[Dinarius]

As far as I can see, most write ups on Inverted Minors advocate a 10 point minimum for their use.

Thus, an auction like the following creates a problem for responder holding 10/11 points.

1♣-2♣
2NT-???

or,

1♦-2♦
2NT-???

Equally, opener holding a well-stuffed 13, or 14 points is unsure whether to bid 2NT or 3NT. (I'm assuming that the IM bid denies a 4 card major.)

How do those of you who play IMs deal with this dilemma? Do you have a minimum of 11 points for an IM bid, or what?

D.

[Cyberyeti]

We open a weak NT which solves the 1♦-2♦-2N conundrum (it's now GF)

We play 1♣-2♣-2♦ as artificial and better than minimum.

We also allow 4M to be present in our IMs, if you don't it's easier.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi

2NT tells responder, opener is min and has stopper in both major suits. (*)
And it also says, that opener is happy, if responder passes 2NT, when he happens
to hold a min inv. raise with a (semi) bal. hand.

(*) Some may also play it as showing a min weak NT, forgetting about the stopper.
Min weak NT means, the hand would have passed a inv. 2NT bid.

What is the issue?

There is the saying, if you dont understand the problem, than the issue is not,
that there is no problem, but that one is to stupid to understand the problem,
which may well be the case.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Dinarius]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-July-27, 07:28, said:

We open a weak NT which solves the 1♦-2♦-2N conundrum (it's now GF)

We play 1♣-2♣-2♦ as artificial and better than minimum.

We also allow 4M to be present in our IMs, if you don't it's easier.

Neat. Thanks.

D.

[helene_t]

This is a well-known problem, I have seen a a first division Dutch pair miss a cold slam because they had a misunderstanding about whether 3NT shows 14 or 18-19.

You could say that 2♣ is forcing to 3♣, then opener can rebid 2NT with 12-14, and then
1♣-2♣
2NT-3♣
3NT
would show 14ish. If 1♣ can be a doubleton you can end up in 3♣ in a 2-5 fit that way, but maybe responder would bid 2NT instead of 2♣ with some (332)5 hands so it's not a big deal.
Otherwise use the 2♦ rebid for something artificial, maybe 2♦=12-14 bal (a.o.) and 2NT=18-19.

[Dinarius]

helene_t, on 2022-July-27, 08:10, said:

This is a well-known problem, I have seen a a first division Dutch pair miss a cold slam because they had a misunderstanding about whether 3NT shows 14 or 18-19.

You could say that 2♣ is forcing to 3♣, then opener can rebid 2NT with 12-14, and then
1♣-2♣
2NT-3♣
3NT
would show 14ish. If 1♣ can be a doubleton you can end up in 3♣ in a 2-5 fit that way, but maybe responder would bid 2NT instead of 2♣ with some (332)5 hands so it's not a big deal.
Otherwise use the 2♦ rebid for something artificial, maybe 2♦=12-14 bal (a.o.) and 2NT=18-19.

Thanks for the reply.

Doesn't the problem for responder with 10 (bad 11) facing a 2NT rebid by opener still remain? "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 12?", not good. Or, "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 14?" Happy days.

All the articles I've read seem to evade this issue while none advocate an 11+ baseline point-count for responder.

D.

[DavidKok]

In my preferred style of inverted minor 1m-2m; 2NT does not show a weak notrump. In particular, in strong notrump systems it shows 18-19 balanced.

Moving 10-point hands to some other bid (the jump raise?) sounds unpleasant, but since it is a minor change I have no doubt that it's playable.

[helene_t]

Dinarius, on 2022-July-27, 08:20, said:

Doesn't the problem for responder with 10 (bad 11) facing a 2NT rebid by opener still remain? "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 12?", not good. Or, "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 14?" Happy days.

The idea is that 2NT is forcing so with 11 point, responder bids 3♣ and then opener will know what to do.

In that style, you cannot use inverted minors with a modest 10-count as opener will bid game with 14.

But if you use the 2♦ rebid to show (a.o.) 12-14 bal, you could then play
1♣-2♣
2♦-3♣*
as 9-10 or such, and with 11 responder would have bid 2NT (11, nonforcing) or a major suit (11+)

[mikeh]

Dinarius, on 2022-July-27, 08:20, said:

Thanks for the reply.

Doesn't the problem for responder with 10 (bad 11) facing a 2NT rebid by opener still remain? "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 12?", not good. Or, "Do I bid 3NT and find partner with 14?" Happy days.

All the articles I've read seem to evade this issue while none advocate an 11+ baseline point-count for responder.

D.

I suspect the reason most authors ‘evade’ this issue is that it isn’t that big an issue and it isn’t an issue unique to inverted minors.

All bids have strength ranges. So when responder shows a limit raise, it comes with a range of values. Opener assumes a mid-range value and bids accordingly. When responder is minimum, the result will often be a poor contract.

When responder has made a wide-range inverted raise (wide because it is unlimited on the up side), opener’s 2N generally shows a balanced hand out of range for 1N…thus, in a 15-17 regime, it shows 12-14.

Responder should assume 13 and bid accordingly. When responder passes with 10 or mediocre 11, games may be missed. C’est la vie.

When responder bids game with a decent 11, opener’s soft 12 may make game poor. Again, c’est la vie.

Note that opener will hold a minimum more frequently than he’ll hold a maximum. Generally, holdings closer to 10 hcp are more common than holdings further away from 10 (obviously this has to be adjusted should another player announce a significant holding…say opening 2N). When one has 1m 2m, and responder has 11, opener will have 12 more often than 14.

It is a serious error to believe that a properly constructed bidding method will both never miss decent games and never bid bad ones.

Btw, while I play inverted minors, I won’t usually agree to play them without a good follow up method. ‘Standard’ inverted is, imo, not a good method.

[smerriman]

I'm in the 2NT forcing camp, a la the regularly referenced thread on BridgeWinners, so that you have an extra step to describe your strength.

If I don't want to be in game opposite a maximum weak no trump, I wouldn't show an invitational hand on my first bid (just like I wouldn't in other auctions).

[steve2005]

helene_t, on 2022-July-27, 08:10, said:

This is a well-known problem, I have seen a a first division Dutch pair miss a cold slam because they had a misunderstanding about whether 3NT shows 14 or 18-19.

You could say that 2♣ is forcing to 3♣, then opener can rebid 2NT with 12-14, and then
1♣-2♣
2NT-3♣
3NT
would show 14ish.

GIB lists 2N as 12-14.
can someone tell me if GIB considers it forcing (like Helene says)
i seem to remember it says forcing but i also remember it being passed lol

[bluenikki]

Dinarius, on 2022-July-27, 07:08, said:

As far as I can see, most write ups on Inverted Minors advocate a 10 point minimum for their use.

Thus, an auction like the following creates a problem for responder holding 10/11 points.

1♣-2♣
2NT-???

or,

1♦-2♦
2NT-???

Equally, opener holding a well-stuffed 13, or 14 points is unsure whether to bid 2NT or 3NT. (I'm assuming that the IM bid denies a 4 card major.)

How do those of you who play IMs deal with this dilemma? Do you have a minimum of 11 points for an IM bid, or what?

D.

In a way, this is off-topic; forgive me. If you hold KQxxxx in opener's suit with a side ace, there are many many minimum balanced hands opposite that produce a laydown 3NT. It is madness to be forced to treat this as a preemptive raise.

Given that, the most useful meaning for the 2NT rebid might be to show a balanced hand but deny a top honor in the suit opened. And forcing for one round.

[perko90]

I fully sympathize with the issue you highlight for strong NT bidders. I shrugged it off and just lived with it for a long time.
However, I now employ a system (wasn't my invention, but can't remember who to credit) that solves the problem nicely. I'll use clubs as the example, but it works fine for Ds, too (especially good if you play short club (but also if not)):
After 1♣-2♣:
2♦ = <= 4 clubs, usually minimum balanced
2M = at least 4 clubs, stopper in major, implies help needed in other major
2NT = balanced, either 14 or 18-19, both majors stopped, forcing! (tada! this is what makes it click!)
** Opener continues on to 4NT with 18-19 if Responder tries to sign off at 3NT
3♣ = 5+ clubs, min, weak in majors
3NT = 18-19, both majors stopped, but < 4 clubs

Responder's rebids are pretty much common sense. Any return to 3♣ by either side is a suggestion to play. Note: this is often available even when Responder raised with only 4 pcs thanks to the 2M stopper-showing bid that also confirms a 4-card club suit.

And don't worry about the diamond stopper! 90% of the time, it takes care of itself and 9% of the time, it's open but the opponents lead a major.

Hope that helps!

[bluenikki]

Dinarius, on 2022-July-27, 07:08, said:

As far as I can see, most write ups on Inverted Minors advocate a 10 point minimum for their use.

Thus, an auction like the following creates a problem for responder holding 10/11 points.

1♣-2♣
2NT-???

or,

1♦-2♦
2NT-???

Equally, opener holding a well-stuffed 13, or 14 points is unsure whether to bid 2NT or 3NT. (I'm assuming that the IM bid denies a 4 card major.)

How do those of you who play IMs deal with this dilemma? Do you have a minimum of 11 points for an IM bid, or what?

D.

Maybe it's irrelevant, but surely the 10 hcp minimum refers to

Axx
xx
xxx
AQxxx

not

Qxx
Qxx
Qxx
KJxx

You should not bid 2♣ with 10-11 unless prepared to rebid clubs over 2NT.

[mycroft]

Many in my area of the world make 1m-2m game forcing. Whether they put the 10-12s into a J/S into the other minor, or just fake it with that range, there's always issues and payoffs. But it certainly solves this problem.

I prefer the 10+, and for me, 2NT is simply "passable", a hand balanced enough that it would have opened a weak NT by choice if that were possible, stoppers in majors (and 3m is "I have a real m opener, but minimum - the 'overstrength preempt'"). Any bid after 2NT is 100% game forcing (including 3m) and we go from there.

Certainly the 1♣-2♣; 2♦ auction (and the 1♦-2♣; 2♦ auction, but that's not a raise) is really nice for serious gains through (serious) artificiality at minimal (system, not memory) costs; but it doesn't help the 1♦-2♦ case.

I learned an interesting system from one of my partner's teachers (after a game-forcing 2m):

• 2NT promises stoppers in all suits;
  
• 3m shows one stopper (which can be asked about);
  
• lowest new suit *denies* a stopper in that suit and promises the other two.

Not sure if it's the right way to play, but I'm always happy when it comes up.

[perko90]

bluenikki, on 2022-August-24, 08:02, said:

Maybe it's irrelevant, but surely the 10 hcp minimum refers to

Axx
xx
xxx
AQxxx

not

Qxx
Qxx
Qxx
KJxx

You should not bid 2♣ with 10-11 unless prepared to rebid clubs over 2NT.

Completely agree. The 10 HCP (bad 11) should have a 5th trump.

[akwoo]

Ah, so this is where the strong NTers pay for not having the 1♦-1N-do I invite problem.

[DavidKok]

Both this one and the invite problem can be solved quite easily.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2022-August-24, 15:53, said:

Ah, so this is where the strong NTers pay for not having the 1♦-1N-do I invite problem.

Which exact problem is that ? You may find it's not as big a problem as you think.

[kgr]

For me:
2NT 18-19
3NT to play
3m minimum (we play short club. After 2C then the minimum balanced goes via 2D...2NT)