There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something
I was wondering where I could find more information on this
Thanks
Page 1 of 1
1S Defense
#2
Posted 2009-September-15, 20:25
olien, on Sep 15 2009, 08:58 PM, said:
There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something
I was wondering where I could find more information on this
Thanks
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something
I was wondering where I could find more information on this
Thanks
I used to play this (with Han and inquiry). It works well whenever
- opponents overcall spades or clubs, and
- there is an unbid major and an unbid minor.
In fact we played it up to the 3-level.
I still think it's sound, we just dropped it at the time because we wanted to simplify things.
"Are you saying that LTC merits a more respectful dismissal?"
#3
Posted 2009-September-16, 02:55
A better method, I think, is:
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = hearts, 6 cards any strength or 5 game-forcing
2♥ = hearts, exactly five, exactly invitational
2♠ = clubs
Forming good agreements about this sort of thing requires effort, because there are so many different categories of sequence, and lots to discuss about opener's followups.
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = hearts, 6 cards any strength or 5 game-forcing
2♥ = hearts, exactly five, exactly invitational
2♠ = clubs
Forming good agreements about this sort of thing requires effort, because there are so many different categories of sequence, and lots to discuss about opener's followups.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#4
Posted 2009-September-16, 02:57
The same idea comes up in a lot of places, where putting the other major first is likely more important than a natural forcing minor bid.
You could just as easily play this inversion in 2/1 after 1♠ is opened:
1♠-?:
2♣ ♥ inv+
2♦ nat GF
2♥ ♣ GF
...
or after a weak two by your side:
2♠-?:
2N ask
3♣ forcing with ♥
3♦ forcing nat
3♥ forcing with ♣
Sorry I dont have more details on the continuations.
You could just as easily play this inversion in 2/1 after 1♠ is opened:
1♠-?:
2♣ ♥ inv+
2♦ nat GF
2♥ ♣ GF
...
or after a weak two by your side:
2♠-?:
2N ask
3♣ forcing with ♥
3♦ forcing nat
3♥ forcing with ♣
Sorry I dont have more details on the continuations.
#5
Posted 2009-September-16, 07:21
olien, on Sep 15 2009, 09:58 PM, said:
There is growing popularity in some competitive inversions like as follows:
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something
I was wondering where I could find more information on this
1D-(1S):
2C 5+H constructive+ strength
2D NAT NF
2H 5+C GF or something
I was wondering where I could find more information on this
See the section Switch Plus in:
http://www.ny-bridge.com/bt/add96.html
As Granovetter notes about Bergen's Switch:
Granovetter said:
When Marty published "Switch" in Bridge Today Magazine last year, I thought it would take the tournament world by storm, but it was overlooked by lots of people...
For additional fun at the table, you can rename Switch as Bergen2 when describing it.
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
Page 1 of 1

Help
