[VixTD]

---

EW agreed to play inverted minors about three months ago but it hasn't come up since. They've just started playing together again after a two-month break.

Inverted minors means that 1♣ - 2♣ shows at least the values for an invitational raise to 3♣ with at least four-card support. It is forcing to 3♣. The rest of the system is Acol, 12-14 NT, one-of-a-suit openers are all at least four cards in length.

East had forgotten about inverted minors and didn't alert. 6NT made 12 tricks for 67% of the matchpoints.

Are West's actions OK?

[Zelandakh]

What is their agreement for the 2NT rebid?

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-05, 08:23, said:

What is their agreement for the 2NT rebid?

Undiscussed.

I would imagine opposite a standard 2♣ bid it should show 17-19 hcp balanced, suggesting playing in no trumps. Opposite an inverted raise it could be a fair bit weaker, perhaps 15+. Their opening 1NT is 12-14, 1NT rebid is 15-17, 2NT (non-jump) rebid is 15+ GF after a change of suit.

[barmar]

That's about what I expected. So the question is whether the UI that suggests that partner has 17+ rather than 15+ makes inviting slam rather than just blasting an LA.

Although West has "only" 15 HCP, the 6-card club suit, with known fit, makes it a huge hand. Take away one of East's queens, and the slam is on a finesse.

Another good question would be if they had agreements about their other followups to the inverted raise: would opener bid stoppers rather than 2NT if he didn't have all the side suits well stopped?

[gordontd]

I think West is using UI in two different ways: he's playing his partner for a stronger hand than would be shown if 2♣ had been alerted, and he's making a call that his partner can't misconstrue. I suspect 3♣ (forcing after a 2NT rebid) is a logical alternative to bidding 6NT, and if he bid that he might play there.

[Codo]

It escapes me how they managed 12 tricks- maybe a ruff?

I would play 2 NT as 15-17 over 2 ♣ inverted and 2 ♣ natural. You usually do not win many mps with an strong balanced hand in 2 clubs.

If 2 NT has the same meaning over inverted and over natural, there is no damage.

So is there a difference? If there is one, West used his UI and as there are people who would not blast slam, I would change the score to 3 NT + 3.

[barmar]

Codo, on 2012-December-05, 08:57, said:

It escapes me how they managed 12 tricks- maybe a ruff?

I assume you mean "only 12 tricks". There are 12 top tricks, and the ♦ finesse is on for 13.

Quote

I would play 2 NT as 15-17 over 2 ♣ inverted and 2 ♣ natural. You usually do not win many mps with an strong balanced hand in 2 clubs.

You would invite game with 15 HCP opposite a partner with 6-9? You want to be in game with 23 HCP when he accepts with 8?

[Codo]

2 NT is not really invitational, it is a hand describtion and a try not to play 2 clubs when the rest of the field plays NT. But I bet the Acolists have more experience with these hands, so maybe 18-19 is mainstream and you pass with 15-17, playing there with Axxx,Kxx,QJx,Akx opposite xx,xx,Axx,Qxxxxx...

[Zelandakh]

Playing Acol you usually invite with something like 16-17 and just blast game with 18-19. Over an inverted minor, the most common method seems to be that 2NT just shows stoppers in both majors and does not promise extras. This is why I ask though, because there are lots of possibilities. If the extent of the E-W discussions on this really were "forcing to 3♣", then West is almost certainly looking to get ruled against. KQx/KQx/x/KJxxxx is one of many possible hands with no play for 6NT, where a slower auction is likely to find a better spot. Before you say "but that's an obvious splinter", remember that E-W do not have any agreements...

[Cyberyeti]

System over 2♣ depends somewhat what you open with 4M4m and whether the inverted raise denies 4M. I thought a lot of people played 3N 15-16 and 2N 17-19 to allow more space for slam investigation on the bigger hands (I play 2♦ as the enquiry and 2N as a bad hand with 5♣/4♦ so can't be sure).

To Codo, most people wouldn't make an inverted raise with the hand you give, it's more a high card raise, 9 or 10+, usually 3♣ and possibly 2N are used with 5 or more trumps and <9.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-05, 09:42, said:

KQx/KQx/x/KJxxxx is one of many possible hands with no play for 6NT, where a slower auction is likely to find a better spot. Before you say "but that's an obvious splinter", remember that E-W do not have any agreements...

Whose hand is that supposed to be, opener's or responder's? Since responder is the one who took the questionable action, I assume it's opener's. Even without extensive discussion, I doubt he would rebid 2NT with a low singleton.

[VixTD]

.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2012-December-05, 10:39, said:

.

Your economy with words is an example to us all.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2012-December-05, 10:39, said:

.

+1

Rik

[mycroft]

if invm is "forcing to 3♣", and 2NT is "minimum stronger than 12-14, major stoppers", then nobody's making a passable 3♣ call with West's hand. If 3♣ is forcing after 2NT, that's different, but I wouldn't pull that with anybody I play invm limit+ with; 2NT simply shows major stoppers. Without actual agreement on that auction, it's not an alternative for me. I guess with 10 opposite 15 minimum, it *should* be GF, but without agreement, I'm not playing partner to logic that out.

6NT is definitely a "partner can't screw up call", but 4NT (which seems right on strength opposite potential 15-17) would be "partner can't screw up" either. I don't like "partner must have forgot" arguments, but if the auction goes 1♣-2♣, 2NT-4NT, is partner going to think "what kind of 9-count could be inviting slam?" or might they just think "partner's got a bigger hand, ooh, invm"?

"Basic" agreements, so I guess we don't have a 4♣ or 4♦ RKC clubs call. 4♣ seems to be the other basic call if not 4NT, and then hope to be able to blackwood next round.

I have to admit that without the UI, at matchpoints, I probably would have pulled out 6NT with West's hand - "okay, opps, guess which suit to lead. The wrong one means we're making this" - and if we have two diamond losers, we have them in 6♣ as well. So I'm a little biased.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-05, 09:42, said:

Playing Acol you usually invite with something like 16-17 and just blast game with 18-19. Over an inverted minor, the most common method seems to be that 2NT just shows stoppers in both majors and does not promise extras. This is why I ask though, because there are lots of possibilities. If the extent of the E-W discussions on this really were "forcing to 3♣", then West is almost certainly looking to get ruled against. KQx/KQx/x/KJxxxx is one of many possible hands with no play for 6NT, where a slower auction is likely to find a better spot. Before you say "but that's an obvious splinter", remember that E-W do not have any agreements...

I don't understand this, an inverted raise is a value raise to 3+ not a raise to 2, if you're too strong to open 1N you bid 2N and it's FG. Or do you mean over a non inverted 2♣ in which case I agree with you.

In traditional acol with 12-14 balanced you open 1N, so minimum hands are not balanced and will have >4 clubs unless exactly 4414. You will also have a 6th club or at least one other 4 card suit and hence an easy rebid. 2N is thus some form of 15+ balanced GF, you may decide what 3N is, and some people play it as the low end of this, others play 2N 15-19.

As it applies to this hand, you don't have a splinter to make, so it's an awkward hand to bid. You can be cold for 6N opposite a pretty bad 15 (remove Q♦ from the actual hand), and to me 2N over a non inverted 2♣ shows similar values (16-17 ish instead of part or all of 15-19). I don't think you should rule on such a fine distinction, I'd bid 3♥ rather than blasting 6N but expect to get there anyway so no adjustment for me.

[ggwhiz]

I don't know acol very well but is West not supposed to assume a failure to alert as opposed to forgetting the agreement?

If that is so I see no problem with the 6nt bid in the context of partner denying 12-14 and they are balanced for the 2nt bid. Expecting this pair under these circumstances to have delicate probing agreements in place is too much and I would often blast 6nt even if I did.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2012-December-05, 13:59, said:

I don't know acol very well but is West not supposed to assume a failure to alert as opposed to forgetting the agreement?

Yes, that is the proper way to avoid taking advantage of the UI from the failure to alert.

So if East remembered that you're playing invm, and simply forgot to alert, his range for 2NT is lower than if he thinks you made a weak raise. In this case, West only has enough to invite rather than force to slam. By forcing, he's assuming partner has a stronger hand, as suggested by the UI from not alerting.

To be more precise, I think most would consider both inviting and blasting to be LAs. The UI makes blasting more likely to be right, which is why it's not allowed.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-December-05, 15:43, said:

So if East remembered that you're playing invm, and simply forgot to alert, his range for 2NT is lower than if he thinks you made a weak raise. In this case, West only has enough to invite rather than force to slam. By forcing, he's assuming partner has a stronger hand, as suggested by the UI from not alerting.

To be more precise, I think most would consider both inviting and blasting to be LAs. The UI makes blasting more likely to be right, which is why it's not allowed.

I disagree with this, for many people 2N is 16-17 invitational over the weak 2♣ raise and 15-19 (or 17-19) GF opposite the inverted one assuming a weak no trump so what's the problem.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-05, 16:00, said:

I disagree with this, for many people 2N is 16-17 invitational over the weak 2♣ raise and 15-19 (or 17-19) GF opposite the inverted one assuming a weak no trump so what's the problem.

One of the problems is opener's strength.

The other problem is that 6NT is the "let's end this misery" bid. It prevents all kinds of troubles by taking matters in your own hand. You take partner out of the picture, avoiding the consequences that the misunderstanding (that you only know of through the UI) might have.

I don't know much about these players, but I know what I would do. I would set clubs as trumps. I want to get into a cuebidding sequence and I want to find out whether 7♣ or 7NT might be a good contract. The way to do that is by bidding 3♣ (GF in this sequence when playing weak NTs) and involving partner.

Even when you generally like blasting, you cannot maintain that trying for a constructive auction is not an LA. And 6NT is demonstrably suggested over 3♣ by the UI, so the 6NT bid is an infraction.

Rik