[helene_t]

Playing inverted minors, after 1m-2m you have plenty of bidding space but usually don't need it. I think more hands should make the single raise.

One option would be to allow responder to have a 4-card major. One advantage of that would be that in Fluffy's recent ATB thread (1♦-1♥-1♠-3♦....), opener would know that responder had a 5-card hearts since otherwise he would have raised directly.

Another option would be to allow a wider range of hands to make the single raise. Say 6+ points, then the double raise could be 0-5. This would require some artificiality in the follow-ups but I think it would be playable, at least as long as opps a silent.

Any thoughts?

[straube]

I like MAFIA (Majors Always First In Answering) over 1m because it saves space, giving opener (especially) more room to describe his hand.

The sequence you gave (1D-1H, 1S-3D) is a win for your method but it caters to an invitational hand...and MAFIA can solve this problem sometimes with 1D-1H, 1S-3D-3H forcing with three hearts.

I'd rather cater to the GF hands.

I agree that there's too much room...especially after a natural 1C...which is why is should be a strong club.

After 1C natural, you could play 2C as a simple raise and 2D as an inverted raise.

[kenrexford]

The way I like to play over 1♣-P-2♣ is that 2♣ shows either an invitational raise of clubs OR any GF hand without a five-card major (may even have both four-card majors).

Opener rebids:

2♦ = shows 4+ hearts (Responder can GF and agree hearts by bidding 2♥, most other options natural and GF, 3♣ shows an invitational hand with clubs)
2♥ = same, but spades
2♠ = clubs repeated artificially (can stop at 2NT or 3♣); need not have extra length in clubs if no other options
2NT = passable, but balanced
3♣ = club-diamond two-suiter, forcing
3♦/3♥/3♠ = GF, shortness
3NT = whatever

The benefits are similar to what you suggested.

As to 1♦-P-2♦, I think you are better off making 2♣ an artificial GF (denies a 5-card major) and stacking that way, with a similar rebid structure. One-fourth of a level (the difference between 2♣ and 2♦) is HUGE.

[nigel_k]

I have never liked inverted minors and would prefer just a boring old NF single raise with support and a minimum response. This works much better than bidding 1NT, both in competition and when you end in 3NT. On the stronger hands you don't need all that space as Helene noted so can just use 1♣-2♦ or 1♦-2♥ to show a good raise.

[jdonn]

Your idea of allowing 4 card majors is good, at least when game forcing. Then when you bid a major, force to game, and support the minor, partner knows the major is => length than the minor since 4-5+ would make the inverted raise.

[Siegmund]

Put me down for the MAFIA approach (and for not playing 1m-2NT as 11-12, perhaps the single worst treatment that has a checkbox anywhere on the ACBL's convention card.)

Incidentally, I never feel like I have a lot of idle sequences available after an inverted raise. I open a lot of 11s and respond with a lot of 11s, so the space from 2C to 2N/3C is jam-packed with sorting out strengths and stoppers, just like the space between 2M and 3M is needed for game tries (and eliciting information usable for slam bidding sometimes) after a major-suit raise.

I'm sure there are alternatives to inverted minors that are playable and useful. But I blanch in horror at the thought of sticking a bunch of 4-card majors back into those auctions. In fact, I've gone the opposite path, and recommend treating 1D-2C as an "inverted minor non-raise" denying a 4-card major. (A highly artificial approach like ken's might work too - but thats something very different than just dumping some extra major-minor two-suiters into inverted raises.)

And, at risk of repeating myself... if you're playing 1m-2NT as natural and nonforcing, get those hands into your inverted structure and dream up something, anything, better to do with 2NT!

[Fluffy]

I know some italian friends who play this natural style, first bid your longest suit even if its a minor, then your major.

I have problems with the style because I am not used to it, but sure it works if you train.


I still prefer the normal style where 1m-2m denies 4 card mayor, first of all I play transfers over 1♣ so I am plenty of space if I show my majors, and second, when I raise a minor, I focus on shortness (both players showing no-jumping shortness) rather than long side suits, because my primary objective is to reach 3NT, or if the shortness fits, maybe 6m.

[junyi_zhu]

helene_t, on Mar 11 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

Playing inverted minors, after 1m-2m you have plenty of bidding space but usually don't need it. I think more hands should make the single raise.

One option would be to allow responder to have a 4-card major. One advantage of that would be that in Fluffy's recent ATB thread (1♦-1♥-1♠-3♦....), opener would know that responder had a 5-card hearts since otherwise he would have raised directly.

Another option would be to allow a wider range of hands to make the single raise. Say 6+ points, then the double raise could be 0-5. This would require some artificiality in the follow-ups but I think it would be playable, at least as long as opps a silent.

Any thoughts?

I have played inverted minor as gf raise and not denying a major suit for many years, of course, it works well. It is generally a good idea to bid one's longest suit first, otherwise people have difficulties show such kind of features later. For example,
if you hold 4S + 6C and gf hand, and bid 1S over 1C, you will often have an extremely difficult time to show that you indeed hold 6 clubs later.

[straube]

If you look at most relay systems, suits are identified first, their respective length second. For example, in standard symmetric, 1C-1H does not preclude longer spades, but 1C-1S denies hearts. It's just more efficient that way.


What bidding 2C with 4H and 5C does for you (in these inverted minor auctions we're talking about) is that it gets in a GF. That always costs something to do so you haven't sustained a total loss.

But it's not worth the difference between a 1H and 2C response.

As Ken pointed out, there's a huge difference between a 2C and 2D response, so just imagine...

And if you still disagree, look at my 1D-1M, 1N thread and see just how much potential you have to describe your hand if you start out low.

[gnasher]

I've always wondered why AKxx xx xx AQxxx is a 2♣ responder to 1♦ but a 1♠ response to 1♣. I think it's just something that people do because everyone else does.

The argument that you need the space after an inverted minor for investigating stoppers seems tenuous. If the auction begins
  1♣-1♥;1NT
most people don't have a way to exchange information about stoppers. If opener has the same hand but it starts
  1♣-2♣
I don't see why the question of stoppers has increased in importance to such an extent that you have to use the two-level for exploring them.

Ken's suggestion looks OK, except that with an 11-count opposite a weak notrump he seems to be guessing whether to bid game or not. (Unless the idea is that opener has to bid a space-consuming 3NT with a maximum weak notrump.)

After the inverted raise, I would play something like
- Step 1 = balanced, or unbalanced non-minimum with the suit bid
- Other two-level suits = natural, unbalanced
- 2NT = unbalanced minimum with the suit bid

After the step-1 bid, responder's 2NT or return to 3 of the minor is natural and invitational, and everything else is natural and game-forcing.

[kenrexford]

You can pureify things over 1♣:

1♣-P-2♣ = artificial GF
1♣-P-2♦ = invitational with clubs

That solves the guessing game, and it actually makes for a consistent minor-suit structure (one-way criss-cross):

1♣-P-2♣ = artificial GF, no 5-card major, might have club support; transfer rebids by Opener
1♦-P-2♣ = artificial GF, no 5-card major, might have diamond support; transfer rebids by Opener

1♣-P-2♦ = invitational with club support
1♦-P-2♦ = invitational with diamond support

[Fluffy]

yeah ken, if you give 2♦ a meaning and before it had one it is an improvement, however I have the 2♦ bid reserved for something else

[MarkDean]

I do not like inverted minors, as I in general am not a huge fan of auctions where we are trying to sort out level and strain at the same time. Perhaps people who play artifical continuations solve this problem. The idea of overloading it even more seems like a really bad idea to me.

[Tola18]

helene_t, on Mar 11 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

Playing inverted minors, after 1m-2m you have plenty of bidding space but usually don't need it. I think more hands should make the single raise.

One option would be to allow responder to have a 4-card major. ..

Playing with a weak NT, this works very well. Natural and swell.
As described and proved by the swedish national Manfred Kamras in articles back in 1982.
He used an very natural, acol inspired system with 4-cards openings and 12-14NT.


I took up a suggestion by him to try it out with 15-17NT. It is more difficult, but works OK if both partners knows what is going on.

I had also tried it out in Sayc, and even strong club - ie where the minor could be short, even really short.
Works OK, even marvellously in best moments - but yet - partners must be on the same wavelengh.

I had it described in two articles on the swedish site syskon.nu.

Bridgeguy asked me to translate it, but I get stuck together with a computer crash...

But who knows, I may yet even retranslate (and rewrite) the two articles, and let Bridgeguys publish it...

[whereagles]

inverted minors, as they stand in hardy's book, suck horribly because they're geared towards stoppers when hand pattern/strength should come first.

have the bidding space used to let opener describe his hand. many sensible schemes are usable here, you can cook up your own.

[Big_Tomato]

We play 1C-2C as showing a precision-like 2C opener (usually 11-15 hcps) with either 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and 4+ major: opener responds with a 2D relay on many hands especially when balanced.

However, 1D-2D is a bog standard inverted minor denying a 4 card major (but 1D-2H shows 5 diamonds and 4 hearts and 11+ hcps)

Big_Tomato