[perko90]

I'm interested in some feedback. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on the best follow ups in a strong inverted minor sequence. I know that inverted minors were originally designed to work with a weak NT, and I admit the 2NT rebid really shines there. Nonetheless, let's make the following assumptions:
1) 1NT = 15-17
2) No criss-cross or other mixed raises, i.e. 1m-2m has to handle all inv+ hands
3) 1m-2m allows a 4-card raise for at least some sequences (only w/ GF strength?)
4) 1m-2m implies no 4CM
5) Minimum balanced opener follows Rule of 20 plus 2 Quick Tricks (fairly solid by today's standards)
6) 1♦-2♣ is not game-forcing (allows some alternative auctions with < 5-card support)

I learned and played the following method for years (Root & Pavlicek style):
1m-2m = 10+ support pts, no 4CM, 4+ trump (5+ if less than 10 HCPs)
Rebids:
2NT = 12+ to 14-, doesn't guarantee stoppers anywhere
3m = minimum, but 4+ in minor
2X = stopper showing, Q better than open, and promises 4+ in minor
3NT = 18-19 balanced

This leaves 2 tough situations:
1) Responder w/ 11+ - 12 HCPs has a tough guess of whether to raise to 3NT
2) Opener commonly has a rebid problem with a balanced minimum and an unstopped major

It seems better for the 2NT response to promise at least partial stoppers in the majors and, if non-forcing, be only a 2 pt range. If you promise 5+ support for the 2m raise with only invitational strength, opener's 2NT rebid could be forcing. The 2X bid described above is sweet when it comes up, but it may be a luxury I can't afford.

Aug 2016 update: After listening to all of your fine feedback, I've been playing the following:

1m-2m = 10+ support w/ 5+ card raise or 11+ HCPs w/ just a 4-card raise, no 4-card major (may have one w/ a slam-ish hand, but no real way to uncover)

Opener Rebids after 1♣-2♣:
2NT = 13++ to 14 HCPs, balanced, stoppers in majors (one good partial stopper allowed e.g. QTx) OR 18-19 HCP balanced (w/ 4+ clubs), forcing 1 rd
2♦ = 12-14 HCPs, balanced, implies short clubs (3334 ok) not good enough for 2NT
2M = stopper, confirms 4+ clubs, any strength (with a min, opener will try to return to 3♣ next round)
3♣ = strong 5+ clubs, weak in majors, minimum hand, NF
3NT = 18-19, only 3 clubs or 3334

Opener Rebids after 1♦-2♦:
Similar to above except 3♣ is natural with 5+ diamonds & 4+ clubs, GF
[aside: with exactly 4432 and no artificial minimum waiting bid available, stretch to bid 2NT or "cheat" and bid 2M anyway]

Rebids by Responder:
With only invitational values, Responder only has 2 choices: return to 3m (with a known 8-card fit) or a minimum NT bid (doesn't promise stoppers in the unbid suits).
Any other bid confirms a GF and is stopper/control showing.

It's been working well and much better than what I started with. Thanks again for the help!

[WesleyC]

A method that I like uses the first step to show any minimum, and other new suit bids to show shortage. It's basically an extension of Jacoby 2NT (but for the minors).

The simplest version:

e.g. After 1D - 2D

2H = Artificial, Any minimum. (Then 2S = Shortage Ask, 2NT = Some balanced range, 3D = To play)
2NT = 13-14 Balanced, happy to declare NT.
2S/3C/3H = Shortage, enough values for game opposite an invite.
3D = G/F Extras, no shortage but unwilling to bid 3NT.
3NT = 18-19 Balanced.

This method loses some precision in showing partial stoppers, but gains a lot when choosing between 3NT and 5m/6m if opener has a shapely hand.

[SteveMoe]

From Steve Weinstein: http://bridgewinners...1m-2m-now-what/

[gwnn]

A very simple way of idiot-proofing inv min is to play 1♣-2♣ as forcing to 2NT (but also allowing for a stop in 3♣ in some cases) and 1♦-2♦ as forcing to 3♦. Then you can use 1♣-2♣; 2♦ as an artificial step (perhaps the only non-GF, perhaps specifically the weak NT) and every other bid as natural (or at least semi-natural). This is hardly my idea but one I've played often and it's not really let me down. Well, the bid hardly ever comes up, so that's handy as well (the fact that it hardly ever comes up is also an argument for keeping the follow-ups simple).

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on 2015-October-20, 02:35, said:

A very simple way of idiot-proofing inv min is to play 1♣-2♣ as forcing to 2NT (but also allowing for a stop in 3♣ in some cases) and 1♦-2♦ as forcing to 3♦. Then you can use 1♣-2♣; 2♦ as an artificial step (perhaps the only non-GF, perhaps specifically the weak NT) and every other bid as natural (or at least semi-natural). This is hardly my idea but one I've played often and it's not really let me down. Well, the bid hardly ever comes up, so that's handy as well (the fact that it hardly ever comes up is also an argument for keeping the follow-ups simple).

We play 1♣-2♣-2♦ as our ask in a rather different inverted minor setup (we can have 4M, our opening minors are 4+ cards and we play a weak NT), but we use it as better than minimum. It probably makes more sense if a weak NT is a possibility for opener to change that.

[gwnn]

Also I should have linked to Justin's structure (don't know if it's his original idea):
http://justinlall.co...nverted-minors/

Wow can't believe it's been almost 10 years. If you don't mind a little artificiality, it's pretty badass.

[perko90]

Thanks for all the replies! I think my partnerships wouldn't tolerate too much artificiality (such as Justin's system). Although I found it interesting how much he de-emphasizes showing stoppers / right-siding. I did see Steve W.'s article before posting. It has an internal consistency, but I wasn't crazy about returning to 3m w/ only a 3-card suit and such. I did, however, take away the importance of describing when opener has extra trump length and the notion that 2NT can be forcing (which was never the case in any treatments I had played previously). It seems like "next step = minimum" is popular.

I always shy away from showing splinters when 3NT is within the possibilities. It seems bad to give the defenders a blueprint, but at the same time, it helps in choosing NT vs 5m/6m. I guess I'm still on the fence whether it's a good idea.

I don't think I can get away from 2NT being natural in some sense. Even if using next step = minimum, 2NT retaining a "happy to declare NT" message is appealing a la Wesley's treatment.

If you have more ideas, I'm still listening.

[gwnn]

Sure. In

1♣-2♣ you have two basic invitational hands: invitational to 3NT and invitational with many clubs (i.e., 5+ or 6+).

You can play very simply:

1♣-2♣
2♦=waiting (2NT over this=invitational! so we kind of right-sided NT and we can also invite)
2♥/2♠=natural (maybe unbalanced, maybe 3+ to show a stop)
2NT=happy to play NT from this side, non minimum (could be a 13-14 count, the "invitational 2NT" hand just raises this, while the "invitational with clubs" hand can still bid 3♣ non-forcing.)

All you need over the above is to decide which 3♣ bids are non-forcing. One possibility is to play all of them as NF which is simple.

Over 1♦-2♦ you can just play that all invitational hands bid 3♦ eventually. This will work better than over 1♣ because you're (I guess) guaranteed a 4-4 fit but very often a 9-card one.

[Zelandakh]

Using the first step to show a balanced hand works rather well. Often Responder will be able to decide for NT with just this information which restricts leakage. It is also practically without cost as you simply exchange the usual meaning with 2NT. How you organise the structure also depends to some extent on whether your inverted raise excludes a side major and whether an 8 card fit is assured so it is important to provide the conditions within the system under discussion.

[perko90]

Zelandakh, on 2015-October-21, 08:20, said:

How you organise the structure also depends to some extent on whether your inverted raise excludes a side major and whether an 8 card fit is assured so it is important to provide the conditions within the system under discussion.

Agree. That's why I put the assumptions in my OP. Specifically, raise implies no 4CM (exceptions exist, especially for slam-going strength, but I'm excluding it from the design space). And a single raise does not assure an 8-card fit.

[Caitlynne]

There are lots of ways to play inverted minor raises and the specifics are somewhat dependent on your other methods and structures (as you noted), but I think the biggest concern arises in the raise to 2C auction when opener is dead minimum and has fewer than 4 card club length (especially if 1C could be bid on 2 card club length). Now, it is useful to play that a rebid of 2D denies 4+ card length in clubs. With such hands, you do want to be able to stop in 2NT since it will rarely be best (or even good) to play in 3C with a 7 card fit and no ruffing value! This approach is gaining popularity.

With 1D-2D, the problem is not as great since those partnerships that agree to open 1D rather than 1C with 4 cards in each minor can be sure that there will be either a 8+ card diamond fit or, in those rare cases where opener happens to have only 3 diamonds (which can happen if you are not playing a short 1C style), it is certain that there is a ruffing value in clubs (assuming that your partnership always opens 1C with 4333 or 3433 patterns).

[m1cha]

After 1m - 2m, I also hate the idea that 2M shows extras and 2NT must be bid with a minimum hand (not bothering about stoppers). It's a waste of space! My problem with this is that very often you will start bidding stoppers at the 3 level and then, if stoppers are missing, you end up where? I am now using with several partners a fairly simple system along the following few
Rules:
- A non-jump bid in a new suit (2nd or 3rd) shows a stopper in this suit and does not promise extras.
- A bid in NT (both 2NT and 3NT) promises stoppers in all unbid suits.
- 2NT and 3m by either side show a minimum hand and may be passed by partner. As a corollary: Any bid beyond 3m is forcing to game.
- 4m is always Minorwood (except if the player is limited by previously bidding 2NT or 3m).

A few more details about bidding suits:
- A non-jump bid of the 4th suit shows and asks for a half-stopper in this suit (because with a stopper you would bid NT).
- A jump to a new suit in the second round of bidding (!) is Splinter.
- Any other bid in a suit is a control bid (A or K) with slam interest.

Some advantages:
= If partner bids 2NT and you have extras, raising to 3NT is straightforward.
= By the time partner bids 3m you usually have all the information necessary to decide if 3NT makes sense or not.
= You don't have to play 4m unnecessarily because you usually know when to stop in 3m.
= Simple and natural.

[Winstonm]

I wrote an article for Bridge World a few years back covering this ground. My solution was to use suit rebids by opener as singleton showing.