Inv minors: with/without side 4c Major ?

[Chamaco]

Hi all :-)

 

In my experience I have noticed that among players using inverted minor raises there seem to be 2 schools:

 

a. Inverted minor raise ABSOLUTELY denies a side major

b. Inverted minor raise cannot have a side 4cM *if invitational only*, but can indeed have a side 4cM *if the hand is a GF*

 

 

As far as I understood, the reasons for both views are the following:

 

a. Inverted minor raise ABSOLUTELY denies a side major

 

These players assume that during the following bids, opener or responder might bid a major only as a NOtrump probe, showing stoppers, sometimes even as little as doubleton KJ or AQ.

If there was ambiguity (bidding a major could still be looking for a 44 fit), there would be a problem:

when responder has the major bid by opener, responder might raise to 3 this suit, but this also leads to problem: if the suit was only a notrump probe, we have lost one full level of bidding which was needed to check for the other stoppers.

 

 

b. Inverted minor raise can indeed have a side 4cM *if the hand is a GF*

 

These players assume that bidding the major first - even when holding great support in opener's minor - can lead to cumbersome rebids which might indeed distort responder's hand, and opener may have a hard time evaluating the hand.

 

One big risk among others would be losing a good slam in the minor when there is no fit in the major: when a good minor fit is there, choosing between a minor suit game/slam and a NT contract is often a tricky task (especially at MP), and in order to do that well, a good description of the shape is needed.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SO THE QUESTION IS: WHICH STYLE DO YOU PREFER; AND HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THE RELATED PROBLEMS ?

 

Thanks a lot ! :-)

 

Mauro

[flytoox]

I like the second treatment. I think it will be more easy to bid out responder's hand. For example:

 

S: X

H: AQXX

D: kJTxx

C: AJx

 

pd opens 1D, playing first treatment, you have to bid 1H. If pd bids 1S, then you have to use 4th suit forcing then to raise pd's diamond suit. Pd will find it very difficult to belive you have so good trump support.

 

Playing the second treatment, you can start with 2D and then rebid heart. Now pd will have a much clearer picture of your hand, at least 5D+4H.

 

Regards

 

Hongjun

[whereagles]

Nr. 2 is more flexible, but I prefer nr. 1 for a number of reasons I can't post (been having problems posting long messages....)

[coyot]

I would add third school - side major possible when I know that I want to make a minor slam try (and want the 1♣-2♣ auction followed with stoppers in order. This gives you tremendous advantage in learning about partner's values very early.

 

In your a. variant, responder will NOT raise a major because 4-4 fit is already ruled out. If inverted minor absolutely denies side major, no problems can arise.

 

b. variant - if the hand is GF, there should be absolutely no problems with opener's rebids - he will either rebid 1/2NT or reverse or repeat clubs.

After 1NT rebid, there are easy to use gadgets like 2♦ GF if you play xyNT.

After 2NT rebid, similarly 3♦ will be GF and 4♣/♦ (opener's first suit) after 3NT must be a slam try.

After reverse, there is the fourth suit left as GF and again, 4m after 3NT a slam try.

After club repeat, you have 4NT RKCB or a shortness showing jump.

 

Of course, implementing the b. variant into gadget-free system might cause problems.

 

I would suggest:

 

 

c. side major is possible if responder has slam interest against weak NT opening.

If partner has the typical 1♣ with weak NT and you would still consider slam, hide your major 4card and start bidding stoppers after inverted minor.

 

If your hand is not that good, you should try to locate major fit first - and the 1M bid will give you more information about your p's hand. I.e. if he is 5431 or 4441, or 6+clubs, you will find out from his very next bid.

 

With any plain GF hand, you will simply try to play 3NT - and if a suit proves unstopped, you can then try 5m.

[ochinko]

I am from the camp a. Even with a 6-card minor I bid my 4-card major suit first because generally 4M and 3NT are easier to make than 5m. It is precisely because I want to escape the ambiguity of introducing a 4 card major as a 4th suit, that I do that.

 

On the other hand, I may bid 3D over 1D with xxxx-xxxx-xxxxx-void just to steal some space from the opponents, and maybe send them into a 4M contract that can't be made.

 

Not that a. is necessarily better but for me it's much simpler, and can be used easily with a pickup partner, whereas b. requires good agreements.

 

Petko

[keylime]

Camp two by a country mile.

 

Don't lie about your shape. Six of a minor slams are hard enough to bid; misrepresenting your hand makes it nearly impossible.

[Chamaco]

Ty so far :-)

 

To those who will anticipate the 4 card major even with a GF hand:

how do you play to describe your hand (or what convention do you use for that) if pard does NOT bid a 1/1 (in that case, xyz/xyNT would do the job).

 

E.g.:

you hold

xx-AJTx-KJxxx-Kx

 

and the bidding goes

 

CASE 1

 

1♦-1♥

2♦

 

CASE 2

 

1♦-1♥

2♠

 

Here, bidding 4SF tends to suggest a 5cMajor.

Bidding 3D, also tends to promise a 5cM.

[coyot]

Ty so far :-)

 

To those who will anticipate the 4 card major even with a GF hand:

how do you play to describe your hand (or what convention do you use for that) if pard does NOT bid a 1/1 (in that case, xyz/xyNT would do the job).

 

E.g.:

you hold

xx-AJTx-KJxxx-Kx

 

and the bidding goes

 

CASE 1

 

1♦-1♥

2♦

 

CASE 2

 

1♦-1♥

2♠

 

Here, bidding 4SF tends to suggest a 5cMajor.

Bidding 3D, also tends to promise a 5cM.

Case 1:

I have to bid 3♣ to show that spades are not stopped by me. P. will bid 3NT or 3♦ or 3♥. In the latest case, I might try for 4♥ on misfit, otherwise we're most likely in the right contract (5♦ seems too far).

 

Case 2: 2♠ is splinter with heart 4card :))

I see no merit playing this as a natural "strong" hand, 1♠ as forcing for one round seems to be a good bid in most cases. (With the possible treatment of 1NT being the "negative" bid, not promising a club stopper. So if the opener is really strong, he will ask by 2♣, otherwise we play 1NT with opps being welcome to cash 4-5 club tricks.

 

I'm not sure why bidding 3♦ should promise 5♥ in either case - I think it can be perfectly OK with 4card, finding 5-3 fit will not be hard.

[ochinko]

Camp two by a country mile.

 

Don't lie about your shape. Six of a minor slams are hard enough to bid; misrepresenting your hand makes it nearly impossible.

Everything is a compromise. We base our preferences upon our priorities, and I prefer to be at the right game as often as possible, even when I have to pay the price of missing a minor slam once in a while.

 

OTOH, I'm very much willing to drop minor suit transfers, so that I'd be able to use 2Sp as a minor suit Stayman (GF), and find minor slams when a big part of the field is playing 3NT for +1 or +2.

 

Petko

[ochinko]

Ty so far :-)

 

To those who will anticipate the 4 card major even with a GF hand:

how do you play to describe your hand (or what convention do you use for that) if pard does NOT bid a 1/1 (in that case, xyz/xyNT would do the job).

 

E.g.:

you hold

xx-AJTx-KJxxx-Kx

 

and the bidding goes

 

CASE 1

 

1♦-1♥

2♦

 

CASE 2

 

1♦-1♥

2♠

 

Here, bidding 4SF tends to suggest a 5cMajor.

Bidding 3D, also tends to promise a 5cM.

Even if 4SF suggests a 5-card major, I hope partner won't push to 4H with only 2 hearts, so I'll correct 3H to 3NT, and either play there or 4H on a Moysian fit in Case 1.

 

In case 2 if I bid diamonds enough times we'll either play 6D or 6NT.

 

Yes, these hands are tough for camp a., and I'm not sure I bid them right but you could construct difficult hands for any given agreement :)

 

Petko

[Limey_p]

Chamaco - I love the question.

 

Although it is heretical to some of my partners, I am on the b side of this - a 4 card major is possible.

 

I like to draw analogies to other sequences to help save my memory.

 

Playing 2 over 1 responding to 1♥, you will sometimes want to start with a minor suit rather than responding 1♠. When? when it suits your bidding plan to establish a game force right away.

 

I like to view the inverted minor response the same way - suppress the 4 card major on the first round when you feel it will lead to a more descriptive auction.

 

AP

[Chamaco]

Yes, these hands are tough for camp a., and I'm not sure I bid them right but you could construct difficult hands for any given agreement B)

Of course, that is the core of the question: I think these problems, pros/cons are relatively well known so I was not trying to say that one is better than the other, I am simply asking:

 

regardless of whether you prefer style "a" or "b", which solution do you try (if any at all) to avoid the problems related with it ? :-)

[flytoox]

Ty so far :-)

 

To those who will anticipate the 4 card major even with a GF hand:

how do you play to describe your hand (or what convention do you use for that) if pard does NOT bid a 1/1 (in that case, xyz/xyNT would do the job).

 

E.g.:

you hold

xx-AJTx-KJxxx-Kx

 

and the bidding goes

 

CASE 1

 

1♦-1♥

2♦

 

CASE 2

 

1♦-1♥

2♠

 

Here, bidding 4SF tends to suggest a 5cMajor.

Bidding 3D, also tends to promise a 5cM.

With the first hand I think you have to bid 3C.

 

With the second hand, it is easy, just bid 3D and bid slowly. Or, if you like, play 4D as RKC for diamond. you have club king so you can ask key cards.

[Chamaco]

With the first hand I think you have to bid 3C.

Hmm, I think this a headstart towards troubles:

I have GOOD minor support, and I start by bidding my 4 card suit first, and then my 2 card suit B)

 

Even if 3C is a sort of 3rd suit forcing (a la Bourke), it still does not feel right.

Most times pard will show 3 card support in H, and then again we will have a hard time evaluating whether the hand plays better in NT or diamonds.

 

Also, if I bid this way with 4M+longer minor and GF, this will make more nebulous the bidding when I DO have a 5 card major and I am using 3rd/4th suit forcing to checkback for support.

[Fluffy]

I remember having a discusion with an italian friend, he said we were playing as natural as possible, so 'longo-corto' aproach, ,wich meant first raise the minor with 5 cards, then show the 4 card major.

 

That seeemed totally nuts for me at first, as used as I am to walsh, I always bid a 4c major first, and find the major suit fit at the 2 level (also getting a response at the 1 level very descriptive, and one that opener is used to do in 80% of the hands he opens, on a non experienced partnership, 1♣-2♣-2♥ is a very neboulous bid wich people don't know very well what it means).

 

 

1 of the advantages I found of not denying a 4c major was getting rid of an ambiguety that my system had:

 

I have only those 2 sequences:

 

1♣-1M

1NT-3♣

 

and

 

1♣-1M

1NT-2m relay

anything-3♣

 

to show ♠+♣, therefore I can show 5+♠,+4♣, and 4+♠, 5+♣, but not the 5+♠, 5+♣ at the 3 level sadly. Obviously if you can get rid of the 4-5, things get clearer.

[Chamaco]

I remember having a discusion with an italian friend, he said we were playing as natural as possible, so 'longo-corto' aproach, ,wich meant first raise the minor with 5 cards, then show the 4 card major.

 

That seeemed totally nuts for me at first, as used as I am to walsh, I always bid a 4c major first, and find the major suit fit at the 2 level (also getting a response at the 1 level very descriptive, and one that opener is used to do in 80% of the hands he opens, on a non experienced partnership, 1♣-2♣-2♥ is a very neboulous bid wich people don't know very well what it means).

 

 

1 of the advantages I found of not denying a 4c major was getting rid of an ambiguety that my system had:

 

I have only those 2 sequences:

 

1♣-1M

1NT-3♣

 

and

 

1♣-1M

1NT-2m relay

anything-3♣

 

to show ♠+♣, therefore I can show 5+♠,+4♣, and 4+♠, 5+♣, but not the 5+♠, 5+♣ at the 3 level sadly. Obviously if you can get rid of the 4-5, things get clearer.

Hola Gonzalo !! :-)

 

So what scheme for inverted minors are you using now ?

[Double !]

OMG

 

I, too, play that one can have an outside 4-card major, especially when playing wk NT. I am really VERY surprised at the number of respondents who say they will make a single inverted minor raise holding an outside major. I thought that I was in the vast minority on this subject, that the whole world firmly held the position that an inverted raise denied a 4-card M. Although this helps when you have 5m and 4M, the 5M-4+m hands also need to be considered. I, personally, play 2-way Jump-shifts over 1m: either a fit bid GI+ with 5M and 4+m and/ or as a (old fashioned) strong J-S in the bid M (possibly also with support for opener's minor). Partner bids the next step as a puppet bid to allow responder to clarify which type of hand the J-S was based on. It seems to work fairly well and takes the stress off of opener about whether or not to show 3-card support for P's major after responder bids the M and then shows support for opener's minor. Still a work in progress.