[jdonn]

1eyedjack, on Nov 13 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 12 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

I worry a bit about the ethical baggage that comes with this. On occasion I have played against opponents who *claim* to vary their style on whim, when in practice they more often the not open the weaker minor as a lead inhibitor, the effectiveness of which relies on opposition unfamiliarity with that tendency.

It's a different issue, but they are the ones who have to sleep at night.

Isn't Rosenberg on record that his own algorithm for which minor to open when 4-4 is not even known to Zia?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Nov 14 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 13 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 12 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 12 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

I worry a bit about the ethical baggage that comes with this. On occasion I have played against opponents who *claim* to vary their style on whim, when in practice they more often the not open the weaker minor as a lead inhibitor, the effectiveness of which relies on opposition unfamiliarity with that tendency.

It's a different issue, but they are the ones who have to sleep at night.

Isn't Rosenberg on record that his own algorithm for which minor to open when 4-4 is not even known to Zia?

If there is a regulation that both players in a partnership must play the same system this could be illegal.

Of course players can use their own judgement.

However without knowing the algorithm it is impossible to determine whether this is a matter of style and judgement or system.

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Nov 13 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

Hi Arend,

Could I just clarify

Quote

I think it simplifies things a lot if you immediately show a weak NT when you have it, often responder knows he wants to play 3N opposite any balanced hand.

means after 1♦:2♦ opener bids 2nt holding a balanced 12-14 ?

thanks

Yes, that's what I suggest (but it also means that you have to play 2N as forcing, since you don't want to play 2N when you have 14 hcp opposite an invite).

[neilkaz]

One of the issues with INVM is that there are quite a few different schemes for continuing the auction and this can make it difficult for newer players to learn and apply especially in casual partnerships.

If you google "inverted minors" you see several different response systems. Most seem to rely on whom ever is weak bidding 2NT or 3♦ unless game has been forced previously from what I see.

.. neilkaz ..