to have was not worthwhile, as you seem to imply, then why were you participating...

[the hog]

After 1♠:1NT:2♠,

a. what can we bid to try to invite to a decent game (given that 3♣♦♥ would be a weak signoff with long suit?)

b. did you agree on the first choice not to bid an immediate 3♣ ?

c. Do you think this bidding structure (1M:3x = natural invite, chosen to "cleanup" the 1NT forcing hand type) is flawed ?

I would bid 3S after the 2S rebid.

Agree with not bidding 3C as, yes, you can too easily lose the H suit. The 3m bid should be a single suiter.

I do not think this structure is flawed. You will bid a number of nice 3NT contracts which may well be missed if not playing this. It gets your hand out of the way in one bid.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 2 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

1. We could try 2N to invite, but in a limited opening structure, I'll pass 2♠.

Jlall, on Jun 2 2007, 05:26 PM, said:

I would pass, and this is why hamman says inv jumpshifts suck.

Chamaco, on Jun 2 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

FOR THE SAKE OF THIS THREAD, THIS QUESTION IS NOT ON HAND EVALUATION:
SOME PEOPLE SHALL CONSIDER THIS WORTH A GF, SOME OTHERS WILL DOWNGRADE IT TO LESS THAN INVITATIONAL AFTER OPENER'S 2 SPADES REBID.

In these cases, just improve or wiorsen this hand so that it fits YOUR requirements for an invitational hand.

I don't think these answers were off-topic. Bidding doesn't work the way Mauro's question implies (first I decide whether this hand is a GF, invite, or less than that, and then I try how to best show this range and my hand type). When you have an invitational hand that is impossible to describe as an invitational hand, you often decide to guess and either overbid or underbid so that at least you get the strain right. When is the last time you invited with a 1345 shape opposite a 1N opening?

I will go out on a limb and claim both Phil and Justin would treat this hand as an invite+ in "2/1 GF except rebid" and start with 2♣. After 1S-1N-2S, the combination of "the auction made my hand worse" AND "I can't show this hand" AND "we might be on the last makeable spot" causes them to go low.

(Anyway, the question what to do if you still treat it as an invite has an obvious answer IMHO, you bid 2N.)

[jdonn]

Are you suggesting they couldn't think of a single hand with this shape and approximate highcards that is less than a game force originally but strong enough to invite now? His question was the one to which you think the answer is obvious, not "how good is the actual hand", and he gets ignored and ignored.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

Are you suggesting they couldn't think of a single hand with this shape and approximate highcards that is less than a game force originally but strong enough to invite now? His question was the one to which you think the answer is obvious, not "how good is the actual hand", and he gets ignored and ignored.

Well that question has been answered and I don't see why it should be forbidding to answer related questions as well.