[jillybean]

---

MP's

What do you open and what is your plan?

[thepossum]

No idea really. 2NT

[Cyberyeti]

1♦, playing something more standard then my normal methods intending to bid 3♣ over 1M.

Playing what I play, I have a GF unbalanced 2N available for the rebid.

[mikeh]

1d to be followed by a gf 3C over a 1-level response by partner.

What I do should the opps bid depends on the auction.


This is a good hand, but not as good as it would be were it, as one example, Ax A AQxxx AQxxx

Opening 2C would be horrific

I’ve seen non-experts open these sorts of hands 1C, thinking that ‘reversing’ into diamonds is the way to go. Never distort shape unless there is no good alternative.

[ali quarg]

thepossum, on 2021-February-22, 02:52, said:

No idea really. 2NT

This is how I do it
The normal 2NT goes into a Multi2D leaving 2NT free for V. Strong 55 or sub-Minimum opening hands

[jillybean]

Unfortunately 1♦ 1M 3♣ is invitational 16+ for us.

[mycroft]

Well, now you know why GF is standard (1m-1M; 3m being invitational is common). Without tools to handle these hands, you're stuck with guessing on these rare GF two-suiters, probably bidding 3♣ and hoping partner doesn't pass.

Now, you gain a lot with this agreement; one of the really ugly issues in standard is that 1♦-1M; 2♣ is 11-17, and people frequently have to raise on hands that they hope won't get passed, but make game if not. These auctions in your system are much easier. But sometimes you pay for it.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-February-22, 13:10, said:

Unfortunately 1♦ 1M 3♣ is invitational 16+ for us.

I have no idea how you can play that method

Yes, 16-17 hcp two suiters are difficult to bid in standard 2/1, since you basically have to trust partner to keep the bidding alive, after say 1D 1M 2C

However, in real life, he will often take a preference to 2D or rebid his major and, if he passes, often you’ll find that 2C was high enough

Meanwhile, on the very important strong hands, not suited for a 2C opening, you’re screwed.

Obviously nothing’s perfect. Strong club systems are popular, especially with experts, precisely (pun accidental) because of the problems standard methods have with 16-21 hcp 1 level openings

Gazilli or it’s cousins are popular in some circles for the same reason

But absent such methods, I think it is unplayable not to have a strong gf jumpshift available, especially at imps.

Now some play that 1m 1M 2N is an artificial gf. However, when you do that, you’re pretty much forced to play something like 2D showing 18-19 balanced, which is playable but you need agreements about how to proceed after it. Plus of course now you don’t have a bid for whatever you’ve been using 2D to show.

My advice: unless you’re prepared to adopt some gadget or system, perhaps like something mentioned above, keep the jumpshift as gf.

Learn that as responder one keeps the bidding alive with 9 counts, after 1D 1M 2C, unless one has a very bad mesh. I’d pass 2C with something like Qxxx KJxxx x Kxx but that’s about the most I’d ever have and the odds are that I haven’t missed game opposite some 5-5 16 or 17 count even though we have lots of hcp. Is this infallible? No. But you may as well quit the game if you’re hoping for an infallible bidding system😀

Btw, it’s considered normal for responder, with a decent 8+, to give what’s known as a ‘false preference’ to 2D with 2=3 or 3=4 in the minors, to allow opener to bid again (often but not always via a natural 2N) with 16-18. This poses problems for those who like to open 1D on 4=5 minors...which is why I very seldom do,

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2021-February-22, 14:13, said:

I have no idea how you can play that method

Yes, 16-17 hcp two suiters are difficult to bid in standard 2/1, since you basically have to trust partner to keep the bidding alive, after say 1D 1M 2C

If you play that method you have to open 1♣, reverse to 2♦ and bid 3♦ to show a huge 5-5 rather than guaranteeing 5-6.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-February-22, 14:13, said:

I have no idea how you can play that method

I think the method is a throwback to the rules learnt when starting to play bridge "Standard American", and not trusting partner to bid their hand.
Since these hands are infrequent and there are so many other sequences to sort out, I've fumbled through these, probably getting a plus and not
being too concerned about missing the minor slam that no one got to. Now I know better, thanks.

[johnu]

jillybean, on 2021-February-22, 13:10, said:

Unfortunately 1♦ 1M 3♣ is invitational 16+ for us.

This hand is an example why that is a very bad agreement when it forces you to open 1♣ and reverse in diamonds. Most (all?) 2/1 experts play

---

as anything less than a jump shift, so including you 16+ hands that are not worth a jump shift.

[nige1]

JillyBean 'Unfortunately 1♦ 1M 3♣ is invitational 16+ for us'

+++++++++++++++++++++
1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ is invitational so it makes sense to agree that 1♦ -1♠ - 3♣ is at least F/1. Most partnerships treat jump-shift rebids by opener as G/F. IMO, in a simple natural system, it's a distortion to open 1♣ and reverse into 2♦, especially when the ♦ suit is stronger.

---

[jillybean]

nige1, on 2021-February-23, 00:47, said:

JillyBean 'Unfortunately 1♦ 1M 3♣ is invitational 16+ for us'

+++++++++++++++++++++
1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ is invitational so it makes sense to agree that 1♦ -1♠ - 3♣ is at least F/1. Most partnerships treat jump-shift rebids by opener as G/F. IMO, in a simple natural system, it's a distortion to open 1♣ and reverse into 2♦, especially when the ♦ suit is stronger.

---

Sorry, I don't understand your comment 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ is invitational.
Couldn't this be a minimum 1255 2254 type distribution?

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2021-February-23, 05:00, said:

Sorry, I don't understand your comment 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ is invitational.
Couldn't this be a minimum 1255 2254 type distribution?

It can be, the point is it's not forcing, it's not "you must pass" therefore it's invitational.

We actually play it as "forcing if you actually had a response", we're unusual though.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-23, 05:37, said:

It can be, the point is it's not forcing, it's not "you must pass" therefore it's invitational.

We actually play it as "forcing if you actually had a response", we're unusual though.

You have a very idiosyncratic idea of what ‘invitational’ means.

Imo, invitational calls only exist once partner has quite narrowly defined his or her hand. One then makes a bid that asks partner ‘in the context of what you’ve shown’, are you maximum or minimum?

1D 1M provides very little information about responder’s hand. It could be a 4 count (few good players would pass 1D with, say, xxxx KJxxx x xxx) or a 24 count. So 2C doesn’t in any way ‘ask’ anything.

2C is descriptive, not inviting. Unfortunately, it’s also very wide range, absent specialized methods, hence jillbean’s dilemma.

A bid is not ‘invitational’ merely because it’s not ‘sign off’. Opener doesn’t have any ‘sign off’ bid opposite an unlimited hand so you’ve created a false dichotomy

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-23, 05:37, said:

It can be, the point is it's not forcing, it's not "you must pass" therefore it's invitational.

If the bid establishes a game force

1. It is not "you must pass"
2. It is not "invitational"

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-23, 05:37, said:

We actually play it as "forcing if you actually had a response", we're unusual though.

Many partnerships play 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ as natural and invitational, the same way as CyberYeti and I...

• The 2♣ bid is invitational because it suggests a possible game/slam.
• Not a limit-bid because 2♣ covers a variety of shapes and a wide range of strength.
• Not forcing because pass is systemically allowed when responder has no sensible alternative.
• And certainly not a sign-off, since responder is rarely expected to pass.

This nomenclature (S/O, LIM, INV, F/1, F/G) is widely accepted and makes useful distinctions.

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2021-February-23, 09:31, said:

If the bid establishes a game force

1. It is not "you must pass"
2. It is not "invitational"

I don't understand what you're saying, that's just rephrasing what I said.

To me bids are forcing, shut up or anything else is invitational (ie bid or don't), although we don't often describe bids like 1x-1y-2z in this way, that's effectively what most descriptive bids are if not agreed to be forcing.

[mycroft]

"invitational" almost always means in bridge "invitational to something" - Game, Slam, ... not invitation to bid.

I would not consider 3NT "choice of games", say, "invitational", even though it is not forcing and partner doesn't have to pass.

I think your use of invitational as "you can bid something else if you want, partner" is idiosyncratic, and will be misunderstood by approximately everybody.

I would treat 1♦-1M; 2♣-3♣ as "invitational", though, even if it's "I know we're too high if you're a dead minimum, but I don't want to miss game if you're a maximum, and let's hope it's right if you're neither."

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2021-February-23, 09:47, said:

Many partnerships play 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ as natural and invitational, the same way as CyberYeti and I...

• The 2♣ bid is invitational because it suggests a possible game/slam.
• Not a limit-bid because 2♣ covers a variety of shapes and a wide range of strength.
• Not forcing because pass is systemically allowed when responder has no sensible alternative.
• And certainly not a sign-off, since responder is rarely expected to pass.

This nomenclature (S/O, LIM, INV, F/1, F/G) is widely accepted and makes useful distinctions.

Perhaps we have here an example of two nations divided by a common language.

Over here, a bid is 'invitational' if it conveys a specific message to partner: a message to the effect that the bidder thinks that there may be game or slam provided that the other partner has a 'good hand in the context of what he has so far shown'. An invitational bid is a question, not a description, although in many cases the bid also conveys information.

1N 2D (transfer)
2H 3H shows 6+ hearts so is 'descriptive' but the essence of the bid is to ask opener whether, in the context of having opened 1N, he likes his hand for 4H or not.
It is thus 'invitational'

Your usage would have the 1N and the 2H calls as both 'invitational', which basically deprives the word of virtually any utility.

1D 1M
2C 3C this sequence contains no invitational calls at all.

1D and 2C are both descriptive, and the 2C call, in 'standard' methods, is still very wide range.

3C could, if one squints very hard, be seen as 'invitational' but it's not. It's descriptive: I have club support, not enough to force you to bid, but too much to risk passing...what do you want to do? However, at this point I may be picking nits

I can say this much with confidence: if I were to describe the 2C rebid, in 1D 1M 2C, as 'invitational' to any of my friends who are WC players, I'd be met with some strange looks.

As for cyber's argument that most descriptive bids are 'invitational', all I can say is that I couldn't disagree more.

I open 3S...that's descriptive. It is not the least 'invitational'

I raise partner's 1S to 2S...that is not invitational...now if I played that 3S by responder was limit, then 3S would be invitational. According to both nige1 and cyber, both spade raises are invitational...heck why not call every bid one makes below 7N as invitational? Maybe to disaster, but heck, opening 7S is clearly invitational to 7N, is it not? If I held x Axxx Axxx xxxx, I'd bid 7N at mps if partner opened 7S...I'd pass with void AKQJ AKQJ AKQxx of course.