[mikeh]

You hold

---

We play ingberman over uncontested auctions where opener has reversed….the lower of 4 suit or 2N is artificial and typically denies game values, while a bid of one of opener’s suits is natural and creates a game force. A rebid of responder’s suit at the 2 level say after 1C 1S 2H where 1S is natural…2S shows 5+ spades and is agnostic as to strength.obviously inapplicable here

What are your agreements in this situation? In particular, how do you play 2N?

If you don’t have clear agreements, say so. I’m not looking for ‘here’s what I’d guess one should do’. I’m interested in learning if possible ways to bid here

Fwiw, I see the issue being whether it’s too costly to give up a natural 2N here, to preserve the usual reverse structure or whether it’s too costly to give up the reverse structure in order to cater to a natural 2N. Or maybe there’s alternatives of which I haven’t thought.

I may give partner’s hand later.

[smerriman]

Just for reference, I recall this poll on BW a couple of years ago on a similar (albeit not identical) auction which showed agreements were well divided.

[jillybean]

1♦ is a transfer to ♥?

[DavidKok]

smerriman, on 2023-March-19, 18:32, said:

Just for reference, I recall this poll on BW a couple of years ago on a similar (albeit not identical) auction which showed agreements were well divided.

An interesting poll! But I think the situation is very different, since opener has forced responder to the 3-level if they want to play their own suit. This auction more closely resembles a strong jump reverse (in standard 1♣-1♥; 2♠).

I don't have agreements on the auction.

We would use a mini-multi jump with responder's hand on the first round of the bidding. For what it's worth I generally do not really believe in 2NT as a contract, doubly so in competition, triply so if partner has shown something like a 4-6 (perhaps even 5-6) in two suits with extra strength.

[paulg]

We didn't have an explicit agreement on this auction but we were both thinking that it was easiest just to ignore the 2♦ overcall and use our existing methods (basically the same as mikeh's, except we call it Blackout).

Like DavidKok, we don't really believe in 2NT as a contract which makes our decision easier while reducing the memory strain. It is also unclear what a natural 2NT shows in this auction when 2♠ in competition may be less than a traditional reverse.

[mikeh]

I don’t believe in 2N as a contract either, but that has nothing to do with whether 2N ought to be natural. I’m not expressing an opinion that 2N should show a stopper: just commenting on the notion that bidding 2N ends the auction. While partner is at best 4=2=2=5, there’s no particular reason that we don’t belong in 3N on some hands, and often that will be best from responder’s side

I wouldn’t ever suggest 2N as non forcing but it could be showing one or more stoppers. I don’t think one should jump to 3N very often.

I’m leaning towards 2N as ambiguous….either any weak hand or a hand with at least a stopper. Opener bids as if it were weak…usually bidding 3C but can make other bids with appropriate hands. That allows ingberman to still apply to all non-2N bids. Not sure yet that this is optimum.

[Cyberyeti]

What would double have been rather than 2♠ ?

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-March-20, 09:10, said:

What would double have been rather than 2♠ ?

Support, showing 3 hearts

[nullve]

I've had agreements close to

1♣-1♦*-(2♦)-?:

* 4+ hearts

(...)
X = takeout (so 3 H if MIN, but could for example also be 5+C4+S2-H too strong for 2♠)
2♠ = a good MIN to a bad classical reverse, 5+C4+S2-H, NF
...P = < INV, S PREF
...2N+ = Ingberman
(...),

although I realise now that classical Ingberman with e.g.

1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-3♣ = NAT GF (with C SUPP)

doesn't really work, since Opener would not know what to do with MAX over

1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-2N.

A partial solution could be to play

1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-2N = lebensohl-like, never exactly INV if C PREF
1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-3♣ = NAT INV (with C PREF)

.

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2023-March-20, 08:24, said:

I’m leaning towards 2N as ambiguous….either any weak hand or a hand with at least a stopper. Opener bids as if it were weak…usually bidding 3C but can make other bids with appropriate hands. That allows ingberman to still apply to all non-2N bids. Not sure yet that this is optimum.

This sounds like a reasonable solution - after all Lebensohl (after an overcall of partner's 1N) does include both weak hands and various stopper showing hands.

You do need to work out which continuations after opener's 3C are weak and which are stopper showing.

This may be more complicated if opener's suit was diamonds.

[dokoko]

We play:

2N = "Blackout" aka Ingberman (weak hand) or nat FG
3♣ = nat FG
3♦ = artificial game force, no good descriptive bid (often 5 hearts)
3♥ = FG 6+ hearts
3♠ = FG spade fit
3N = nat, 11-13 pts, usually not 5 hearts
4♣ = Picture Bid, concentrated 2=5=2=4
4♦ = splinter with a spade fit
4♥ = semisolid suit, no diamond control, nonforcing
4♠ = Picture Bid, concentrated 4=5=2=2
4N = nat, 13+-15 pts, solid diamond stop

When opener reverses above responder's suit, responder's "Blackout" bid may include weak hands with extra length.

[Gilithin]

I like to play transfers (Rubensohl) here though it tends to be difficult to find a willing partner. I do not see giving up a natural 2NT as a major concern. Here 2NT would show either a hand that wanted to play in 3♣ opposite a minimum or a GF hand that wanted to keep 5/6♣ in the picture.