[pescetom]

Left2Right, on 2019-May-31, 10:58, said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ingrid Bergman (my pet pronunciation for Ingberman). It's a convention designed to handle just such a situation. Basically, South's second call of 2NT is artificial and says, "Partner dear, I have a hand that won't make game opposite your minimum reverse."

North, holding a minimum reverse, completes the relay to three clubs and it gets played there. Holding a high-end reverse, all other bids are game forcing.

More on Ingberman click here.

JLilly did mention Ingberman, but he described it differently, as using the cheaper between 4th suit and 2NT for the weak option. This latter approach was mentioned by rmnka447 too.

The description of Ingberman you link is very similar to the french 2NT Moderateur, which I mentioned and endorsed.

[nige1]

FeliityR writes 'I, too, called 2♥ - reluctantly. This is the whole hand. Given the vulnerability I can understand somewhat East/West not bidding immediately holding the top suit, spades. My partner North was not deterred by my 2♥ call. As I say, he "came to the wrong conclusion" and it's perhaps easier to judge seeing all four hands, but how do you think the auction should proceed after 2♥.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MIkeH seems right that opener should pattern out economically with 3♦. Now responder's ♦ holding improves in value. Hence, the partnership should reach the excellent ♦ game.

---

[smerriman]

bravejason, on 2019-May-31, 10:28, said:

North has a nice hand, but when South could do nothing but make a simple rebid of hearts despite knowing North had a strong two-suiter, maybe North should just pass.

2♥ is forcing (but not game forcing), since it's also what you'd bid with a strong hand with hearts.

Left2Right, on 2019-May-31, 10:58, said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ingrid Bergman (my pet pronunciation for Ingberman). It's a convention designed to handle just such a situation. Basically, South's second call of 2NT is artificial and says, "Partner dear, I have a hand that won't make game opposite your minimum reverse."

It was already referred to several times (at least indirectly), but playing Ingberman you still bid 2♥ with a weak hand with 5 hearts, not 2NT. If partner has hearts, you find a fit.. if not, you end up in the same place that you would by bidding 2NT.

[Stephen Tu]

mikeh, on 2019-May-31, 11:49, said:

An invitational raise to 3H does not exist, and absolutely would/should not be made on Ax.

1C 1H 2D 2H 3H is how one bids, for example, x Axx AQxx AKJxx, and is forcing.

Why should this be the case? If 1H response can be light, and one is of the lighter non-GF reverse school, surely there are hands of maybe 2-3 pts less that might want to reverse and bid 3H non-forcing, no? A real GF like this can bid say 3S?

I do agree that 3H should deliver a 3rd heart, since responder should be bidding 2H on 5 regardless of suit quality in most common schemes (at least for 2/1 coming from American side of Atlantic, as opposed to Acol where everything seems to be NF) where this is F1. The people who are reluctant to rebid 2H are probably of the NF 2H school, which has both pros and cons. When all rebids are F1, there's really no downside to rebidding 2H on suits like this as it's the cheapest most flexible option, partner shouldn't be expecting better. It's when 2H is NF that you maybe want better suits.

[mikeh]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-May-31, 20:10, said:

Why should this be the case? If 1H response can be light, and one is of the lighter non-GF reverse school, surely there are hands of maybe 2-3 pts less that might want to reverse and bid 3H non-forcing, no? A real GF like this can bid say 3S?

I do agree that 3H should deliver a 3rd heart, since responder should be bidding 2H on 5 regardless of suit quality in most common schemes (at least for 2/1 coming from American side of Atlantic, as opposed to Acol where everything seems to be NF) where this is F1. The people who are reluctant to rebid 2H are probably of the NF 2H school, which has both pros and cons. When all rebids are F1, there's really no downside to rebidding 2H on suits like this as it's the cheapest most flexible option, partner shouldn't be expecting better. It's when 2H is NF that you maybe want better suits.

The idea of 3S showing the gf 1=3=4=5 is intriguing. It does interfere with our slam bidding, since we lose the 3S (which we play as non-serious, with 3N as a real slam try and a spade cuebid, but that’s a small price. Is it worth it? I’m not sure. I can’t remember the last time I reached game after 3H by opener and wished I’d been able to stop in 3H. Since I generally play imps, stopping in 3H is not much of a priority but maybe the cost of 3S and the concomitant ability to play 3H once in a while makes sense. I’ll think about it, so thanks for the suggestion.

[dB451]

I play a Losing Trick Count/Cover Card (LTC/CC, by opener/responder, respectively), using many gadgets, including Transfer Lebensohl Over Reverses. So, to me, opener's reverse shows a five-loser hand (or better). If I bid 2N, relaying to 3C, I can then pass (if I have long, weakish Clubs), or bid my choice of (long, weakish) suit, which partner should pass. If I bid at the three level, it's a transfer, showing an invitational hand or better (as opposed to regular Leb, which would, generally, be forcing). So, on this hand, when I, as responder, hear opener's 5-loser or better reverse, I think I have a solid-enough two cover cards for partner (from among my three Diamond honors), so I'm bidding 3C, transfer to Diamonds, invitational or better. Then, when opener hears my invitational bid in response to her reportedly five-loser hand, and realizes I think I've got at least two cover cards (right? That would be invitational over a five-loser hand, in the context of minors), she realizes that since she really has a four-loser hand, she can bid a Diamond game (right? Four losers minus two cover cards leaves only two losers, so bid the minor game!). Boom, done. So easy with LTC/CC and a few cool gadgets. That's my $0.02.

[ray_p]

Sounds an average case of 'Please tell partner my it's their fault not mine!' (Lol!) But when EVERY suit is so badly distributed then any sensibly bid contract is going down.

That said, Partners bidding looks sound for a 4 losers/8 tricks hand, but you missed the principle 'prefer re-bidding partners suit to your own' with your minimum re-bid i.e. bid 3C not 2H, holding 2 clubs and 5 hearts against partners revealed 5+C/4+D. (Your 5 hearts to the Q is not a rebidable suit and if you doubt this, imagine reversing you hearts and spade holdings and then have partner pass your non-forcing 2S bid!!).

Over your 2H bid showing 6-hearts, partner is naturally going to jump straight to 4H, with thier Ax in hearts. However over 3C, partner should bid 4C which allows you to pass, though they may be tempted to rashly jump straight to 5C.

On an average day I'd expect 5C will make and on a good day even 4H would make, but this day 4C goes down 1 (although makeable at double-dummy) while 4H goes down 3 or 4. Everything goes down because the distribution is freakishly bad however that doesn't mean it was wrong to bid the contract, statistically speaking.

[MatthiasK]

ray_p, on 2019-June-01, 04:48, said:

...
'prefer re-bidding partners suit to your own' with your minimum re-bid i.e. bid 3C not 2H

...
Over your 2H bid showing 6-hearts
...

I think your recommended methods are far from mainstream today.
And also bad.

Because a reverse promises a rebid (in good methods), bidding 3♣ is a strong bid, something you don't have.

And 2♥ showing 6? Why? This is the cheapest bid, don't waste it.

[msjennifer]

ray_p, on 2019-June-01, 04:48, said:

Sounds an average case of 'Please tell partner my it's their fault not mine!' (Lol!) But when EVERY suit is so badly distributed then any sensibly bid contract is going down.

That said, Partners bidding looks sound for a 4 losers/8 tricks hand, but you missed the principle 'prefer re-bidding partners suit to your own' with your minimum re-bid i.e. bid 3C not 2H, holding 2 clubs and 5 hearts against partners revealed 5+C/4+D. (Your 5 hearts to the Q is not a rebidable suit and if you doubt this, imagine reversing you hearts and spade holdings and then have partner pass your non-forcing 2S bid!!).

Over your 2H bid showing 6-hearts, partner is naturally going to jump straight to 4H, with thier Ax in hearts. However over 3C, partner should bid 4C which allows you to pass, though they may be tempted to rashly jump straight to 5C.

On an average day I'd expect 5C will make and on a good day even 4H would make, but this day 4C goes down 1 (although makeable at double-dummy) while 4H goes down 3 or 4. Everything goes down because the distribution is freakishly bad however that doesn't mean it was wrong to bid the contract, statistically speaking.

Sirs ,I personally, think that you have summed it up nicely.The 3C preference is a non forcing bid as everyone knows and that is where one belongs.I am flabbergasted when the 2D SIMPLE reverse(and not a jump shift ) can have 20/21 HCP and yet not game forcing when at least 5 good or more HCP are known with P. I also learnt some interesting strategies when partner opens 1C,IF indeed partner has a three card strong heart holding and feels he can make 4 hearts opposite a weak 5 carder suit which partner naturally did not bid AND else he can make 4C he will bid 3H anyway.A 2H bid will suggest a six carder playable rebiddable suit when the 2D BID has at least temporarily suggested a minor 2 suited hand.Rather than contemplating if he has this this and that it is my opinion that a preference be given just now .Partner ,if interested in showing a game forcing OR an invitational hand shall show it if he has this or that/..

[Stephen Tu]

msjennifer, on 2019-June-01, 11:55, said:

Sirs ,I personally, think that you have summed it up nicely.The 3C preference is a non forcing bid as everyone knows and that is where one belongs.

This is absolutely not true for most modern systems. Direct 3c is *forcing* the way most people play it. To get out in 3c, one you either bid 2H and pass 3c, or bid 2S/2nt (one of those designated as a potentially weak bid) and passes partner's NF 3c. If you play 3C as NF, there are several issues:

• when you have a strong hand in support of clubs, as responder, you have to go through 4th suit machinations and sometimes don't get to raise clubs until 4 level. This hampers slam exploration. People have found having 3c as a GF raise with good hands simplifies matters and saves a lot of space.
• If you can still have 5 cd heart hand, opener with a min reverse 1345 and some 16 points or so doesn't know if it's safe to bid 3H. Maybe 3c was the last making spot if partner has only 4 cd hearts. Especially if you are making the preference on some doubleton club hands.

5 cd hearts are dealt way more often than 6 cd hearts. It doesn't make sense to have 2H promise 6, it is such a cheap economical bid, you want to use it frequently. The reverse is strong enough that it's rare that 2H is the last making contract so few people play a NF 2H these days as this rarely produces a win. Reverse promises a 3rd bid from opener is most common.

[ray_p]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-June-01, 12:28, said:

This is absolutely not true for most modern systems. Direct 3c is *forcing* the way most people play it. To get out in 3c, one you either bid 2H and pass 3c, or bid 2S/2nt (one of those designated as a potentially weak bid) and passes partner's NF 3c. If you play 3C as NF, there are several issues:

• when you have a strong hand in support of clubs, as responder, you have to go through 4th suit machinations and sometimes don't get to raise clubs until 4 level. This hampers slam exploration. People have found having 3c as a GF raise with good hands simplifies matters and saves a lot of space.
• If you can still have 5 cd heart hand, opener with a min reverse 1345 and some 16 points or so doesn't know if it's safe to bid 3H. Maybe 3c was the last making spot if partner has only 4 cd hearts. Especially if you are making the preference on some doubleton club hands.

5 cd hearts are dealt way more often than 6 cd hearts. It doesn't make sense to have 2H promise 6, it is such a cheap economical bid, you want to use it frequently. The reverse is strong enough that it's rare that 2H is the last making contract so few people play a NF 2H these days as this rarely produces a win. Reverse promises a 3rd bid from opener is most common.

All good points Steven, but I'd only agree with you if you said which agreement(s) you were applying (like Lebensohl for example).

'Modern systems' isn't 'a system' per se but a collection of agreements that are off by default until turned on by agreement (-the issue being that many are mutually exclusive). And here, by omission I see no prior agreements in place so would follow 'Standard' - as playing a bag of unspecified agreements will obviously lead to misunderstandings -perhaps that's what happened here?

Maybe it reflects a wider debate of which systems are on by default but I would say the clue in the name: old fashioned 'Standard' it doesn't including those new systems until by agreed. - It's clearly not a difficult hand to bid provided both partners have the same understandings of the bids.

[Stephen Tu]

What I said reflects bridge world standard, the consensus system based on polls of bridge world magazine readership, which is mostly advanced and expert players.

It is what I assume would apply if I were drafted as an emergency sub 5 min before game time and plopped in front of any advanced/expert American player with no time for discussion. At min I'd assume 2H rebid was 5+ cards, forcing 1rd, ambiguous strength, and that direct 3c was also forcing. I'd be somewhat less sure if 2s or 2nt was the weakness signal.

Opposite a novice, who knows, they are all over the map, their reverse may or not have extras, and no one knows which bids are forcing or not. Or if one were in Britain, and basic systems taught to beginners have everything NF.

If the base system is 2/1 though, I expect American system, all modern texts I'm aware of that cover reverse sequences will play reverse promises rebid. People playing 2/1 in duplicate club/tourney are assumed modern standards. If playing at senior center and playing 1940s Goren style, different assumptions apply.