inverted minors -- how weak?

[bftboy]

A discussion in another thread makes clear that at least some readers are playing inverted minors much weaker and much more preemptively than I now do. For ex, I think that after 1♣ - P, some of you would bid 3 ♣ with, say, xx, xxx, xx, Jxxxxxx. Is that about right?

 

If so, 2 questions. On the same auction, how do you handle something like Qx, xxx, Kx, Qxxxxx? I guess you bid 1nt? How does that work in practice?

 

2d question, what is the best hand you could hold for this very weak inverted raise?

 

thx, B)

[aguahombre]

Yep, those are the right questions which "super weak" style players have to answer. They must overload other bids, such as 1NT to gain the preemption. We stick with showing a minimum response for that reason (stopping short of a limit raise). And we lose some preemptive value. It is truly a choice --no right or wrong.

[Jlall]

You should have 3 ways to raise, weak (defined as partner should pass with 18-19 bal), constructive (defined as partner should bid 3N with 18-19 bal), and limit+

 

If you are only using the direct raise and the jump raise as ways to raise the minor, then you have 2 bids to show 3 hand types. You can then choose to define 3m however you want, including wide ranging incorporating both weak and constructive, but at the end of the day whatever you choose will always be flawed because you have too many hand types to show in too few bids.

 

FWIW if playing this way, I like to play vul that the jump raise is constructive like 6-9, and 0-5 either passes or bids 1N. I like to play that NV the jump is weak like 0-5, and the constructive bids 1N. I think most people tend to just have a very wide range for 3m and hope for the best. Of course, I hate playing a system like this and would much rather dedicate a 3rd bid for sorting this out.

[blackshoe]

I have seen:

 

1m-2m: GF

1m-jump in om: inv.

1m-3m: preemptive.

 

I don't know how well this works in practice.

[ArtK78]

I have seen:

 

1m-2m: GF

1m-jump in om: inv.

1m-3m: preemptive.

 

I don't know how well this works in practice.

It works OK, except that the upper range of the non-invitational hand is still too high. So one winds up bidding 1NT with the constructive but not invitational hand, and reserves the double raise to those hands that are purely preemptive.

[jdonn]

Or you could just not respond on 1 counts. Oops sorry I'm being silly. :)

[gordontd]

I play a 2NT response as weak, defined as a hand too weak to play 3NT opposite a strong balanced opener. That way it doesn't wrong-side. Then 3m is constuctive and 2m is limit+.

 

The problem comes in a 2/1 system of how to show a balanced 11-12 (if you can't respond 2C to 1D).

[junyi_zhu]

A discussion in another thread makes clear that at least some readers are playing inverted minors much weaker and much more preemptively than I now do. For ex, I think that after 1♣ - P, some of you would bid 3 ♣ with, say, xx, xxx, xx, Jxxxxxx. Is that about right?

 

If so, 2 questions. On the same auction, how do you handle something like Qx, xxx, Kx, Qxxxxx? I guess you bid 1nt? How does that work in practice?

 

2d question, what is the best hand you could hold for this very weak inverted raise?

 

thx, :(

You can play a immediate jump raise as pure preemptive. a simple raise as gf.

1C 2D is inv. 1C 2S as constructive raise.

[karlson]

I think most people tend to just have a very wide range for 3m and hope for the best. Of course, I hate playing a system like this and would much rather dedicate a 3rd bid for sorting this out.

This is my usual style (very wide 3m range) when playing inverted minors. I'll admit that sometimes you get to a very bad 3n (partner basically always bids 3n with 18-19), but I hate the less preemptive and less descriptive 1n on 5 or 6 card support more.

[gordontd]

You can play a immediate jump raise as pure preemptive. a simple raise as gf.

1C 2D is inv. 1C 2S as constructive raise.

How about 1C - 2H as a slam try :(

[CSGibson]

A discussion in another thread makes clear that at least some readers are playing inverted minors much weaker and much more preemptively than I now do.  For ex, I think that after 1♣ - P, some of you would bid 3 ♣ with, say, xx, xxx, xx, Jxxxxxx.  Is that about right?

 

If so, 2 questions.  On the same auction, how do you handle something like Qx, xxx, Kx, Qxxxxx?  I guess you bid 1nt?  How does that work in practice?

 

2d question, what is the best hand you could hold for this very weak inverted raise?

 

thx, ;)

You can play a immediate jump raise as pure preemptive. a simple raise as gf.

1C 2D is inv. 1C 2S as constructive raise.

That is my agreement as well - 1 of a minor, 2 spades is a 5+ card raise of the minor, less than invitational values, but something that should have decent play for game opposite an 18-19 NT hand. 1 of a minor jump raised to 3 is purely preemptive and to play unless you have some sort of distributional monster.

[Cascade]

Or you could just not respond on 1 counts. Oops sorry I'm being silly. ;)

Not sure which statement you think is silly.

 

Only a little over 1% of hands are 1 counts so to not bid on them is not so silly IMHO.

 

The frequencies are such that a 4-7 HCP range is more frequent than 0-6 HCP.

 

So you do not actually give up that much by omitting the very weak hands from your range.

[straube]

I like...

 

1C-2C=simple raise (rarely with four good trump)

1C-2D=invitational+ raise

1C-3C=weak raise (not convertible to 3N opposite 18-19)

 

then

 

1C-1N is positional for NT

 

I use 1C-2M for Reverse Flannery but admit it isn't really necessary. One really has too much room over a natural 1C opening.

 

I like

 

1D-2C=not game-forcing

1D-2D=LR+

1D-2M=Reverse Flannery (think this is very necessary)

1D-3C=simple raise

1D-3D=weak

[Codo]

Like Justin said, you must have three ways to raise.

And like he said, your limits should focus on the fact what partner will do with the strong NT hand.

So if your 1 Club hand contains 18-19 NT hands, I would like:

 

1 Club 2 Club inf+

1 Club 2 Diamond 7-9

1 Club 3 Club ?-6

 

I would never bid 3 club with a 1 HCP 2335 hand- but a one point 2326 hand maybe be bid this way.

[hanp]

The frequencies are such that a 4-7 HCP range is more frequent than 0-6 HCP.

If you play the jump raise as very weak, partner knows to pass with 18-19 balanced. If you play it constructive, partner can bid 3NT with those hands. If you use 4-7, partner has a problem. The fact that partner has a problem more frequently does not make it a better bid.

[Free]

I play:

2m = 10+

2♠ = 6-9 (opener can ask with 2NT)

3m = 0-5 (opener should pass with 18-19 balanced)

 

Works very well imo.

[zenko]

I like 1d-3d constructive, 1d-3c invit raise, and 2d either GF or trash, but I am not sure is that legal in ACBLstan

[blackshoe]

If you mean 2♦ as a two way, weak or GF, response, looks to me like that's SuperChart.

[straube]

Like Justin said, you must have three ways to raise.

And like he said, your limits should focus on the fact what partner will do with the strong NT hand.

So if your 1 Club hand contains 18-19 NT hands, I would like:

 

1 Club 2 Club inf+

1 Club 2 Diamond 7-9

1 Club 3 Club ?-6

 

I would never bid 3 club with a 1 HCP 2335 hand- but a one point 2326 hand maybe be bid this way.

Why bid 1C-2D with 7-9 and 1C-2C with inv+ ?

 

Why not 1C-2C with 7-9 and 1C-2D with inv+ ?

 

1C-2C lets you play 2C. Granted, the opponents are likely to balance, but it gives opener the option to defend or bid 3C.

 

1C-2D leaves lots of room for us and opponents while depriving us of playing 2C.

[PhantomSac]

Like Justin said, you must have three ways to raise.

And like he said, your limits should focus on the fact what partner will do with the strong NT hand.

So if your 1 Club hand contains 18-19 NT hands, I would like:

 

1 Club 2 Club inf+

1 Club 2 Diamond 7-9

1 Club 3 Club      ?-6

 

I would never bid  3 club with a 1 HCP 2335 hand- but a one point 2326 hand maybe be bid this way.

Why bid 1C-2D with 7-9 and 1C-2C with inv+ ?

 

Why not 1C-2C with 7-9 and 1C-2D with inv+ ?

 

1C-2C lets you play 2C. Granted, the opponents are likely to balance, but it gives opener the option to defend or bid 3C.

 

1C-2D leaves lots of room for us and opponents while depriving us of playing 2C.

Gaining an extra step when you are inv+ can be quite useful (especially if you use the step well and don't just play some stopper showing bids), and playing 2C is a narrow target that is pretty rare.

[mike777]

prefer 1c=2d as game force

prefer 1c=2s as invite

 

now I can still shoot for 1c=2c as weakish.

[straube]

prefer 1c=2d as game force

prefer 1c=2s as invite

 

now I can still shoot for 1c=2c as weakish.

I think that's a good structure.

 

A simple raise is nice to have because opener will frequently only have three clubs. The 3-level might not be a good contract if the partnership is vulnerable and has only a 5-3 or even 4-3 fit ( I might want to raise clubs with xx xxx Axxx KJxx primarily to help pd with a 3-level decision). Many partnerships don't have a simple raise available and respond 1N. When there's subsequent competition, the partnership has to guess whether to compete in clubs at the 3-level. With the simple raise as a tool, 1C-1N warns opener not to bid 3C unless he has a club suit.

 

I agree with PhantomSac about the extra step being useful. Still seems losing to use 1C-2D as constructive, forcing partner to 3C, frequently leaving partner more room to explore game than he really wants while giving opponents room to pre-balance. 1C-2C as a simple raise leaves both sides even more room, but without forcing to the 3-level.

 

Mike777's structure gives more clarity to club auctions. He's sacrificing the 1C-2S bid, but this jump isn't essential for anything in particular. Again, there's too much room over 1C natural (and that points to 1C natural being a bad use).

 

Mike, what do you use 1C-2H for? You could go a step further and...

 

2C-simple raise, uncertain about 3-level

2D-GF raise

2H-inv raise

2S-simple raise, wants the 3-level

3C-weak raise

[mike777]

1minor=2h=reverse flannery....a forum favorite.

[straube]

I love that over 1D. Like it over 1C, but it doesn't seem as necessary.

 

Getting off topic, but playing Reverse Flannery, how is your structure changed after 1C-1S, 2C?

I.e. what are your 2D, 2H, and 2S continuations? Thanks.

[mike777]

I love that over 1D.  Like it over 1C, but it doesn't seem as necessary.

 

Getting off topic, but playing Reverse Flannery, how is your structure changed after 1C-1S, 2C?

I.e.  what are your 2D, 2H, and 2S continuations?  Thanks.

2d=game force art.

 

2h or 2s of course not game force.