how will you respond?

[TimG]

You can run it, I'm curious as to the result.

diamonds south: 4.08093

clubs south: 2.55917

 

diamond fit longer: 0.43646

equal fits: 0.28517

club fit longer: 0.27837

 

Frequency diamond club combination for opener:
       Low      3      4      5   High    Sum
Low       0      0      0      0      0      0
  3    9448  18909      0      0      0  28357
  4   17690  16578   8524      0      0  42792
  5   12608   6668   2447    402      0  22125
High   4890   1427    361     46      2   6726
Sum   44636  43582  11332    448      2 100000

 

Generated 306702 hands

Produced 100000 hands

Initial random seed 1226444689

[jtfanclub]

You can run it, I'm curious as to the result.

diamonds south: 4.08093

clubs south: 2.55917

 

diamond fit longer: 0.43646

equal fits: 0.28517

club fit longer: 0.27837

Curious. Those are almost identical to the a priori odds I calculated earlier on the page (just divide the % of all hands by .394 for each set of my odds). That implies that, assuming I didn't make a calculation error, the shape of responder's hand had no real effect on the shape of opener's hand.

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqhxxxdatxxckjtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♦ (P) ?[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1 inverted minors, what is your response?

Back to the original question………

 

I reluctantly bid 2♦ here, reluctantly because we are playing 1m:2m gf. The hand is a perfect 2m as 1 round force, time for more discussion with partner.

 

If we are playing 1m:2m 1round forcing do we still need a forcing minor raise or do you use 1m:2m 2x:3y ?

 

I like what Jdonn said about opening 4333 and 3244 hands – I am constantly going back and reviewing my opening on these hands and often find I got it wrong.

[jdonn]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqhxxxdatxxckjtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♦ (P) ?[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1 inverted minors, what is your response?

Back to the original question………

 

I reluctantly bid 2♦ here, reluctantly because we are playing 1m:2m gf. The hand is a perfect 2m as 1 round force, time for more discussion with partner.

 

If we are playing 1m:2m 1round forcing do we still need a forcing minor raise or do you use 1m:2m 2x:3y ?

 

I like what Jdonn said about opening 4333 and 3244 hands – I am constantly going back and reviewing my opening on these hands and often find I got it wrong.

Hey Jilly. Obviously if you play 2♦ game forcing then you need a way to bid both invitational and weaker diamond raises. But the nice thing about 2♦ as invitational or better is you get two of the ranges into one bid, meaning you only need 2 bids to handle the diamond hands instead of 3. And you are correct that if you start with 2♦ on a game forcing hand, just don't do something that sounds like a signoff later in the auction (meaning 2NT or 3♦). Anything else is clearly forcing, and should be descriptive, like bidding a good sidesuit.

 

As for what minor to open I would say this.

 

With 3-3, always 1♣ so that partner doesn't have to worry about 1♦ being three (it's true there is 4432, but that's uncommon so you pay off to it, plus if partner responds a major and you don't raise he knows you have 4+ diamonds since 4432 would raise the major!)

 

With 5-5, always 1♦ so that you can easily rebid clubs next round.

 

4-4 is the trickiest. There are a lot of small factors to consider, such as suit quality, rebid problems in competition, system over each minor, etc etc. I grew up learning to always open 1♦, which I think is not best but is close enough that you don't lose much. And at least it meant I didn't have to worry about it :) Then I had friends who told me I should always open 1♣ because the system is better over it (for example a 1NT response is much better defined over 1♣ than over 1♦.) I know it can all be confusing, so I recommend just remembering a few of these key points in making your decision.

 

- Open 1♦ if you might have a rebid problem in competition, which often occurs with xxx of a major. For example xxx Kx AKxx QJxx, 1♦ (2♠) X (P) lets you rebid clubs, but if you had opened 1♣ you would be pretty stuck.

- Some people like to open their weaker minor to discourage the lead. This is a very bad strategy and I recommend against it. For one thing you need to help partner evaluate his hand, for example you might have slam in the minor. For another thing partner might be the one to end up on lead. And anyway, if the opponents have a natural lead to make they will tend to make it regardless.

- If the minors are pretty equal and you have no rebid problems, it really doesn't matter much in the long run, so just decide the strategy you like and stick with it!

[Finch]

I agree with awm's nice clear post on how to bid.

 

I don't think anyone who thought that 1H was the correct natural response on a 1=3=4=5 would be a compatible partner for me (I'm in a polite mood today).

 

I agree with jdonn's post on continuations (2NT/3D non-forcing, everything else forcing).

 

 

If the minors are pretty equal and you have no rebid problems, it really doesn't matter much in the long run, so just decide the strategy you like and stick with it!

 

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand. Suppose you elect to open 1D on all 4-4s: if the auction starts, uncontested, 1C - 1H - 1S then responder knows that opener has at least 5 clubs. If it starts 1D - 1H - 1S then either opener has at least 5 diamonds, or opener is exactly 4=1=4=4. When I open 1C, responder knows that I cannot be 4441 with a major suit singleton. Similarly, if you always open 1D, then the auction 1C - 1D - 2D means you must have 5 clubs and 4 diamonds, but 1D - 2C - 3C might be 4-4 in the minors. If you always open 1C, then 1C - 1D - 2D might be 4-4, but 1D - 2C - 3C must be 5-4. Both of these examples are symmetrical, but by knowing which minor you open, you then have more information about opener's distribution in the later auction. If you open whichever you fancy, you are worse off.

 

There is a slight advantage to opening 4=4 hands with 1D which jdonn implied but didn't mention explicitly: partner can raise diamonds in competition more freely than he can clubs, because you open 1C with 3-3 in the minors. There is a slight advantage to opening the suit partner can raise.

[Wackojack]

Hi Jilly,

 

Back to basics. Have you worked out why you want to play inverted minors in the first place? What does it bring to your bridge game? Before you decided to play inverted minors, did you get some bad results that you think this gizmo will put right? Out of the very rare occassions that inverted minors apply, what proportion of them would you do better than normal raises?

 

Good idea to know about inverted minor suit raises but its another thing deciding to use them.

[cherdano]

Hi Jilly,

 

Back to basics. Have you worked out why you want to play inverted minors in the first place? What does it bring to your bridge game? Before you decided to play inverted minors, did you get some bad results that you think this gizmo will put right? Out of the very rare occassions that inverted minors apply, what proportion of them would you do better than normal raises?

 

Good idea to know about inverted minor suit raises but its another thing deciding to use them.

Because bidding without inverted minors in standard is a horrible mess? There exist GF hands with support, you know...

[mikeh]

Hi JB

 

The problem you faced at the table was that your agreement to play 'inverted minors' was a non-standard variant. I have played it gf, as your partnership was doing, but it is problematic, as josh noted, because now you have to accommodate not only preemptive raises, but also limit raises, and (for some) constructive raises... so you have 3 or 4 raises to show and only 2 natural calls available... 2♦ and 3♦. A very common fudge is to use a jumpshift in the other minor as one of these additional raises, but that adds complexity and memory work.

 

OTOH, playing a single raise as limit or better is itself no panacea. When playing with an infrequent partner, no matter how expert, I generally refuse to play inverted minors unless we are going to take the time to really talk about it. Most players bid stoppers up the line, as an example.. and I find that that approach leaves a lot to be desired.. it aims at finding 3N, but is almost useless for slam investigation. There are some complex and very good structures available (opener's first call usually shows, artificially, something about his hand type rather than specific stoppers, for example).

 

With the OP, I think that a gf inverted raise is too much.. the hand really won't play well in game opposite partner's most common hand types... picture some 13 count 4342 or 4432 or 4351 etc.

 

But you didn't say whether you had a limit bid available... and that may be a sign that your partnership didn't discuss it...

[jdonn]

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

[jillybean]

Hi Jilly,

 

Back to basics.  Have you worked out why you want to play inverted minors in the first place?  What does it bring to your bridge game?  Before you decided to play inverted minors, did you get some bad results that you think this gizmo will put right?  Out of the very rare occassions that inverted minors apply, what proportion of them would you do better than normal raises? 

 

Good idea to know about inverted minor suit raises but its another thing deciding to use them.

Because bidding without inverted minors in standard is a horrible mess? There exist GF hands with support, you know...

Exactly! Ive have been in some horrible contracts without having a forcing minor raise.

 

I need to keep things simple, for both my brain capacity and because my system discussions, if Im lucky, consist of a 2minute chat before starting a BBO tourney :) Mike is obviously right and to get the best out of any system you need to spend time discussing what you are playing, people too often say I play ‘xxx’ and never discuss the follow ups. However; being the novice that I am, I think a crude inverted minor is better than having no forcing minor.

 

Thanks for the replies.

[vuroth]

Hi Jilly,

 

Back to basics.  Have you worked out why you want to play inverted minors in the first place? 

Because bidding without inverted minors in standard is a horrible mess? There exist GF hands with support, you know...

Exactly! Ive have been in some horrible contracts without having a forcing minor raise.

I'm rabidly anti-system (at the moment), but inverted minors is one I'm open to. I've played SAYC without it, had those awkward strong minor support hands, and wondered what to do.

 

Now I just need to play inverted minors a bunch, and figure out what the problems are when inverted minors are ON, and how to live with them.

 

V

[han]

This is a common problem, perhaps 1NT is right on values while 2D is a slight overbid, but 1NT is flawed because of the stiff in the major and the good support.

 

The hand reminds me of Jxx x Axx A10xxxx in a recent The Bridge World after 1D, where the majority preferred 2C over 1NT (and 2D was also chosen a couple of times).

[cherdano]

Hi Jilly,

 

Back to basics.  Have you worked out why you want to play inverted minors in the first place?  What does it bring to your bridge game?  Before you decided to play inverted minors, did you get some bad results that you think this gizmo will put right?  Out of the very rare occassions that inverted minors apply, what proportion of them would you do better than normal raises? 

 

Good idea to know about inverted minor suit raises but its another thing deciding to use them.

Because bidding without inverted minors in standard is a horrible mess? There exist GF hands with support, you know...

Exactly! Ive have been in some horrible contracts without having a forcing minor raise.

 

I need to keep things simple, for both my brain capacity and because my system discussions, if Im lucky, consist of a 2minute chat before starting a BBO tourney :D Mike is obviously right and to get the best out of any system you need to spend time discussing what you are playing, people too often say I play ‘xxx’ and never discuss the follow ups. However; being the novice that I am, I think a crude inverted minor is better than having no forcing minor.

 

Thanks for the replies.

Here are some simple and, I think, reasonably effective rules for playing inverted minors without adding anything artificial:

1. Play 1D-2D as forcing to 3D (in particular 2N by either partner is forcing); bidding 3D at any point shows a minimum and is the only non-forcing bid below game.

2. With balanced hands just bid 2N or 3N at the first opportunity; you can still check for stoppers by bidding suits after 2N if you really want to.

3. Bidding suits other than D shows shape, jumping in a suit shows shortness (and extras, obviously).

 

I think it simplifies things a lot if you immediately show a weak NT when you have it, often responder knows he wants to play 3N opposite any balanced hand.

 

(I don't think there is a consensus whether 2N is forcing, which is one of the things to be careful about when you play inverted minors with a pickup partner.)

[jillybean]

Hi Arend,

 

Could I just clarify

I think it simplifies things a lot if you immediately show a weak NT when you have it, often responder knows he wants to play 3N opposite any balanced hand.

means after 1♦:2♦ opener bids 2nt holding a balanced 12-14 ?

 

thanks

[1eyedjack]

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

I worry a bit about the ethical baggage that comes with this. On occasion I have played against opponents who *claim* to vary their style on whim, when in practice they more often the not open the weaker minor as a lead inhibitor, the effectiveness of which relies on opposition unfamiliarity with that tendency.

[jdonn]

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

I worry a bit about the ethical baggage that comes with this. On occasion I have played against opponents who *claim* to vary their style on whim, when in practice they more often the not open the weaker minor as a lead inhibitor, the effectiveness of which relies on opposition unfamiliarity with that tendency.

It's a different issue, but they are the ones who have to sleep at night.

 

Isn't Rosenberg on record that his own algorithm for which minor to open when 4-4 is not even known to Zia?

[Cascade]

It's not a hugely big deal, but there is a slight advantage to agreeing which minor you open with 4-4, if you play that you always rebid 1NT (rather than 1M) with a balanced hand.

The extra information you gain about the other minor when you have a fit in one of them pales in comparison to the extra information the opponents have about which minor you always open with 4-4 (IMO of course but I'm quire sure). I still say at the end of the day it doesn't matter much, there are advantages to always 1♦, always 1♣, or randomizing in almost any way you want.

I worry a bit about the ethical baggage that comes with this. On occasion I have played against opponents who *claim* to vary their style on whim, when in practice they more often the not open the weaker minor as a lead inhibitor, the effectiveness of which relies on opposition unfamiliarity with that tendency.

It's a different issue, but they are the ones who have to sleep at night.

 

Isn't Rosenberg on record that his own algorithm for which minor to open when 4-4 is not even known to Zia?

If there is a regulation that both players in a partnership must play the same system this could be illegal.

 

Of course players can use their own judgement.

 

However without knowing the algorithm it is impossible to determine whether this is a matter of style and judgement or system.

[cherdano]

Hi Arend,

 

Could I just clarify

I think it simplifies things a lot if you immediately show a weak NT when you have it, often responder knows he wants to play 3N opposite any balanced hand.

means after 1♦:2♦ opener bids 2nt holding a balanced 12-14 ?

 

thanks

Yes, that's what I suggest (but it also means that you have to play 2N as forcing, since you don't want to play 2N when you have 14 hcp opposite an invite).

[neilkaz]

One of the issues with INVM is that there are quite a few different schemes for continuing the auction and this can make it difficult for newer players to learn and apply especially in casual partnerships.

 

If you google "inverted minors" you see several different response systems. Most seem to rely on whom ever is weak bidding 2NT or 3♦ unless game has been forced previously from what I see.

 

.. neilkaz ..