Query on inverted minors

[whereagles]

Hi all. How do you play inverted minors?

 

I learned inv minors in the style of Max Hardy 2/1, where you could stop not only on 3m but also on 2NT. I grew to dislike this style, so I'd like to hear some opinions on alternatives. Thx.

[han]

Check out this old thread:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6633&hl=

 

Besides some good comments, it had a link to this even older thread:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=2779

 

Fred responded to that one, so it might be worth looking at.

[Double !]

I learned inverted minors from the Kaplan-Sheinwold system where it was defined as 9+ hcp, at least 4 of minor, no 4-card major (which I have a problem with) and no clear upper limit. But, this was constructed based upon a weak 12-14 NT system where openings of 1m were stronger.

 

Some people I have met play inverted minors as showing a limit raise in the minor and a J-S in the other minor as a forcing raise in the minor. (aka: "criss-cross")

I have met/ played with a few who insist that the single raise shows an opening hand. And there are many who reverse the meanings of 3m and 2NT after opps double 1m (example: 1m-X-?) (aka "flip-flop").

I think that it is important to realize that inverted minors were not originally created for 15-17 NT systems, but were adapted to them (and made somewhat awkward). I kept a copy of Fred and Brad's rebid structure: I thought that their responses made a lot of sense. But, playing strong 1NT, do you really need the inverted raise? And (caveat), beware using double raise with 5332 distro. It's usually not a good idea in my experience.

[mike777]

Hi all. How do you play inverted minors?

 

I learned inv minors in the style of Max Hardy 2/1, where you could stop not only on 3m but also on 2NT. I grew to dislike this style, so I'd like to hear some opinions on alternatives. Thx.

Alternative=Crisscross

1Minor=2s=invite often unbalanced hand.

1Minor=Jump in other minor =game force often unbalanced hand.

1Minor=2h=reverse flannery

1Minor=2M=weak

1Minor=3M=weak with more shape.

1Minor=1nt max of 11 hcp

1Minor=2nt=12-13

1Minor=3nt=14-16 approx.

 

Edit: Double makes an excellent point. I play inverted minor, really inverted 1d in a wk nt, strong club system but even there...1d=2d=10-14hcp and denies outside 5 card major. Partner rebids promised second suit over 1d..so very very different structure here.

[inquiry]

Hi, I am playing something very similar to what FRED listed here (see Fred's method here http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=19037 ).

 

My method differ only slightly from FRED's notes, but this difference is primary due to major differences between my system and normal 2/1. For instance I can't have a great 4441 handm and I play both inverted minors, AND criss-cross, so my 1m-2m is forcing to at least 4m (quasi game force).

 

The following is lifted directly from my bidding blog...

 

1♣ -

---> 2♣ Inverted minor, Quasi-Game force.

------------> 2D Minmum unbalanced hand (ie singleton or void somewhere)

-------------------> 2H ask where is singleton (low, middle, high)

------------------------> 2S = diamond (low)

------------------------> 2NT = heart (middle)

------------------------> 3C = spade (high)

-----------> 2H Balanced had that didn't want to bid NT

-----------> 2S Balanced GF with 5+ clubs

-----------> 2NT = Natural, forcing to 3C (could be 17-19 but see 3NT below)

-----------> 3♣ = 5+ clubs one round force

-----------> new suit jump, GF, splinter, not three suited (would open 2♣)

-----------------------> 4C by responder after splinter is RKCB

-----------> Jump to 4 of agreed minor=RKCB

-----------> Jump above 4 of agreed minor=Exclusion RKCB

 

1♦ - ?

---> 2♦ = Inverted minor, Quasi-Game force.

------------> 2H Minmum unbalanced hand (ie singleton or void somewhere)

-----------------> 2S ask where is singleton (low, middle, high)

---------------------> 2N = club (low)

---------------------> 3C = heart (middle)

---------------------> 3D = spade (high)

-------------> 2S Balanced had that didn't want to bid NT

-------------> 2NT=Natural and forcing to 3 of the agreed minor (could be 17-19 but see 3NT below)

-------------> 3♣ =Balanced minimum hand with 5+ of minor

-------------> new suit jump, GF, splinter, not three suited (would open 2♣)

-------------> Jump to 4 of agreed minor=RKCB

-------------> Jump above 4 of agreed minor=Exclusion RKCB

 

Ben

[Double !]

I am glad to see that there is unanimous agreement on 1) what constitutes an inverted single raise, and 2) opener's rebid structure

 

Uh, oh. Sure to get something on this soon in the BPO polls. That should be interesting: wouldn't be able to wait to see how much agreement there is among panelists in terms of opener's rebids.

OY

[whereagles]

Thanks. I'll have a look at the old threads. I must say I was looking for some simple scheme, though B)

[Double !]

weak NT actually makes the scheme easier, I suspect.

The problem that is causing the complexity is the need to compensate for opener possibly having opened 1m on a balanced minimum.

[coyot]

I play fairly simple inverteds:

1m-3m 5card, 6-8 HCP

1m-2NT 5card, 2-5HCP (not a compulsory bid B))

1m-jumpshift weak

1m-3-4 new suit splinters

(see the frequency of 1m-2NT natural bids in a recent thread - less than 1%)

1m-2m 9+HCP, 4+card, usually without 4M (unless I'm sure we're playing 6-7th level and want to find out stoppers early.

 

After 1m-2m, both sides bid stoppers from the lowest suit (semi-natural) - with any bid above 3m showing some extra values - and only a single artifical bid 1m-2m-2NT (showing stoppers in both majors AND minimum hand).

 

No gadgets necessary, this is quite simple to agree upon and brings good results (on the advanced level... experts will surely want something more complicated.).

 

When playing at a local club (where I would rate myself as slightly above average), I tend to find most minor slams that many better pairs miss, scoring 460 on the same hands :).

 

With the stopper bidding, you can start cue-bidding on 3rd level, which gives enough room to stop safely at 5 if necessary.

[whereagles]

weak NT actually makes the scheme easier, I suspect.

The problem that is causing the complexity is the need to compensate for opener possibly having opened 1m on a balanced minimum.

Playing weak NT you can even bid inverted support on 3 cards B)

[Fluffy]

I can also stop in 2NT and 3m, my bidding goes:

 

first step: any GF hand without singleton.

 

2NT 12-13 bal

 

3m: 12-13 unbal

 

rest: GF singleton.

[whereagles]

Well... after some deliberation I discovered the inverted minors problem is somewhat complex. Both opener and responder need to have some bid to take charge and that is going to complicate the scheme considerable. The only limitation to both players' hands is opener doesn't have a 5 card major, and responder doesn't have a splinter hand.

 

A lot of work is required to make things work properly. Not easy to come up with something simple and precise...

[coyot]

Well, I thought the scheme I showed above is quite simple...

 

It is compatible with both weak and strong jump-shifts, you still can play splinters with it

and it has only one "conventional" bid in the sense that it does not fall in line with the simple principle of bidding stoppers in natural order... (1m-2m-2NT with major stoppers without extra points.)

 

It has worked for me reasonably well for the past 4 years. I would guess that I stopped below non-makeable 3NT more often than my bidding helped defense to bring down otherwise makeable game... and that is not mentioning the minor slams that can be otherwise hard to bid...

[Finch]

Whereagles is right, it is difficult to be both simple and precise.

 

I currently play a method that is less simple than "bid stops" but not that complex (1c-2c-2d = balanced with 2H FG relay & some other bits & pieces)

 

We (i.e, my partner) then wrote a complex relay system after an inverted raise to determine exact shape and honour distribution, with the idea that we could bid accurately, for example, to 4-3 major suit fits instead of 3NT or to pinpoint slams.

 

We then bid about 100 pairs of hands with the new methods.

 

We then decided not to play them. The gain was minuscule compared with the additional opportunities for the defence.

[MorK]

I learned:

1 ♣ - 2 ♣ = 4+ ♣, 10+ P

1 ♣ - 3 ♣ = 5+ ♣, 10+ P

the same in ♦

 

but sometimes i play

1 ♣ - 2 ♣ = 4+ ♣, 10+ P

1 ♣ - 2 ♦ = 5+ ♣, 6-9 P

1 ♣ - 3 ♣ = 5+ ♣, 0-5 P

1 ♦ - 2 ♦ = 4+ ♦, 10+

1 ♦ - 3 ♣ = 5+ ♦, 6-9 P

1 ♦ - 3 ♦ = 5+ ♦, 0-5 P

 

on 1 ♣ - 2 ♣ / 1 ♦ - 2 ♦ you bid stops and on 1 ♣ - 2 ♦ / 1 ♦ - 3 ♣ the opener asks for stop in any suit.

 

MorK

[whereagles]

Well, I finally came up with a scheme that I can live with. It is based on two observations.

 

1. An inverted raise is too rare. To make it more common, I'm going to drop the 5 card support requirement to 3+ cards. This can be easily done without creating too many problems.

 

2. The problem of stoppers only arises if one of the hands has a singleton. With xx opposite xxx or xx, 5m is rarely a viable alternative, so you might as well hide the weakness and play 3NT. Also, 4441 hands are treated as balanced, period.

 

So.. we have

 

1m 2m = 11+ hcp, 3+ cards, no 4 card major. Hand unsuitable for other bid.

 

1m 2m

2D = bonus step. I didn't use it.

 

2M = stopper. Shows GF unbalanced hand (thus 5+ in minor) with 13-16 and singleton somewhere. Follow-ups natural.

 

2NT = 12-13 balanced hand. Responder can pass or bid 3NT with 3-4 cards, bid 3m with 5 cards(to play) or bid a stopper (shows 5+m, extras and singleton somewhere).

 

3m = unbalanced hand and 11-12 hcp. Resp can pass or bid stoppers.

 

3 other minor = GF balanced or semi-balanced 13-16, no singletons. Resp bids 3NT or a stopper, which, as usual, shows 5+m and singleton. Note that resp can't have 3-4 cards and a singleton - he would have an alternative to the inverted raise.

 

3M = splinter, 17-20 hcp.

 

3NT = 17-19, balanced or semi-balanced, no singletons.

 

4m = [insert slammish bid of preference].

 

4x = voidwood.

 

This seems a viable treatment. Besides, the auctions of type 1m-2NT or 1m-3NT show REALLY no-trumpish hands, since with a different hand you could have made an inverted raise.

[david_c]

1m 2m

2D = bonus step. I didn't use it.

I'm sure you can think of something ...

 

But why not use 1♣:2♦ as the inverted raise in that case. Then your structures after a 1♣ and 1♦ can be the same and you get more space elsewhere in the system.

[han]

Not sure I like this structure.

 

Compared to the standard "bid stoppers up-the-line", this does worse when opener is minimal and responder is a minimal GF. In standard you may already have found that you are missing a stopper and you can stop in 3m. Here, you have to start looking for stoppers at the 3-level.

[keylime]

Agree with Hannie totally.

 

I use it as a simple 4 card raise unless I have a major, then it's 5+.

 

I don't have an exotic raise structure for inverted minors - it's too much memory work for most and I like classic strong jump shifts for 1D-2M.

 

It's about playability, and having more pieces of structure equals less pieces of overall control of the auction.

[luke warm]

i went back to the link posted.. i like roland's structure just fine

[whereagles]

Not sure I like this structure.

 

Compared to the standard "bid stoppers up-the-line", this does worse when opener is minimal and responder is a minimal GF. In standard you may already have found that you are missing a stopper and you can stop in 3m. Here, you have to start looking for stoppers at the 3-level.

You don't need to like the structure :( I'm not trying to convince anyone this is the best thing since sliced bread (which it is :D).

 

As for signing off in 3m when a stopper is missing, well, you can stop at the 4-level here. If a stopper is missing and a singleton is present, 4m on 25-26 hcp should still make. In any case this minor setback is, I think, greatly offset by the benefits of opener show what kind of hand/strenght he has, instead of clouding the issue with muddy stopper bids. That way responder knows where we stand and can take charge.

[whereagles]

having more pieces of structure equals less pieces of overall control of the auction.

Actually, it is the other way around.

 

It is when you have gadgets to limit opener's or responder's hand that one of the players can control the auction. Playing without gadgets can be easier on your memory but increases the randomness of the level you play at. It is of course doable, provided you don't care much about missing a few borderline slams.

[whereagles]

i went back to the link posted.. i like roland's structure just fine

I didn't like it too much because opener doesn't say how strong he is. That puts a lot of stress on responder and stress increases the likelyhood of failure.

 

I also didn't like Fred's (and Ben's) structure because it wastes a couple bids that can be much better used. For instance, I see little interest in having two bids for balanced hands, and even less interest in showing how many cards you have in the minor when the hand is balanced.

 

All in all I took a little bit of here and there, souped it up with some ideas of my own and cooked up my own scheme.

[badderzboy]

I play ACOL/Weak NT and my partner and I are looking to use inverted minors, my current thoughts are to allow it to include a 4 card major!

 

1♣-2♣!-2X unbal hand either 5431 or 4441 or better either weak or poor 2nd suit in good hand (at most 1 of AK say)

 

(i) ptr can a higher suit at 2 level to check for 4441

(ii) 3♣ or 3X is a limit raise to 3 level if 44 10/11

(iii) 3Y stopper ask / long suit trial bid denies AK in suit

(iv) Game raise to 4Y

(v) 4♦ RKCB ask

(vi)2NT is bal 10/11 by responder with o/s suits stopped.

(vii)3NT is bal 12/13

 

1♣-2♣!-2NT Bal 15-17 pt hand 3♣ is now stayman

 

1♣-2♣!-3♣ is weak 11-14 no o/s 4 card suit

1♣-2♣!-3Y Good hand 15+ good suit any 3 level resp to 3 Y stopper ask

 

 

1♣-2♣!-3NT Bal 18-19 pt hand 4♣ is now stayman / 4♦ RKCB in ♣'s, 4HS ExRKCB?

 

1♣-2♣!-4♣ is strong 15+ forcing to 4NT no o/s 4 card suit

 

Thats my thoughts so far. How mad a scheme is it

 

Steve

[whereagles]

Seems ok to me.

 

But you might want to have another look at the sequence 1♣-2♣-3♣. If that's 11-14, pard will have to do some guesswork if he's on the 11-12 range <_<