[lycier]

Now please look at the Gib example bidding sequence:

---

2♦ says "Inverted minor suit raise--4+♦,3-♥,3-♠,10-11hcp,12-total points,forcing to 2N".
I wonder why 2♦ is forcing in the passed hand.
How do you think of it?

[dicklont]

He promises you another bid when you now bid 2♥ or 2♠, not when you bid 2NT or 3♦.
Good to know, although anything else would be very strange, but such things must be made explicit to a robot.

[iandayre]

I think Lycier's point is why 2D cannot be passed with no game interest. And a valid one, the description should be changed to offer that possibility.

[steve2005]

iandayre, on 2014-December-31, 13:47, said:

I think Lycier's point is why 2D cannot be passed with no game interest. And a valid one, the description should be changed to offer that possibility.

Gib passed hand bidding is very bad, gives no leeway that you may have opened light. Same If you enter auction late Gib assumes you have full values, sometimes assuming extra values that clearly if you had that would have bid earlier.

[Bbradley62]

I still hate inverted minors on four-card support.

[uva72uva72]

Inverted minors based on 4-card support make sense only if you are playing weak NTs - then when you open 1m you are likely to have either balanced 15+ or an unbalanced hand with 5+ cards in the minor. In the latter case, the raise on 4 cards is safe because you have a 9-card fit; in the former case your 4-4 minor fit may be the best place to play a slam, and you are forced to game with plenty of room to explore for the right one. I don't know anyone who plays weak NTs anymore (except the Fantunes disciples); and everyone who plays strong NTs has agreed that inverted minors require 5 cards support. 4-3 minor suit fits at the 3-level are maddening to play and 1NT is almost always a much better alternative.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-31, 19:27, said:

I still hate inverted minors on four-card support.

Always? Or just when responder is a passed hand?

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-January-01, 03:59, said:

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-31, 19:27, said:

I still hate inverted minors on four-card support.

Always? Or just when responder is a passed hand?

Anytime except by an unpassed hand that is too strong to reply 1N, 2N, or 3N.

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-01, 08:24, said:

Anytime except by an unpassed hand that is too strong to reply 1N, 2N, or 3N.

how do you define 2N and 3N responses in that method?

[Bbradley62]

In the same way that GIB does. 1N=6-10, 2N=11-12, 3N=13-15 (personally, I prefer to include 10 in 2N instead of 1N, but that's a quibble); 3-♥; 3-♠; and, for 2N and 3N, 4-♣ .

GIB would have to explain 1♦-2♦ as 4+♦; 11+TP, when in fact responder has either 5+♦; 11+TP or 4+♦; 16+TP. This means that a passed hand would always have 5+♦ and should be explained as such.

[1eyedjack]

So your 2N and 3N responses are non-committal regarding quality of support for opener's minor (except for denying 5)?

[Bbradley62]

Except that 3-♠; 3-♥; 4-♦; 4-♣ demands 3-4♦. Do you really need to be more specific than that with one bid?

[1eyedjack]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-01, 13:49, said:

Except that 3-♠; 3-♥; 4-♦; 4-♣ demands 3-4♦. Do you really need to be more specific than that with one bid?

"Need" is an overbid.

It is not an issue that really excites me. If the continuations following an inverted minor raise were (a) optimised, and (b) properly described, then I feel that the marginal benefit of changing the definition of the inverted raise would be correspondingly "marginal".

One area to which I should like some devotion of resources is the distinction between 1D and 1N responses to 1C. Currently my understanding (and I am happy to be corrected) is that both bids show the same total strengths and there is considerable overlap regarding hand pattern. Where the patterns overlap they are distinguished by some rules regarding suit quality and guards, which distinctions are not apparent from descriptions attached to the bids nor "in yer face" if you look around on the web for it, and I don't think it reasonable to expect users to remember the distinctions on the fly even assuming that they ever find them in advance.

OK this tread is about inverted minors but the issues are connected. No doubt readers would mostly prefer some TWalsh structure but let's get real. Personally I would prefer that (absent TWalsh) a 1N response to 1C categorically promises 4 card Club support.

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-January-01, 14:25, said:

Personally I would prefer that (absent TWalsh) a 1N response to 1C categorically promises 4 card Club support.

I completely agree with this.

[iandayre]

Not that this idea is terrible, but I don't agree. I want GIB to bid 1NT with 3343 shape and the appropriate point range unless both majors are empty.

I stopped subscribing to the Bridge World in 2009 and didn't play a hand for 5 years until I started playing here just over a year ago. At one time I considered myself an expert on the 2/1 system but that's a bit of an overbid now. And I have never heard of TWalsh. I could look it up but how about a quick description?

[1eyedjack]

iandayre, on 2015-January-02, 12:57, said:

And I have never heard of TWalsh. I could look it up but how about a quick description?

I am not an expert on this either. By which I mean that I have some knowledge of a particular implementation of it but I know that there are several strains. In some respects I hope I get some of this wrong so that others pounce on it and put it right.

We are concerned with an uncontested auction following a 1C opener in which 1M opener would be a 5 card suit. In most implementations a 1N opener would be 15-17 (in some circumstances, positions, etc 14-16) and could include a 5 card major.

in "original Walsh", responder was required to respond 1M in preference to 1D in most situations. Certainly with 4-4 in the suits. Perhaps not with longer Diamonds and GF. This added some protection to a 1N rebid by opener on a balanced "weak 1N" hand that bypassed a 4 card major en route. But there was I suspect more to it than that.

In "TWalsh" or "Transfer Walsh", a 1D response shows a 4 card Heart suit, and a 1H response shows a 4 card Spade suit. This opens up a wealth of possibilities regarding a 1S/1N response to 1C, and this is one area where variants of TWalsh differ. You could (for example) choose 1S to promise Club support and 1N+ to show Diamonds. Or you could use 1S to show a Diamond suit and 1N+ to show Clubs.

Another area of difference between variants is the meaning of the accepted "transfer", ie 1C-1D-1H or 1C-1H-1S. Personally I play this as showing a balanced weak 1N opener hand-type with fewer than 4 (potentially 2) card support for responder. Then a 1N rebid by opener shows a balanced hand too strong for 1N opener. I know that others play this differently but I leave it to them to comment as they are better placed than I.