Inverted Minors + strong action

[Sigi_BC84]

(Obviously the above applies only if 3NT is not deemed a playable spot.)

 

Hi,

 

I'm trying to get to better agreements with my regular partner for inverted minors, so I'd be interested in how you handle this in your partnerships.

 

We play a strong NT and show stoppers after 1m-2m, which establishes a game force (2NT and 3m are the minimum rebids by opener). So far nothing fancy.

 

My question now is how high you are forced in your partnership after a game forcing action by either partner (even if your methods are different or if your 2m is already GF).

 

1. Can you stop at 4m or are you always forced to 5m if 3NT turns out to be a bad spot?

 

2. How do you handle the possibility of stronger hands (to play 5m/6m)? Do you play a 4m sign-off attempt as optional keycard ask? Or is partner simply expected to raise to 5m if holding extras?

 

--Sigi

[hotShot]

If 2m is GF, you are forced until game is reached. 4m is not game so you should bid on. But you can bid what you like, bid something helpful for opps and partner.

Since you know a lot about suit controls already, and something is missing (otherwise you could have bid 3NT), I would suggest to play 4m as minorwood. This allows you to stop in 5, if keycards are missing.

Any extra strength you have should make you try the slam.

[Finch]

If I'm in a game forcing auction I cannot stop below game.

The occasional -50 or -100 from over-ambition in a minor is easily repaid by avoiding those depressing +150, +170 and +190s.

[ArcLight]

>1. Can you stop at 4m or are you always forced to 5m if 3NT turns out to be a bad spot?

 

 

5m requires more strength than 4M or 3NT so bidding on may result in many sets.

Mike Lawrence discusses this in his version of 2/1 and why he feels 1♦-2♣ is not always a game force.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

keep it simple, if you are in GF, you play

game.

This agreement simplifies slam auction,

since you can easily bid 4m as forcing,

... sometimes you would need to make

a forward going bid.

 

As a side note: If you play 4m as RKCB you

have answered the question for yourself,

since it is nearly impossible to distiguish stopper

showing bids from cue bids, if the bids happen on

the 3 level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bid_em_up]

In my partnerships, we play that you only use inverted minors on hands that can see possibilities of 6m opposite a minimum opening. This interest is conveyed by 1m-2m and cuebidding sequences follow. It is possible to stop in 4m when holding 3 dead in a suit in both hands. Just because you play it as g/f, doesnt mean you HAVE to bid game knowing you have 3 quick losers (kinda silly, imo).

 

After 1m-2m,

• New Suit = control
  after New Suit:
  
  • a) 2N = control in other 2 suits
    
    • 1m 2m 2H 2N (controls in both spades & other minor)
      1m 2m 2S 2N (controls in hearts and other minor)
      1c 2c 2D 2N (controls in spade/hearts)
      

b ) new suit = control in this suit, denies control in other unbid suit

• 1m 2m 2H 2S (control in spades, denies control in other minor)
  

c) new suit new suit 3m denies control in 4th suit.

• 1m 2m 2H 2S 3m denies control and STOP (Qxx, J10xx) in the
  other minor. (would bid 2N with control, 3N with slow stop).
  

2N = Controls in all other 3 suits, better than minimum. (This is usually a hand that was about to rebid 2N over a 1 level response). Continue cuebidding.

 

3m = minimum, no side controls, and no slam interest (will usually be followed by 3N by responder on a wing and prayer) and should almost never occur (at least not in our system).

 

3M (or 3D if Clubs is the minor) = splinter

If either hand cues a suit that they could have cuebid earlier, it is stiff/void. The auction 1C 2C 2H 2S 3D denies opener having a diamond control so 3D should be stiff/void. Also, in this auction 2N over 2S, would show a slow diamond stop (having already denied diamond control). Alternatively, you could define 3D to show a partial stop in diamonds, Qxx or Jxx. Partner holding Jx, Qx, Jxx, Qxx bids 3N, holding 3 dead, he will bid 4m to play, and holding xx, should bid 5m.

 

As soon as either hand knows that there is an unstopped/uncontrolled suit, it should bid 4m with 3 dead cards or 5m with doubleton. Continued cuebidding shows stiff/void in the uncontrolled suit.

 

When partner hears 4m, he looks at his hand, and passes with 3 dead in the unstopped suit, raises to 5m with doubleton, or cues the uncontrolled suit to show stiff/void (any other cue will promise the same thing as well, since you cant still be exploring 6m while looking at 2-3 losers in an uncontrolled suit).

 

The one problem auction is 1D 2D 3C (denying heart/spade controls), but the same general principles apply.

 

I know this sounds convoluted, and it isnt written out as clearly as I would like for it to be, but given a little practice and tweaking for your own needs, you should find that it works.

 

 

jmoo.

[Trinidad]

The reason why you would want 4m to be non forcing is that you can escape from 3NT if you have a suit wide open.

 

But the only time that 4m is really better than 5m is if you have length in the weak suit. As soon as one side has shortness there, 5m will be a good contract. It just doesn't happen that often that we have 12+ HCP opposite 10+ as well as the same weak 2-3 card suit in both hands. I will happily loose the one board where that happens since I'll win on the slam hands.

 

Rik

[han]

Agree with what Frances said. There are very few hands where stopping in 4m will make a significant difference. The clarity you gain from agreeing not to stop there is worth this small loss imo (unless you have very clear rules about when you can stop).

 

 

I don't particularly like your response structure to inverted minors Sigi. The 3m and 2NT bids becomes quite vague (and so do most follow-ups when partner does force to game). If you want to continue playing these fairly natural responses then I recommend that you can bid 1C-2C-2X even with a minimal hand. Of course, this requires some more discussion with your partner (which auctions show extras, which don't). I think that that's worth it.

[Sigi_BC84]

I don't particularly like your response structure to inverted minors Sigi. [...]

I, too, dislike a lot of things about the system I am playing :-). It has been taught to us by better players from our club, but obviously there's a lot of room for improvement.

 

I've actually read what was written about Inverted Minors response structures here before posting, and I guess we will change to a more efficient structure sooner or later. I didn't find any information about how high one should be forced so that was the main reason for this poll/thread.

 

--Sigi

[hotShot]

Sigi you asked the wrong question.

It should have been:

Should 2m inverted minor be GF?

 

If you define it is GF, than it is GF.

I don't play it game forcing just forcing ......

[inquiry]

If you play some form of criss-cross where "good" limit raises can be shown outside of 1m-2m then, 1m-2m should be 100% game force (and 4m is not game). If you do not play such a limited raise somewhere, then 1m-2m can be played as quasi-GF (meaning forcing to 3NT or 4m). But if you play it quasi-GF, it is best to have specific auctions where 4m is passable.

[Sigi_BC84]

Sigi you asked the wrong question.

It should have been:

Should 2m inverted minor be GF?

 

If you define it is GF, than it is GF.

I don't play it game forcing just forcing ......

My question was: if you are "forced to game", what constitutes "game" in this context (for a 5m contract is not game, but game++ in my eyes...).

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

But if you play it quasi-GF, it is best to have specific auctions where 4m is passable.

Now it's getting interesting. What specific auctions would that be? Does anybody have such agreements and even if not, what would you suggest?

 

My own ideas are as follows:

• a priori you are forced through 3NT, and if that's not playable, 4m
  
• the player who would bid 4m (i.e. the first partner who steps over 3NT) can instead bid 5m with extras and no slam interest or bid 4m+1 as RKCB (kickback) or cuebid from 4m+2 upwards
  
• the partner of the player who has just bid 4m can bid 4m+1 with slam interest (kickback RKCB) or cuebid from 4m+2 upwards or sign off in 5m to deny slam interest
  
• you never go past 4m if you don't have shortness (singleton or void) in the suit where the stopper is lacking
  

--Sigi

[PassedOut]

Interesting topic here. I first played inverted minors a few years ago when one of my partners introduced me to the Kaplan-Sheinwold system.

 

Playing Kaplan-Sheinwold, inverted minors are forcing only to 3m (via the sequence 1m - 2m - 3m). Until reading this thread, I hadn't realized that some now play them as game-forcing.

 

Looking at a copy of his September, 1972 monograph KAPLAN-SHEINWOLD UPDATED, I see that Edgar Kaplan had this to say:

 

1m - 2m  Responder has 8-9 points up, unlimited, at least 4 cards in m; no major.

              Opener rebids:

 

              3m - nonforcing, limited, unbalanced. "I would have passed a limit raise."

 

              New suit - forcing (to 3NT or 4m). At least 4 cards in m, stopper, extra values (either 15-up balanced or unbalanced strong).

If you have shortness opposite weakness, then you will want to play 5m. But I've never seen the need to take a fall at 5m when I know there are two fast losers in a suit and we have no extra strength.

 

Here is another quote from Edgar Kaplan (page 3 of the same monograph):

 

Forcing, presumably to game (but in all sequences in which the fit is in a minor, "forcing to game" auctions may be dropped at 4 of the minor in a pinch)...

This rule works for me, and I think your elaboration is a practical one, Sigi.

 

--PassedOut