[silvr bull]

My partner and I are having a heated "discussion" about whether immediately raising opener's minor denies holding a 4 card major. We play a version of Kaplan Sheinwold with a weak NT and 5 card majors, so responder is expected to bid a 4 card major in preference to bidding the other minor, even though the minor may be a better suit. He insists, however, that it is an absolute requirement that responder bid a 4 card major before he shows support for opener's minor. He further insists that bidding a major after responder has immediately raised opener's minor does not promise a 4 card suit, but only a stopper in search of 3NT. My view is that with a good hand and five card support for opener's minor, it is better to immediately raise the minor (even with a good 4 card major) as a way to at least suggest a possible slam try sequence, and as a force to at least 3NT. Then both opener and responder can use the two level to bid their 4 card majors in search of the best strain. If no major fit is found, then the three level can be used for que bids to help decide if 3NT or a higher level minor contract is better.

What is your preference when you bid inverted minors? When you raise opener's 1♣ to 2♣, can you also have a 4 card major that you will bid later, or does your immediate minor raise deny holding a 4 card major?

[1eyedjack]

Provided that responder promises GF if raising the minor with a 4 card major, then it is playable for the raise not to deny a major.
It is also playable for the raise to deny a major absolutely.

And each camp has its following.

If your raise denies a major, then you need to have finely tuned continuations following a 1M response.

If your raise does not deny a major, then you need to have finely tuned continuations following a simple inverted raise of a minor.

Personally I have a preference for the raise not denying a major, with the fine-tuning of a minor suit raise being the less arduous problem to solve, but I get the impression that I am in the minority camp.

In my opinion the former method (1M response follow-ups when a raise denies a major) requires a more tortuous and artificial structure in order to cope with the possibilities, and to deny a major with the simple raise provides a surfeit of bidding space. That does not seem the right balance to me. I also think that forcing a 1M response initially concealing the fit makes you more vulnerable to a contested auction.

Whatever the merits, I would tend to discount the rantings of someone who insists that either method is unplayable and that in consequence it must be (eg) "an absolute requirement that the raise denies a major". Such statements diminish the general credibility of the opinions of the advocate.

[mikeh]

While some idiosyncratic players agree with you, the mainstream consensus is solidly in your partner's camp.

I don't like the simple versions of inverted minor sequences that most players use, but at the IA level they are ok.

Most players who use an inverted minor are focused mostly on whether to bid or avoid 3N, as the most common game, with minor suit games and slams somewhat secondary. It is for that reason that most methods focus on showing or denying stoppers rather than trying to find another fit.

To me this seems very sensible. In the complex methods I prefer, in inverted minors, we focus on showing the general nature of opener's hand (balanced, unbalanced, gf, minimum) with the initial responses, and then, in some sequences, show stoppers. We never show a second suit, with the exception of showing 5+ clubs after opening 1♦. In particular, we can't even show a side 5 card major! However, even with this approach, we are usually giving notrump serious consideration since most hands of roughly 24-28 hcp with a minor fit, and no marked shortness, end up in 3N.

It is important not only to look at the gains and costs of focusing on exploring notrump issues, as do most, or keeping an eye open for a 4-4 major suit fit, as you prefer: you need also to consider whether showing the major initially imposes costs on getting back into the minor when no major fit exists.

To me, using bidding space over 2m to explore and find a 4-4 major is very wasteful. I suspect, for example, that you can't confirm the fit below 3M, and that even when you do, neither bidder has said very much about their strength. This means that you have virtually no bidding space left to explore slam possibilities.

By contrast, if opener fits responder's 1M response, he can immediately show the fit and provide some information about his hand size, and even, with good extras, his shape, thus greatly enhancing bidding accuracy.

So I see your approach as making major suit bidding more difficult than it need be, while also making exploration of stoppers for 3N very difficult.

The only benefit might be increased efficiency in minor suit contracts, but even there I doubt that there are significant gains to be had, provided that your partnership spends a little time on such gadgets as xyz, or fourth suit forcing auctions, which allow responder, over opener's major fit denying rebid, to establish a gf at a low level, with an artificial bid, and then confirm the fit at his next call.

In short, I think you are wrong, and your partner is correct.

[rmnka447]

If you are playing K-S, partner is correct. The raise shows 10+ points, at least 4+ cards in the minor, and no 4 card major.

After the raise, partner can limit his hand by bidding 3 of the minor. 2 NT shows the strong NT hand. A new suit simply shows a stopper and it implies that the agreed minor is a real suit (4+ in opener's hand). The idea is to explore for 3 NT before settling in the minor.

Give opener something like ♠ AQx ♥ xxxx ♦ KQxxx ♣ A and responder ♠ x ♥ AJ10x ♦ Axxx ♣ KJxx. If you raise the minor, the bidding would proceed:

1 ♦ - 2 ♦
2 ♠ - ?

Now if responder bids 3 NT directly, you lose the ♥ fit.

If, instead, responder bids 3 ♣, opener will bid 3 ♦ essentially asking about a ♥ stopper. Then responder must either bid 3 NT losing the heart suit again, or, bid 3 ♥. Most bidders would take this 3 ♥ as asking opener about a partial ♥ stopper.

Finallly, if responder bids 3 ♥ over 2 ♠, opener will never take it for a 4 card ♥ suit just a stopper. So opener will bid either 3 NT or 4 ♦.

[jallerton]

mikeh, on 2014-April-28, 11:35, said:

In short, I think you are wrong, and your partner is correct.

I normally agree with your thorough posts, Mike, but on this occasion I don't. 1eyedjack has given a far better reply which gives a more balanced view of the situation. I may be idiosycratic, but with several partners I have agreed that a 4-card major is permitted on certain hand types. By doing so, we gain more definition than I have with other partners who prefer your style of respones.

Quote

Most players who use an inverted minor are focused mostly on whether to bid or avoid 3N, as the most common game, with minor suit games and slams somewhat secondary. It is for that reason that most methods focus on showing or denying stoppers rather than trying to find another fit.

To me this seems very sensible. In the complex methods I prefer, in inverted minors, we focus on showing the general nature of opener's hand (balanced, unbalanced, gf, minimum) with the initial responses, and then, in some sequences, show stoppers. We never show a second suit, with the exception of showing 5+ clubs after opening 1♦. In particular, we can't even show a side 5 card major! However, even with this approach, we are usually giving notrump serious consideration since most hands of roughly 24-28 hcp with a minor fit, and no marked shortness, end up in 3N.

Yes it makes sense for Opener to differentiate between balanced/unbalanced hands, but I much prefer that the unbalanced hands show their shape. This helps the partnership to make a sensible decision between 3NT, 5m and 6m. Stopper showing bids with two balanced hands are more likely to help the opponents: often if a suit is unstopped then 5m isn't making anyway; maybe 3NT will make if you haven't told them which suit to lead or if a 4-3/4-4 break in the offending suit is sufficient to make 3NT.

Quote

It is important not only to look at the gains and costs of focusing on exploring notrump issues, as do most, or keeping an eye open for a 4-4 major suit fit, as you prefer: you need also to consider whether showing the major initially imposes costs on getting back into the minor when no major fit exists.

To me, using bidding space over 2m to explore and find a 4-4 major is very wasteful. I suspect, for example, that you can't confirm the fit below 3M, and that even when you do, neither bidder has said very much about their strength. This means that you have virtually no bidding space left to explore slam possibilities.

By contrast, if opener fits responder's 1M response, he can immediately show the fit and provide some information about his hand size, and even, with good extras, his shape, thus greatly enhancing bidding accuracy.

So I see your approach as making major suit bidding more difficult than it need be, while also making exploration of stoppers for 3N very difficult.

The only benefit might be increased efficiency in minor suit contracts, but even there I doubt that there are significant gains to be had, provided that your partnership spends a little time on such gadgets as xyz, or fourth suit forcing auctions, which allow responder, over opener's major fit denying rebid, to establish a gf at a low level, with an artificial bid, and then confirm the fit at his next call.

If Opener raises the major, then it's not always easy to get back to the minor. Many play that 1m-1M-2M can be 3-card support. If so, it's probably necessary to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as NF (invitational), but then what do you bid with 4/4 and a game forcing hand?

Or maybe the auctions starts 1m-1M-3M. Now a 4-4 fit in the major is guaranteed, but now it's not always easy to play in 6 of the minor 5-4 fit when that's the best slam.

You mention that using gadgets when Opener does not raise the major. If the auction starts, say, 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♠-any, or after 1♦-1♥-1NT-2♦(game forcing Checkback)-any, how does Responder differentiate between 5/4, 4/5 amd 4/4 in the red suits?

[mikeh]

jallerton, on 2014-April-28, 16:25, said:

I normally agree with your thorough posts, Mike, but on this occasion I don't. 1eyedjack has given a far better reply which gives a more balanced view of the situation. I may be idiosycratic, but with several partners I have agreed that a 4-card major is permitted on certain hand types. By doing so, we gain more definition than I have with other partners who prefer your style of respones.

Even tho I hadn't read 1eyed's post when I posted mine, I was still careful to frame my views as just that: my views, and avoided any claim that showing a major was 'unplayable'.

Quote

Yes it makes sense for Opener to differentiate between balanced/unbalanced hands, but I much prefer that the unbalanced hands show their shape. This helps the partnership to make a sensible decision between 3NT, 5m and 6m. Stopper showing bids with two balanced hands are more likely to help the opponents: often if a suit is unstopped then 5m isn't making anyway; maybe 3NT will make if you haven't told them which suit to lead or if a 4-3/4-4 break in the offending suit is sufficient to make 3NT.

I agree and that is why, when I play inverted, which is rare, I want to play a complex method that allows for the early identification of the likely final denomination rather than saying where we have or lack stoppers. For one thing, there is little wrong, imo, with being in 3N with xxx opposite xxx in a suit, if one has 9 winners, and stopper showing method often mean that the partnership panics when it finds that neither player holds a 'stopper'. Once we show (I should say, showed, since I don't play anymore) the nature of the hand, we didn't usually do stopper bids.

Quote

If Opener raises the major, then it's not always easy to get back to the minor. Many play that 1m-1M-2M can be 3-card support. If so, it's probably necessary to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as NF (invitational), but then what do you bid with 4/4 and a game forcing hand?

I often played a weak notrump structure a la Kokish, in which we didn't ever raise a major with 3 card support....we always promised 4 card support and either shape or a strong notrump. However, in other partnerships, including my favourite one of all time, we would raise on 3 card support, but then we used the next step as an asking bid. We could always get back to the minor, in a forcing way, if opener described a 3 card raise. Using a relay here allows for a lot of creativity for the other calls.

Quote

Or maybe the auctions starts 1m-1M-3M. Now a 4-4 fit in the major is guaranteed, but now it's not always easy to play in 6 of the minor 5-4 fit when that's the best slam.

You have a valid point, but ironically a lot of pairs spend time on methods to get to a 4-4 fit when holding a side 5-4 fit for the reason that it is fairly common for the 4-4 fit to generate an extra trick (it usually requires a 3-2 trump break). That suggests that this issue, tho definitely legitimate, isn't a huge issue. I agree, btw, that many such hands have the same losers and the pitch on the 5th card doesn't help, and meantime playing in the shorter fit can pose problems such as bad breaks or a ruff in the 9 card fit.

However, even then, with the use of 5N as pick a slam or the ability to jump to 6minor it isn't impossible to get back to the minor....I say this not to suggest it is easy or even doable on a lot of hands, but merely to show that it isn't 100% impossible.

Quote

You mention that using gadgets when Opener does not raise the major. If the auction starts, say, 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♠-any, or after 1♦-1♥-1NT-2♦(game forcing Checkback)-any, how does Responder differentiate between 5/4, 4/5 amd 4/4 in the red suits?

It depends

1♦ 1♥ 1N 2♦

Responder won't usually care about differentiating heart/diamond length unless he has 5 and opener shows 3. Even then, 3♦ by responder shows primary diamond support.

Note that in my preferred methods, some strong fits for opener's minor are shown either by 2N over 1N or by 3m over 1N, both being forcing.

Again, in my preferred methods, 1♦ promises 4+, so responder need not be concerned that the minor is short...this carries a price when the minor is clubs.

I use 2N as a slamming hand with 4 major and 5+ minor, in opener's minor. 3m is also slamming, 5-5 or better. This isn't a complete answer to your issue, since choice of games hands can't use this start...it is reserved for hands with real slam interest (tho not slam force necessarily)

If I want to invite in notrump, I puppet via 2♣ and then bid 2N.

In my best of all worlds partnership, we used artificial responses to 4th suit forcing, such that (until and unless responder broke the relay) he didn't bother showing his hand, he merely kept asking about opener. However, that is ducking the issue you raised since it was a unique method. In the real world, responder can have a problem with these auctions.

However, as against all of this, do you not find that slam exploration in the late-discovered major fit is rendered difficult by the high level at which the fit is found? I suppose this could be dealt with to some degree by artificial bidding at the low level, to establish strength limits before identifying suits, but anytime we have to bid 3M to establish a fit with neither player yet having limited their hand to any degree makes me nervous about our ability to determine level with accuracy.

[Cyberyeti]

This is very system dependent, my views are that:

If your 1m is minimum 4 cards long, you can cope with the inverted minor containing 4M and not being GF.
If your 1m can be <4 as in your case, you can cope with either of the above but not both, although it may be better to allow neither

If you do allow 4M, ensure 1♣-2♣-2♦ is your ask, it simplifies things a lot.

[silvr bull]

This is the most recent hand we had with "inverted" trouble.

---

Perhaps the posters here who prefer to show a 4 card major first can tell me where we went wrong on this deal. My preference is for North to immediately raise to 2♣. That will set up a forcing sequence to 3NT at least, and it will alert opener that we might want to think about a ♣ slam. After an immediate raise to 2♣, I would bid 2♥ to show my ♥ suit, and North would bid 2♠ to show his ♠ suit and complete the description of his hand. I would then have no difficulty with getting to 6♣. My KISS philosophy from playing money bridge is to bid my best suit first, and then my next best. Avoiding disasters by keeping things simple is an increasingly attractive approach for me as I get older.

It is true that if we have a 4-4 major fit, then we will confirm that at the 3 level, which is comparable to a major limit raise with the added benefit of knowing about a very good minor suit fit. That may not offer the most efficient use of bid space compared to a cryptic and difficult to remember sequence with an artificial 4th suit forcing bid that may (or may not) indirectly imply support for opener's minor, but the strong benefit of an immediate 2m raise is that it makes the path to 6m (or to 6M in a 4-4 fit) much easier to travel.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a methods over a reverse problem. 3♦ wastes too much space and makes you guess what to do over 3N. There are various methods involving good/bad 2N or other artificial means that will help you out here and allow you to raise clubs in forcing fashion or partner to show extras.

That said, I much prefer 1♣(4+)-2♣(F1 4+♣)-3♥ showing a good 6-4 as we play and now bidding the slam is trivial.

[diana_eva]

Looks to me like North messed up big time. He knows you have a 10-card fit at least, he has great controls and he should drive to slam. I'd actually open North's hand any time.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-28, 18:04, said:

If you do allow 4M, ensure 1♣-2♣-2♦ is your ask, it simplifies things a lot.

I prefer it the other way round with 2♦ (and 2♥ after the diamond raise) showing a balanced hand and other calls being unbalanced but this is not dissimilar in the theory behind it - the first step being used to differentiate hand types.

silvr bull, on 2014-April-29, 06:33, said:

This is the most recent hand we had with "inverted" trouble.

As CY already wrote this is an issue of your methods rather than of inverted minors. Most advanced players can bid 3♣ natural and forcing after 1♣ - 1♠; 2♥. When playing this way a weak hand with clubs starts with a 2NT rebid instead. Mikeh has written a detailed primer on reverse bidding that you can find here on the forums. It might well be that the perceived issues surrounding inverted minors will disappear by improving other areas of the system.

[mikeh]

silvr bull, on 2014-April-29, 06:33, said:

This is the most recent hand we had with "inverted" trouble.

---

Easily done: N bids an unlimited, gf 3♣ over 2♥

[Bbradley62]

I hate not being able to upvote Yellows' posts.

[jallerton]

mikeh, on 2014-April-28, 16:58, said:

However, as against all of this, do you not find that slam exploration in the late-discovered major fit is rendered difficult by the high level at which the fit is found? I suppose this could be dealt with to some degree by artificial bidding at the low level, to establish strength limits before identifying suits, but anytime we have to bid 3M to establish a fit with neither player yet having limited their hand to any degree makes me nervous about our ability to determine level with accuracy.

I prefer to play that if an inverted minor raise contains a side 4-card major, then Responder must have the strength to force to game. So 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♦ is invitational. I agree that some artficiality is useful, but even if you don't play any, the strength definition in the sequence 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♠ is no worse than after a 2/1 game forcing sequence such as 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♥. Certainly when Opener has a balanced hand, whether I am playing weak, mini or strong NT openings, Opener will get to show his range.

Quote

I often played a weak notrump structure a la Kokish, in which we didn't ever raise a major with 3 card support....we always promised 4 card support and either shape or a strong notrump.

Interesting. I understand why you had this agreement, but what did you do on the 5431 hands with 3-card support which couldn't show the 4-card suit cheaply? Did you rebid the 5-card suit, even if the suit was quite weak, or open 1NT? I'm guessing that you passed borderline opening hands of this shape playing this style.

[jallerton]

diana_eva, on 2014-April-29, 07:04, said:

Looks to me like North messed up big time. He knows you have a 10-card fit at least, he has great controls and he should drive to slam. I'd actually open North's hand any time.

I would also open the North hand. If North does open, would the 'inverted raise denies a major' supporters respond 1♥ on the South hand?

[Bbradley62]

jallerton, on 2014-April-29, 12:55, said:

I would also open the North hand. If North does open, would the 'inverted raise denies a major' supporters respond 1♥ on the South hand?

Abso-freakin-lutely. I'd love to be bidding RKC in hearts knowing about a double fit.

[mikeh]

jallerton, on 2014-April-29, 12:52, said:

Interesting. I understand why you had this agreement, but what did you do on the 5431 hands with 3-card support which couldn't show the 4-card suit cheaply? Did you rebid the 5-card suit, even if the suit was quite weak, or open 1NT? I'm guessing that you passed borderline opening hands of this shape playing this style.

Every method has 'seams' or hands that it can't handle very well. 5431 hands on which one has no convenient rebid are problematic for the kokish style of raises, but arise infrequently.

By definition, you are speaking of hands with 3 cards in partner's major.

1=3=4=5 can be handled by opening 1♦ or by rebidding one's clubs or by passing borderline hands, which I am ok with doing with short majors.

3=1=4=5 can be handled the same way.

3=1=5=4/1=3=5=4 are never a problem, since one rebids 2♣.

All of this means that in practice the problem arises rarely. Our experience suggests that we have significant gains from the promise of 4 card support for the raise, and indeed playing this method allows for relays by responder, which can be very effective, if memory intensive.

[mikeh]

jallerton, on 2014-April-29, 12:52, said:

I prefer to play that if an inverted minor raise contains a side 4-card major, then Responder must have the strength to force to game. So 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♦ is invitational. I agree that some artficiality is useful, but even if you don't play any, the strength definition in the sequence 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♠ is no worse than after a 2/1 game forcing sequence such as 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♥. Certainly when Opener has a balanced hand, whether I am playing weak, mini or strong NT openings, Opener will get to show his range.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree that the 2/1 sequence you exhibited is problematic, but that wasn't the point I was making. For me, 1♦ 1♠ allows opener to raise spades, with a fit, in a descriptive fashion...minimum, extras, extras with shape, lots of extras.

The fact that your space-consuming sequence, on the same hands, is similar to the 2/1 problem merely says that you have identified 2 problem sequences, one of which doesn't exist for me

Btw, I am NOT saying that my methods have no problem sequences at all.

[mikeh]

jallerton, on 2014-April-29, 12:55, said:

I would also open the North hand. If North does open, would the 'inverted raise denies a major' supporters respond 1♥ on the South hand?

I'd never open the North hand in any method with which I am comfortable...even playing 11-14 or 11-13 1N.

However, if I did open 1♣, it would be mandatory to respond 1♥ since opener might hold, for example, 4=4=3=2 shape in my preferred methods, and even in more basic 2/1 or SA methods, could be 4=3 in the roundeds.

I detect an element of disbelief about the utility of this approach. Having played some variety of it all my bridge life, with some very good partners, I can tell you it seems to work pretty well

[kenrexford]

I am expressing opinion only.

If the inverted minor is game forcing, it is, IMO, structurally identical enough in theory to merit holding a 4-card major, the same way that you would (IMO) respond 2♣ to a 1♥ opening with 4-1-3-5 shape (or similarly respond 1♦ with a 4-card major only if GF). When the inverted minor gets weaker, like limit+, the structure breaks down in much the same way that Standard American breaks down. If the inverted minor can be constructive, this gets even worse.

I would not use this logic to justify a "could be a 4-card major if GF" approach, because that caveat is not as playable as the Walsh 1♦ response, due to space.

Thus, I would only personally allow a 4-card major if playing something like criss-cross and thereby making the single raise GF.

However, I would occasionally systemically allow exceptions for cause, and then only if not constructive+. This makes the use of the inverted minor with a four-piece suit rare but possible.