[Quartic]

Is there any merit to playing inverted minors in an Acol context? (12-14 NT, 4 card majors)

I was brainstorming a bit tonight with one of my partners, and came up with this:

1♣ - 2♣; 11+ natural - 10+ points, denies a 4 card major unless game forcing.
2♦; Any game force.
2♥♠; Natural minimum.
2NT; Minimum with diamonds.
3♣; Minimum, 6+ clubs.

1♦ - 2♦; 11+ natural - 10+ points, denies a 4 card major unless game forcing.
2♥; Any game force.
2♠; Natural minimum.
2NT; Minimum with hearts.
3♣; Minimum with clubs.
3♦; Minimum, 6+ diamonds.

I'm not sure what the best follow ups after 1♣ - 2♣; 2♦ and 1♦ - 2♦; 2♥ would be. I assume that bids above 3♣/♦ should show distributional 15+ hands.

Would it be better to put all the minimums into the first step, and have all higher steps show extras instead?

Constructive criticism and alternative schemes welcome.

[Statto]

Somebody told me they work better in an Acol context, so we are playing them, though yet to have a hand come up, I guess because the 1♣/1♦ openings are much rarer. But when it does...

[nige1]

IMO, inverted raises work well in an Acol context. e.g. After 1♣

• 3♣ = Weak. 0-9 HCP. 4+ support. May have 4 M.
• 2♣ = Forcing. 10+ HCP. 4+ support . May have 4 M (Then 2♦ = Stop enquiry. Other bids natural).
• 2N = Baron. 16+ HCP. Flat.
• 3N = Nat.13-15 HCP.flat.
• 1N = Nat 6-9 HCP. Flat. Usually 4+ ♦
• Suit = Nat. Forcing (alternatively transfers).
• Suit jump = Fit. 5+ bid suit. 4+ support.

[Cyberyeti]

We play something close to Quartic's scheme for 1♣-2♣ although 2♦ while an enquiry for us is not GF and the initial inversion doesn't deny a minimum with 4M.

We also play something close to Nigel's scheme of other bids except that we don't use a baron 2N, and split the weak supporting hands between 2N/3♣.

Over 1♦-2♦ we play our responses in the more traditional way with 2M natural and 2N big balanced GF.

Do you open 1M or 1m with 4M4m32 15+ ? We are in the minority that open the minor, this may explain why I see them much more often than Statto.

[gordontd]

Quartic, on 2012-May-18, 17:10, said:

Is there any merit to playing inverted minors in an Acol context? (12-14 NT, 4 card majors)

As with other contexts, they provide you with a pre-emptive raise and a way to show a forcing raise, as well as more room with a limit raise (if you can find a way to make use of it).

One advantage of this in a weak-NT context is that it's easy to play them while allowing a side four-card major. Opener rebids a side-suit with an unbalanced hand, or rebids 2NT (game forcing) with a balanced hand. 1m-2m-2NT-3m enquires about four-card majors. It then follows that an auction such as 1♦-1♥-1♠-3♦ shows five hearts.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-May-18, 20:51, said:

3♣ = Weak. 0-9 HCP. 4+ support

I don't think this works very well with a weak notrump. How does opener know what to do with a balanced 16- or 17-count?

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-19, 02:38, said:

I don't think this works very well with a weak notrump. How does opener know what to do with a balanced 16- or 17-count?

When partner has a good hand, you often get too high; but sometimes opponents come to the rescue. Two of my Acol partners play a strong-notrump but we still have problems.

[jallerton]

Quartic, on 2012-May-18, 17:10, said:

Is there any merit to playing inverted minors in an Acol context? (12-14 NT, 4 card majors)

Yes, there is plenty of merit in playing inverted minors. It gives a lot more room for slam investigation. Furthermore, playing standard limit raises it is hard for Responder to show a game forcing hand with support.

Quote

I was brainstorming a bit tonight with one of my partners, and came up with this:

1♣ - 2♣; 11+ natural - 10+ points, denies a 4 card major unless game forcing.
2♦; Any game force.
2♥♠; Natural minimum.
2NT; Minimum with diamonds.
3♣; Minimum, 6+ clubs.

1♦ - 2♦; 11+ natural - 10+ points, denies a 4 card major unless game forcing.
2♥; Any game force.
2♠; Natural minimum.
2NT; Minimum with hearts.
3♣; Minimum with clubs.
3♦; Minimum, 6+ diamonds.

I'm not sure what the best follow ups after 1♣ - 2♣; 2♦ and 1♦ - 2♦; 2♥ would be. I assume that bids above 3♣/♦ should show distributional 15+ hands.

Would it be better to put all the minimums into the first step, and have all higher steps show extras instead?

Constructive criticism and alternative schemes welcome.

In your structure it is probably best to play step 1 as a shape relay after 1♣-2♣-2♦.

Yes, I think it would be better to put all minimum hands in step 1. Then all of the other rebids can be played as game forcing.

A simple alternative structure which works perfectly well is to play all of Opener's rebids as natural. 2NT=15+ balanced and is therefore FG. After 1♣-2♣-2♥(say), Responder bids 3♣ with a minimum inverted raise and other bids set up a game force.

[oberiko]

We play inverted minors in our Acol system.

Responder first bids (assuming opener bid 1♣)

• 1♦: 6+ HCP, 3- clubs, 4+ diamonds (we respond longest suit, up-the-line; this could be 4441)
  
• 1M: 6+ HCP, 4+ cards in major (does not deny clubs)
  
• 1N: 6-9 HCP, 3- in all suits skipped (standard dustbin; in the case of clubs it would only be for 3334 distributions)
  
• 2♣: 10-15 HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- of both majors
  
• 2♦/2♥/2♠: weak jump-shift
  
• 2N: 16+ HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- of both majors (modified Jacoby 2NT)
  
• 3♣: 0-9 HCP, 5 clubs (preemptive, increase level for each additional card; wouldn't bid if 1M response was valid)
  
• 3♦/3♥/3♠: 13-15 HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- in both majors, singleton/void (s/v) in suit bid and stoppers in the others (strong splinter)
  
• 3N: 13-15 HCP, stoppers in all unbid suits, 3- of both majors

Subsequent bids after 1m - 2m sequence

• Simple suit change: unbalanced with stopper(s) in bid suit, denies stoppers in all suits skipped
  
  • 2-suited: shows a stopper in suit bid, denies stopper in last unbid suit
    
  • 2N: 10-12 HCP, stoppers in both unbid suits
    
  • 3m: 10-12 HCP, no stoppers in either unbid suit
    
  • Jump-shift: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter)
    
  • 3N: 13-15 HCP, stoppers in both unbid suits
    
  • 4m: 13-15 HCP, no stoppers in either unbid suit and no s/v
• 2N: 15-17 HCP, balanced (standard NT rebid, does not promise stoppers in all suits)
  
  • 3m: 10-12 HCP, poor stoppers
    
  • Simple suit change: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter)
    
  • 3N: Strength / stoppers for game, no slam interest
    
  • 4m: Minorwood
• 3m: unbalanced, 12-15 HCP (might have been 11 w/ 6 cards), very poor hand unsuitable for game in NT or minors opposite a minimum
  
  • Simple suit change: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter)
    
  • 3N: Strength / stoppers for game, no slam interest
    
  • 4m: Minorwood
• Jump-shift: unbalanced with 16+ TP and s/v in bid suit (openers splinter)
  
  • 3N: stoppers in all unbid suits (good ones in partners s/v), no slam interest
    
  • 4m: Minorwood
• 3N: 18-19 HCP, balanced (standard NT rebid, does not promise stoppers in all suits)
  
  • 4m: Minorwood
• 4m: Minorwood

Subsequent bids after 1m - 3om/3M (splinter) sequence

• Simple suit change: showing first-round control
  
• 3N: minimum (12-15 HCP) and good stopper(s) in splintered suit
  
• 4m: Minorwood
  
• Jump-shift: 16+ TP and showing a s/v
  
• 4N: quantitative NT (19-20 HCP, stopper in unbid suit)
  
• 5m: minimum (12-15 TP), no stopper in unbid suit

Notes

• When using the immediate response of 3N or a splinter, having a stopper in the other minor not mandatory
  
• When exchanging stoppers, it is assumed that the other minor is already stopped unless explicitly denied (ex. 1♣ - 2♣ - 2M)
  
• Over a diamond opening, just add clubs to the end (ex. 2♥/2♠/3♣) of most sequences
  
• 4m is Minorwood in all cases except a jump from the "looking for stoppers" portion, or when made by opener after a 3m limit bid; anything else shows to much strength to stop short of game.
  
• In competitive auctions inverted minors are off if LHO intervenes, but are on if RHO does; effectively, once we start using inverted minors, we keep using it. In the latter case, the only significant difference would be that a double signifies a stolen-bid.

Even though we don't really play frequently enough that most of these come up (in the rare occasion that we do get to use inverted minors, it's always been just an exchange of stoppers then signing-off in 3m, 3N or occasionally 5m), the pattern to the bids is fairly simple and similar to what we use over modified Jacoby 2NT.

[akwoo]

gnasher, on 2012-May-19, 02:38, said:

I don't think this works very well with a weak notrump. How does opener know what to do with a balanced 16- or 17-count?

There's an easy fix for this problem. Use the jump shift in the other minor to show a mixed raise; something that would welcome a 3n bid with a good 16 or better. An immediate jump raise shows true dreck.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-19, 02:38, said:

I don't think this works very well with a weak notrump. How does opener know what to do with a balanced 16- or 17-count?

akwoo, on 2013-August-03, 21:56, said:

There's an easy fix for this problem. Use the jump shift in the other minor to show a mixed raise; something that would welcome a 3n bid with a good 16 or better. An immediate jump raise shows true dreck.

Good idea Akwoo: possible amended scheme:

• Jump raise = Weak. 0-7 HCP. 4+ support. May have 4 M.
• Simple raise = F1 11+ HCP. 4+ support . May have 4 M (Then new m = Stop enquiry. Other bids natural).
• 1N = Nat 6-9 HCP. Flat.
• 2N = Nat 12 HCP with lead value
• 3N = Nat.13-15 HCP.flat.
• Suit = Nat (alternative 1♥ = ♠, 1♠ = ♥)
• Major jump = Fit. 5+ bid suit. 4+ support.
• Jump in other m = Akwoo mixed raise. 8-10 HCP 4+ support