[Ant590]

I had an interesting discussion the other week with a well-respected local expert about the merits or lack of merit of the following approaches

(1) 1M - 2NT = game forcing
(2) 1M - 2NT = invite or better
(and (2a) 1M - 2NT = raise to 3 or 5)

His logic was that playing invit+ meant you were in a very sticky spot when 4th hand preempts, for instance in terms of forcing passes. He cited the following type of issue:

1M - (pass ) - 2NT - 5m
where the lack of a forcing pass option for opener cost a game swing.


I felt that the gain of extra space to investigate games and freeing up the 3M raise for preemptive- or mixed-raise purposes more than outweighed this loss.

What do you think?

[helene_t]

I think even if you play it as invitational+ you can still play forcing passes. If they bid at the 5-level you may be too high anyway if you decided not to defend, and it's not so often that you want to defend undoubled after they interfere over your inv+ raise.

The main concern is that you can't bid as accurately towards slam as you could if you played it as GF. You will need 3M as a sign-off, at least in some situations, while the GF'ers can play it as a waiting bid, allowing bids that bypass 3M to be more specific.

That said I like it as inv+ as it frees up other bids for other purposes. You don't have to play Bergen raises (at least you don't need two different Bergen raises) while at the same time as you said you can play 3M as preemptive.

[Jlall]

I like inv +, but as your friend said it is definitely worse when 4th hand bids. Dunno, seems like you understand the pros and cons and should just make a decision. People don't bid enough over the 2N raise though.

[whereagles]

Most 1M-2NT schemes are wrongly designed because they put responder in charge, when it is OPENER who, by virtue of being unlimited, who should be in charge.

That being said, any decent scheme will work, provided you put the focus on opener. I.e. it's probably wrong to do it like...

1M-2NT = "got hcps and supp. What have you got?"

while it is probably right to go instead

1M-2NT = "got hcps and supp. What else do you want to know?"

[Free]

Of these 2 methods I prefer the INV+ method, because the 4th hand intervention is limited and you can play forcing passes when red. It also makes it possible to find out sharp slams with more information than if you have to use another way to show the invite.

Personally I play 1M-2NT as INV or min bal GF (so around 10-13HCP). With stronger hands we start 1M-2♣ relay. This has the advantage that none of the players should tell their hand when opener is not interested in slam, and when we are strong we have a lot more information before deciding if we want to go to slam.

Handling interference is not so difficult because responder's hand is very well described. I haven't had any problems so far.

[MickyB]

Obviously it's about trade-offs - if you can dedicate 1M:3♣ to showing 4-card limit then the loss on the non-GF hands is less than if you need it for something else. For a while, I played 1M:2N as balanced INV+, asking for shortage, with 1M:2N, 3X:3M to play - that's obviously pretty good for judgement on games, if expensive in terms of information divulged. 1M:3X was a mini-splinter - you don't need a mini-splinter in spades playing 5cM because you can just punt 4H on those hands, maybe that's true even playing Acol.

Disagree with wanting opener to be in charge on these auctions - responder is usually balanced, opener is often unbalanced, so it's best for opener to describe and responder to see how his honours fit with partner's shape.

[gwnn]

whereagles; emphasis mine said:

Most 1M-2NT schemes are wrongly designed because they put responder in charge, when it is OPENER who, by virtue of being unlimited, who should be in charge.

as opposed to responder, who is...

[whereagles]

gwnn, on Dec 2 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

whereagles; emphasis mine said:

Most 1M-2NT schemes are wrongly designed because they put responder in charge, when it is OPENER who, by virtue of being unlimited, who should be in charge.

as opposed to responder, who is...

...who is pretty much limited most of the time, because he usually:

- Doesn't have a splinter bid
- Doesn't have a long suit (didn't make a 2/1 bid)
- Doesn't have a hand that can go 1M-4NT immediately
- Doesn't have just 3-card support

So we conclude responder has some balanced 12-15 with 4M432 or 4M333 pretty much all of the time. Sure, he might have a balanced 16+ from time to time, but it is OPENER who is much more unlimited, in the sense that he can have anything from a decent flattish 11 to a super two-suiter with 20 hcp.

In light of what I said, it makes more sense to me to give control to opener. At least to me it does...

[pooltuna]

whereagles, on Dec 2 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

Most 1M-2NT schemes are wrongly designed because they put responder in charge, when it is OPENER who, by virtue of being unlimited, who should be in charge.

That being said, any decent scheme will work, provided you put the focus on opener. I.e. it's probably wrong to do it like...

1M-2NT = "got hcps and supp. What have you got?"

while it is probably right to go instead

1M-2NT = "got hcps and supp. What else do you want to know?"

the opener is limited...He did not make a game forcing initial call. Now please tell me what keeps responder from having a hand which would make a game forcing initial call and is probably better placed to determine the final contract. What I'm saying is ...opening the bidding doesn't automatically make you captain

[whereagles]

No, it doesn't. But he DOES become captain with respect to level when responder makes a limited bid, which 2NT pretty much is most of the time.

[aguahombre]

I find myself in uncharted waters. I agree with Whereagles about the frequent use/abuse of J2N. My reasoning is a little simpler:

When responder knows immediately about a Major suit fit, 2/1 without J2N allows numerous ways of showing the nature of that fit in one or two bids.

Responder's hand is going to hit the table for all to see. If we can accomplish the same (or even approximate) goals by describing and letting opener be Captain without needlessly exposing declarer's exact holdings --this can be a gain in the play.

Sometimes there needs to be a bouncing back and forth of Captaincy and 2/1 can provide room to do that without J2N, provided you have good agreements, which include expanded use of forcing NT, truly limited splinters, natural 2/1 bids, 1957 BridgeWorld bidarounds, etc.

I realize there are very good arguments for using J2N and Bergin and nebulous 2C and, and, and. But this minority view has value, too.

[skjaeran]

Disagree with Whereagles.

2/1 followed with support shows 3-card support for me.
Splinters are limited.
2NT therefore is unlimited with regards to strength, a little less when it comes to distribution.

[awm]

I like invitational or better.

Elianna and I play that 2NT is either the bad (usually three-card) limit raise or a GF 4-card raise. This makes it somewhat more dangerous for opponents to jump in, since we will often have only an eight-card fit.

It also fits nicely in that there are a number of hands with a bit of shape that are fairly minimum and want to accept a four-card limit raise (usually passing as little info to the opponents as possible) , but accepting a three-card limit raise usually requires real extras, the knowledge of which can help substantially in a slam auction as well.

[whereagles]

skaeran, on Dec 3 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

Disagree with Whereagles.

2/1 followed with support shows 3-card support for me.
Splinters are limited.
2NT therefore is unlimited with regards to strength, a little less when it comes to distribution.

Your 2NT may be unlimited in theory, but in practice you'll have a very well defined hand most of the time. I'm willing to bet it's something like 90%+ of the time.

Under those conditions, it doesn't make any sense at all to have responder leading the auction. That is, in my opinion, simply bad bidding strategy

[Free]

whereagles, on Dec 4 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

skaeran, on Dec 3 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

Disagree with Whereagles.

2/1 followed with support shows 3-card support for me.
Splinters are limited.
2NT therefore is unlimited with regards to strength, a little less when it comes to distribution.

Your 2NT may be unlimited in theory, but in practice you'll have a very well defined hand most of the time. I'm willing to bet it's something like 90%+ of the time.

Under those conditions, it doesn't make any sense at all to have responder leading the auction. That is, in my opinion, simply bad bidding strategy

Still, if one hand is balanced, he should be captain. You say 2NT is usually balanced with 12-15HCP. Then opener should clarify his shape and strength. Same principle as after a 1NT opening.

We've had this discussion many times in the past.

[gwnn]

So whereagles are you advocating alpha beta zeta asking bids by opener? "do you have the club queen?" etc?

[whereagles]

No, I'm advocating that one should give opener tools to inspect responder's hand, given that it's simpler for what usually is a 12-15 balanced hand to complete its description than it is for a wide-ranging 1M opener (in the bidding space available).

[Free]

I really don't get your argument Whereagles.

Say in the auction 1M-2NT, opener is player A and responder is player B.

Basically, after 1M-2NT you are at the same height as if B opened 1NT (limited and balanced) and A transfered a suit and is now bidding something GF (quite a big range). I don't know anyone who uses 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣+ as asking bids. Instead, everyone is trying to let A describe his hand as good as possible. People even use transfer extentions to stay that 1 little step lower which can be so very useful.

Please tell us, what's the difference between these two sequences?

[mike777]

What is the question?


If 1 major =2nt=game force ok...then so what?


Is the worry


1 major=1nt=other?

[whereagles]

Free, on Dec 5 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

I really don't get your argument Whereagles.

I think you got it backwards. I'm saying OPENER should have the tools, not responder.