[Limey_p]

Around these parts (Philadelphia, USA) the norm is that an inverted minor raise denies a four card major. What system benefits or costs are implied by this? why should it be so, or is it just a common agreement?

My thought is this: why should an inverted minor be different from any other two over one? It can be more descriptive to establish a force by bidding at the two level. Also, it is more "natural" to show your longest suit first.

Assume a basic system like BBO advanced or BWS, at least for the first go round.

Then if you are brave, is your answer the same when you are responding to a precision 1♦?

Andy

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The question to ask is, what is your the
most likely game?
If you raise the minor, you will give up
on playing the hand in the mayor.
=> If you are sure, that you want to
play in the minor and if you are only
interested in the level, than raise the minor.

Playing Precision 1D, as far as I know,
2D has lots of meanings, e.g. it is used
as an artificial game force, i.e. 2D has
a complete different meaning.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Limey_p, on Mar 25 2006, 11:39 PM, said:

Around these parts (Philadelphia, USA) the norm is that an inverted minor raise denies a four card major. What system benefits or costs are implied by this? why should it be so, or is it just a common agreement?

Please note: I have some strong biases in these areas. I tend to prefer MAFIA response structures over 1m openings and this might be spilling over into the subject of inverted minors...

Personally, I think that an inverted minor raise should deny a 4 card major. I'd go so far to say that an inverted minor raise that doesn't deny a 4 card major is unplayable unless all inverted minor raises promise game forcing values. Case in point: Assume that the auction starts 1♦ - 2♦. Opener is sitting on a 4=4=4=1 hand and responder holds a 2=4=5=2 with game forcing values. Opener is forced to rebid 2♥ to show game forcing values. Responder's now stuck. A 3♥ raise is non-forcing. 4♥ uses up so much bidding space that you can never intelligently explore for slam. You certainly have the option of adopting some complex checkback structure, but most people playing "standard" don't like to do so.

The auction 1m - 2m uses a fair amount of bidding space. If your raise denies a 4 card major you can allocate bidding space towards an intelligent exploration of a 3NT contract. You can get a lot of precision exploring for stoppers and resolving range. There are definitely costs with this approach. Most notably, you aren't going to get hands suitable for an inverted raise all that often. Such is life....

[han]

I don't agree with Richard's example auction. If you play that 1m-2m is invitational and may contain a 4-card major but ONLY if gameforcing then you can safely bid 1D-2D-2H-3H forcing.

Having said this, I think that it is much easier to play that 2m denies a 4-card major.

[mikestar]

I agree with Richard, particularly in SA and 2/1 type systems. In Precision, I think the same argument applies fully to 2♦, but a four card major is no bar to 3♦ if this is a hand weak enough where game is unlikely--I don't much mind playing in a minor rather than a (possible) major when I get more preemption on what is likely to be their hand.

[kenrexford]

Another personal treatment. After either minor, if 2C is artificial and game forcing, with transfer rebids by Opener, this issue is solved. I also agree that the restriction on "no majors" is silliness. A number of horrifying auctions to miss ideal contracts start with 1m-P-1M when the minor fit cannot easily be reintroduced. However, some appraoch to facilitate space seems wise to me,and transfer rebids seem to do the trick.

[FrancesHinden]

It's probably slightly easier to play that an inverted minor suit raise denies a 4-card major. It makes bidding major suit games easier. It makes bidding minor suit slams harder.

Having said that, I play that the inverted raise does not deny a 4-card major, but I also play some artificial continuations after the inverted raise. The hands where I would raise the minor rather than respond in the 4-card major tend to be one of three types

i) interested in a minor suit slam [I play 1C - 1H - 2H - 3C as non-forcing with 2S as a relay, so it can be slightly complicated to get out of a 4-3 heart fit into a 4-4 club fit in slam auctions, or from a 4-4 heart fit to a 5-4 club fit]

ii) Serious minor suit support (usually 6 cards) such that I am unlikely to want to play in 3NT

iii) on an game forcing hand where I am keen not to be declarer as I have no tenaces. Raising the minor immediately increases the chances that partner will declarer the major if we have a 4-4 fit, although it depends on exactly which suits partner has.

If I have invitational values only I will tend to repond in the major, particularly at pairs, because I cannot play in a major suit partial opposite a minimum opening bid having started with an inverted raise. If I don't mind playing 3m instead of 2M I can choose to raise the minor, but it would be rare.

I will also tend to respond in a 4-card major if a slam in that suit is more likely than a slam in partner's minor.

[joshs]

Its standard for inverted minors to deny a 4 card major. Having said that, I have never understood why:
1D-2C doesn't deny a 4 card major
but
1D-2D does.

If you are 6-4 and game forcing it seems right to either:
a. always start with your longest suit
or
b. always start with your major

Butr maybe someone can convince me why I am wrong...

[barmar]

joshs, on Mar 27 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

Its standard for inverted minors to deny a 4 card major. Having said that, I have never understood why:
1D-2C doesn't deny a 4 card major
but
1D-2D does.

Once you've discovered a fit, you usually don't go looking for other fits. So bidding new suits is generally used for other purposes (game tries, showing controls) after a raise.

In the auction 1♦-2♣, a fit has not yet been found, so it makes sense to continue bidding out your shape to try to find a fit. And if you have the strength to bid twice, you should bid suits in their natural order, longest first.

[keylime]

Inverted minors with me don't deny a four card major, if the minor support is 5+ cards in depth. With a 4-4, the major hits the table.

[joshs]

barmar, on Mar 27 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

joshs, on Mar 27 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

Its standard for inverted minors to deny a 4 card major. Having said that, I have never understood why:
1D-2C doesn't deny a 4 card major
but
1D-2D does.

Once you've discovered a fit, you usually don't go looking for other fits. So bidding new suits is generally used for other purposes (game tries, showing controls) after a raise.

In the auction 1♦-2♣, a fit has not yet been found, so it makes sense to continue bidding out your shape to try to find a fit. And if you have the strength to bid twice, you should bid suits in their natural order, longest first.

Thats true but after 1D-2C opener might raise clubs thus preventing anyone from locating a 4-4 major suit fit. Or are you suggesting that with 1444 or 4144 shape responder should not raise clubs on the off chance there is a major suit fit?

So the question is why do you risk losing the major suit fit when holding clubs (its rare to find a major suit fit after this start since a later bid of a major might just be a stopper) but not risk losing the fit when holding diamonds?

[pclayton]

joshs, on Mar 27 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Its standard for inverted minors to deny a 4 card major. Having said that, I have never understood why:
1D-2C doesn't deny a 4 card major
but
1D-2D does.

If you are 6-4 and game forcing it seems right to either:
a. always start with your longest suit
or
b. always start with your major

Butr maybe someone can convince me why I am wrong...

Very funny Josh.

I had typed out a similar response this weekend from my Blackberry this weekend in Los Olivos during my anniversary.

Lets say more pressing affairs diverted my attention.

Seriously; I have played IM's for over 20 years with the understanding they deny a 4cM. But why? There certainly should be some consistency between 1D-2C and 1C-2C; or even 1D-2D.

I've never really sat back and questioned my stance on this.

A clear case of "everyone does it, so it must be right".

[luke warm]

i think the reason is, inv minors are forcing (some play game forcing) and usually the pair wants to check out nt feasibility... so bids after, say, 1d : 2d may or may not show real suits... sometimes they just show stoppers for nt...

say you play inv minors don't deny majors and open 1d, partner bids 2d and you bid 2h with AJ (would you do that if, for example, you had no spade stop?).. should he bid 3h with Qxxx? or should he bid his spade or club stop?

[Kalvan14]

It is possible to have IM including 4M (and there are good systems to show that).
Unfortunately, it requires to go for a completely artificial auction after 1m-2m.

It is as always a matter of advantages vs. draw-backs, and of priorities.

My approach is the standard one (1m-2m denies 4M), which simplifies life a lot, and has more interdictive power. The 4M contracts are written off immediately, and the most likely contract is 3N (if advancer is not minimum), or a contract in m (partial or game). It also gives less information to oppos (opener's hand can well include majors, and very often does).

[han]

Unfortunately, it requires to go for a completely artificial auction after 1m-2m.

I disagree, allowing a 4-card major for inverted minors does not require completely artificial follow-ups. Rather, it requires clear agreements.

[awm]

A big part of the problem is that exploring for major fits can be awkward after a non-game forcing two-over-one. The problem is that there are three different priorities: (1) limit strength to decide partscore or game (2) look for the best strain in which to play game if possible (3) explore for stoppers. Doing any two out of these three is relatively easy but getting all three in can be tough.

The difference then, is that most people play 1m-2m as invitational or better, not necessarily game forcing. On the other hand, 1♦-2♣ is usually played as a game force if responder has a four-card major; with less than game values most people bid the major (even if a direct 2♣ is not game forcing, it's usually something like "game force unless suit rebid" because 1♦-2♣ auctions can be awkward).

[barmar]

This bears some similarity to Walsh vs. up-the-line bidding over 1♣ openings. If responder has extra values, he can bid suits in their natural order. But if not, he should get the major in play with that bid.

[Limey_p]

awm, on Mar 27 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

A big part of the problem is that exploring for major fits can be awkward after a non-game forcing two-over-one. ...

The difference then, is that most people play 1m-2m as invitational or better, not necessarily game forcing. On the other hand, 1♦-2♣ is usually played as a game force if responder has a four-card major; with less than game values most people bid the major (even if a direct 2♣ is not game forcing, it's usually something like "game force unless suit rebid" because 1♦-2♣ auctions can be awkward).

I thought the standard inverted minors ageement was "limit or better in our suit" rather than just limit or better. So I consider 1♦ - 2♦ - 2N as forcing unless responder rebids 3♦. Similarly if an auction started 1♦ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♥ I would presume it is forcing. From the discussion above, I'd say things are not necessarily standardized [as though this was news]. But isn't this really a rerun of sayc or acol 2-level responses as compared to two over one? And in a two over one system, it would seem more consistent to carry the philosophy to the inverted minors also.

BTW bridge world standard is its usual terse self in this area, although it does have the agreement that the inverted minor denies a major. This was carried over from the previous bws, so was not recently polled [polls are on line at http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...f=bwspolls.html]

Andy

[Kalvan14]

Hannie, on Mar 27 2006, 08:21 PM, said:

Unfortunately, it requires to go for a completely artificial auction after 1m-2m.

I disagree, allowing a 4-card major for inverted minors does not require completely artificial follow-ups. Rather, it requires clear agreements.

I'd find difficult to understand if 1m-2m-2M shows 4 cards, or is just a stopper denying a stopper in OM.
The main reason for excluding minors is to simplify the auction aimed to 3N