[raist]

1) should inverted minors be on for a passed hand? (NO COMPETITION)

i can't find much literature about this. i searched the CCs of HH and LV, and realised that one plays on and one plays off. so it seems there may not be much of a difference, just a matter of preference?


2) is it better for fourth suit bid at the 2 level to be INV+ instead of GF?

are there any drawbacks or complications that may arise?

in particular, i refer to this hand:

♠KJTxx ♥xx ♦KTxx ♣Kxx

partner opens 1♥ and bidding goes(no interference): 1♥-1♠-2♣
now your bid. it seems that all calls are not too satisfactory
2♥/♠ are slight underbids, 2NT is not perfect
so you may want to bid 2♦ as INV+, instead of GF

again, are there any possible drawbacks to this approach?

[Codo]

I predict that there are people here who belive that their approach is the only playable. I think they are wrong. It is more a matter of taste.

1. I have no preference for inv. minor of a passed hand. I like to play 1m 2m as gameforcing, so 12+, so I am never in a situation to use it by a passed hand in the same way as with an unpassed hand.

But we play some kind of inv. minor light by a passed hand: 3 m is weaker, but 6-8 (9) and the (9) 10 (11) counts are bid via 2 m.

But there are surely better methods then this.


2. I really like 4sf as not gf below the 3. level and it works well for me. You win obviously on the hands where you have no clear direction and not the strength for a gf bid. The drawbacks may occur when you lose some space because you may have to jump with openers 3. bid to show additional strength.

I dislike your example not just because the 14 cards, but because this looks like an easy 2 NT bid despite the 5. spade

But make it:
♠KJTxx ♥Kx ♦Txxx ♣Kxx

and I would love to have 4sf not game forcing avaiable.

[Phil]

1. No strong feelings, and there's a lot of variables. You still need a way to show a limit raise by a passed hand so if you are going to drop the single raise as a limit raise you should play a jump shift in the minor as a kimit raise at least, since there's no reason to differentiate between 1D - 2C and 1D - 3C. I would always play the jump raise as weakish, just make sure you tighten it up opposite a 3rd chair 1♣ opening.

2. Funny, I was discussing this matter with someone last week, but this person is not Bid_em's regular partner so I'll write what I told him. Few people play 4SF as inv+ but if you do it should be restricted to 1C-1D-1H-1S or two level non-reverses, assuming you dont play xyz.

[straube]

1. I think 1m-2m by a PH is best as a simple raise. Use one or more JSs to force.

2. If you have only one artificial force (e.g. 4SF) available, it is usually far simpler to make it a GF. The trouble (if it isn't) is that both opener and responder will have difficulty forcing thereafter.

For instance, let's suppose I use 2D as a F1 in the sequence 1C-1H, 2C.
Opener's rebids might be...

2H-minimum, 0-2 hearts
2S-maximum, GF
2N-minimum, 3 hearts

This would work for much of the time. If responder has 6 hearts GI, he'll pass opener's 2H response. If he has 5 hearts GI, he'll sign off in 3H while other pairs who don't find hearts play 2N. The trouble is that if responder shows a minimum, responder has to use a bid (3D?) to establish a GF. He might be quite frustrated at that point if he wants to establish hearts or clubs as trump.

In this particular auction...1C-1H, 2C, one has 2 new-suit bids at the 2-level. I.e. we could reserve 2D as exactly GI and 2S as GF. That clarifies further bidding.

1C-1H, 2C-2D, 2H-3D would actually be GI with long diamonds (for example)

One can use similar methods for 1C-1D, 2C (with 2H and 2S as GI and GF respectively). You could also do the same for 1C-1S, 2C if you also play that 1C-2H shows 5S/4H with less than GI, because now you have...1C-1S, 2D as GI and 1C-1S,2H as GF.

Regarding the particular example hand that you gave, Meckwell uses 1H-1S, 2C-2S
as a GF. They can do so because...
1H-1N, 2C-2S=6 spades, less than 8
1H-2S=6 spades, 8-10
1H-1S, 2C-3S=6 spades 11-12

Their 1H-1S, 2C-2D shows long diamonds and is a request to play 2D. I wonder if they would see merit in making that sequence show an artificial GI of some sort.

1H-1S, 2C-2D...
2H-minimum, less than 3 spades
2S-minimum, 3 spades
other-GF

Playing more standard methods, I would want to make 1H-1S, 2C-2D as GF or I risk being very frustrated when I have a good hand.

[mike777]

raist, on Oct 15 2009, 06:34 AM, said:

1) should inverted minors be on for a passed hand? (NO COMPETITION)

i can't find much literature about this. i searched the CCs of HH and LV, and realised that one plays on and one plays off. so it seems there may not be much of a difference, just a matter of preference?


2) is it better for fourth suit bid at the 2 level to be INV+ instead of GF?

are there any drawbacks or complications that may arise?

in particular, i refer to this hand:

♠KJTxx ♥xx ♦KTxx  ♣Kxx

partner opens 1♥ and bidding goes(no interference): 1♥-1♠-2♣
now your bid. it seems that all calls are not too satisfactory
2♥/♠ are slight underbids, 2NT is not perfect
so you may want to bid 2♦ as INV+, instead of GF

again, are there any possible drawbacks to this approach?

1) I still have a way to show a limit raise by a passed hand in a minor....granted this is very rare.

p=1minor
2s=limit raise in minor.



2) 2h rebid with your example hand.


btw this responder hand, for me, is very common, and this is a very common auction.(assume you have 13 cards not 14)


2d=4sf game force.