[awm]

Say partner opens 1NT, and you have a hand that's normally worth an invite, but includes a singleton somewhere. Your methods are such that if you choose to game force, you can pretty much show your distribution, but if you invite, you won't be able to show the shortness. Do you upgrade?

To give a more specific example, I held this hand opposite a 14-16 1NT opening:

♠x ♥AKxxx ♦xxx ♣Qxxx

Nine points and a five card suit is usually invite opposite 14-16, but if I invite all I can do is show "an invitational hand with five hearts" and let partner pick a contract, whereas if I game force I can show "1-5-3-4 game forcing hand." What would you do?

[cherdano]

And I thought a 9-count with a nice 5-card suit is a GF opposite a 14-16 1NT opening...

[zasanya]

cherdano, on Aug 27 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

And I thought a 9-count with a nice 5-card suit is a GF opposite a 14-16 1NT opening...

The issue is do you consider it a gameforce hand?In other words are you an optimist or a pessimist?

[jdonn]

I would GF that opposite a 15-17 notrump but invite opposite 14-16, you found my cutoff.

[whereagles]

hcps in the right spots. worth a GF for me

[kenrexford]

I would also invite, given the options, and force game, as did Justin, if hearts are agreed.

That being said, these hand types are why I have played a relay after the transfer of 2♠ as merely showing an unbalanced game try with hearts, not promising spades. There are some negatives to this, of course. But, it allows Opener, if interested, to ask for the pattern.

Recently, the partners with whom I played that and I have dropped that one aspect, however, only using the "unbalanced game try" for a spade-anchor holding (2♣...2♠).

One possible alternative that I considered for some time is a "minor suit smolen" concept. 1NT-P-transfer-P-major-P-? 3♣=♦, 3♦=♣. This, of course, only helps with invites and diamond-major two suiters, but half is better than none. (3♦ showing clubs is GF; 3♣ showing diamonds can result in the contract ending at 3♦ or 3M.)

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Aug 27 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

I would just invite but if pard showed a heart fit I would drive it to game even if he rejected the game try (don't know your methods but ie, in standard bidding, 1N-2D-2H-2N-3H-4H).

I agree with this.

Jdonn, on Aug 27 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

I would GF that opposite a 15-17 notrump but invite opposite 14-16, you found my cutoff.

I also agree with this.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Aug 27 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 27 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

I would just invite but if pard showed a heart fit I would drive it to game even if he rejected the game try (don't know your methods but ie, in standard bidding, 1N-2D-2H-2N-3H-4H).

I agree with this.

Jdonn, on Aug 27 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

I would GF that opposite a 15-17 notrump but invite opposite 14-16, you found my cutoff.

I also agree with this.

! also agree with all this.

As an aside, playing imps, I generally do not invite, but this hand-type is an exception: the existence of 3 card heart support is at least as important as whether he has a 15+ or 15- hcp.

[awm]

Here's what happened on the actual hand for those interested. Partner held:

♠xxx ♥QJ ♦Ax ♣AKJxxx

At my table, partner opened this hand with 1NT (14-16). Our auction:

1NT - 2♣(1)
2♦(2) - 2♥(3)
3♣(4) - 3NT(5)

(1) Forces 2♦, part of Keri-Garrod NT structure
(2) Forced
(3) Invite with hearts
(4) Artificial; maximum values with doubleton heart
(5) In principle one could play shortage showing bids here, but not our agreement

Lousy contract, off the entire spade suit with 6♣ excellent. However, we actually won twelve imps on this board when our opponents at the other table opened 1NT (15-17) and bid:

1NT - 2♦(1)
2♥(2) - 3♣(3)
3NT!!!

(1) Transfer to ♥.
(2) Accept of transfer
(3) Natural and GF

Both sides played in the same lousy contract, but one set of defenders found the spade lead and the other lead a diamond. Silly way to win 12 on a hand that belongs in 6♣.

Anyways, we agreed that 3♠ over 3♣ should show shortage (a spade fit is not really possible on this auction since opener bids 2♠ over 2♥ with four and responder cannot have five spades for this particular invitational sequence). But this problem is one that seems to come up from time to time in a lot of auctions and notrump structures, where on game forcing hands you can describe what you have pretty well, whereas on invites you have much less accuracy (because of the need to stop low when opener declines). I was wondering if people think (as a general rule) that it's worth upgrading an invite to force game in order to show shape.

[ArtK78]

I know that the point of this thread is the responding hand, but I cannot resist commenting on the opening 1NT bid.

At IMPs, it is so much more important to get to minor suit slams or minor suit games than at matchpoints that I would NEVER open 1NT at IMPs on the hand given. This is aside from the valuation issue of whether the hand is worth evaluating at 15-17 HCP.

The opening hand is very flawed for a 1NT opening. Essentially, there are two suits wide open. And after a 1NT opening it will be almost impossible to get to a good 5♣ or 6♣ contract unless (and even if) partner has at least 5 clubs.

I wouldn't be surprised to have the auction go 1NT-3NT and discover that you have a 6-6 club fit with xxx opposite x in spades or QJ opposite xx in hearts (or both!). 3NT could be down 7 tricks with 4♣ being cold! That is a 13 IMP swing on a part score hand.

The bottom line is that I would not open the dealer's hand with 1NT at IMPs.

I don't have as much of a problem with a 1NT opening at matchpoints - do whatever you have to do to win. Still, there are many players who would not open that hand 1NT at matchpoints.

[han]

I also voted for invite, though I think it is very close.

[awm]

In fact the 1NT opening is in 3rd seat, which makes the choice of opening bid a bit less unreasonable. I still prefer bidding the clubs myself, but I have this weird desire to bid my suits (and also raise my partner with a fit) both of which seem out of touch with modern bridge.

I should also mention that the point of the thread is not so much the example hand, nor the evaluation of what constitutes a game force versus an invite. It's more about whether you would upgrade a hand, supposing that showing game forcing values allows you to describe your shape a lot better than showing an invitational hand -- in other words, is the possibility of playing in game without "game values" worth the certainty of finding the best strain that you get by overbidding by a point or two.

[cherdano]

Yeah I might have replied to the actual question too... I think the benefit of describing your shape is very marginal, if you want to play game you will be right by insisting on 4H opposite a 3-card fit and 3N without one almost all the time, and describing has the obvious drawback of helping opponents with the lead.

In fact, assuming I would show a GF with this hand: In what I play with Han I could choose between starting to describe my hand (by transfer extensions) or bid 1N 2D 2H 3S (which forces partner to bid 4H with 3 hearts and 3N without). I might well choose the latter unless this is a bidding contest.