Bidding conventions and treatments have proliferated. Bidding seems to have become a quest for a convention to suit every occasion. True, your opponents must explain their methods, but dealing with their array of gadgets can be stressful.

Many pairs use “inverted minors”: a single raise is strong and forcing; a double raise is weak and preemptive.

In today’s deal from a team match, one North-South was using old-fashioned methods, and when South opened one diamond, North raised to two. South then bid 3NT. West led the jack of clubs.

South needed only three diamond tricks for game, so he won with the king and led a diamond to his ten — an “avoidance” play, making sure East couldn’t win an early diamond trick and shift to a threatening spade. When the ten won, declarer made an overtrick.

In the replay North-South employed inverted minors, and when South opened one diamond, North was stuck. His hand was too weak for a forcing two diamonds and unsuitable for a preemptive jump to three. He had to do something, so he tried 1NT.

South raised to 3NT, but East led the jack of spades: queen, king. West returned a spade. Then South had to bring in the diamond suit to make his game. He misguessed, alas, and lost two diamonds to East plus three spades.

I am not a fan of inverted minors (though most tournament pairs use them, and it’s true that a partnership must have some way to force after a minor-suit opening). One problem is that some responding hands are unbidable. Another is that some pairs agree to play the treatment without adequate discussion: For instance, a single raise is forcing to what level?

South dealer

N-S vulnerable

Tribune Content Agency