[jillybean]

I've been playing 1m:2m gf, could have 4cM for a while but always have in mind that I could well be masterminding and trying to avoid a foul up after 1m 1M 1x.

A hand from yesterday;
I hadn't discussed bypassing a 4cM so I bid up the line.

12-14nt

---

---

Much the same auction except in the 2nd both partners are aware of the double fit. This could be useful information when bidding marginal slams?

[LBengtsson]

jillybean, on 2023-January-20, 17:58, said:

I've been playing 1m:2m gf, could have 4cM for a while but always have in mind that I could well be masterminding and trying to avoid a foul up after 1m 1M 1x. Much the same auction except in the 2nd both partners are aware of the double fit. This could be useful information when bidding marginal slams?

The other thing to notice (though that would not be the situation always) is that the stronger opening hand becomes declarer, though if you needed to protect a unsupported king in responder's hand that might not be the best option, but you cannot have it all ways.

I like the idea. So what are 3m and 2NT responses to 1m here? And how do you show hands that do not fit 1m -2m gf, such as having 4/5 card minor support, assuming your opening 1m contains at least 3 cards in ♣ and 4 cards in ♦ and a minimum limit raise, about 10-11 HCPs? I am guessing the 1m - 3m structure still shows inverted minors.

[mikeh]

I’ve never seen what I would consider to be a good structure for handling inverted minors where responder could have a four card major.

The problem is that there are a lot of things the partnership needs to explore other than looking for a 4-4 fit in a side suit.

Traditionally opener showed stoppers rather than length. So 1D 2D 2H would (usually) just show a heart stopper and at least no stopper in one of the black suits (else 2N)

More sophisticated methods identify whether opener’s hand is balanced, shapely, minimum, maximum or in-between.

Once you start using 1m 2m 2M as simply ‘I have a four card major’, one can’t help but lose a great deal of bidding space on the other, mor common hands where no 4=4 major fit exists.

In addition, if you play that 1D could be three, then responder doesn’t really know that they have a double fit. If you play it is always 4 then, unless playing 4 card majors, your 1C is 2+ and now 1C 2C really doesn’t mean a double fit exists…clubs may be opener’s shortest suit!

Which would be ok, I suppose, except that the sequences that begin 1m 1M are really straightforward. I note, btw, that you explain the 1D 1H 3H as showing 15-17. Two points: the hand has 18 hcp so responder bought a surprising dummy. Secondly, if playing strong notrumps, 3H shows an unbalanced hand, else why not 1N? But I think you play some weak notrump?

My own thinking is that it’s not worth screwing up an inverted method since, imo, the 1D 1M approach is either already well developed or could be with some work.

You wrote that you adopted this form of inverted minor because of fears of screwing up 1m 1M auctions. Maybe you could elaborate on that, since right now I think you’ve adopted a solution that creates more problems than the problems you’re trying to avoid.

[akwoo]

My weak NT experience says that, if holding a balanced hand, opener almost always has stoppers (since opener is 15+). So my structure over 1m-2m is simple and ignores stoppers:

new suit = natural unbalanced
2N = 17+ balanced
3N = 15-16 balanced
jump in new suit = splinters, including extras

But we don't bid 1m-2m with a 4 card major, and this structure would lose 4-4 fits if opener is balanced and responder has a 4 card major. I don't really see a good way out - I suppose you could use 1m-2m-3M to show 15-16 balanced with a 4 card major, but you lose the splinters which are actually quite useful.

This is exactly one of the prototypical hands to bid 3M after 1m-1M, playing weak NT - 17-19 (semi)-balanced (or 15-17 unbalanced). Yes knowing the double fit is good, but it's not a big deal if you don't have tools like 6 keycard BW.

North should bid 5D after keycard to look for the QH and KD and the grand. South cannot have 0 keys after the 3H raise.

mikeh, on 2023-January-20, 22:06, said:

I’ve never seen what I would consider to be a good structure for handling inverted minors where responder could have a four card major.

The problem is that there are a lot of things the partnership needs to explore other than looking for a 4-4 fit in a side suit.

Traditionally opener showed stoppers rather than length. So 1D 2D 2H would (usually) just show a heart stopper and at least no stopper in one of the black suits (else 2N)

More sophisticated methods identify whether opener’s hand is balanced, shapely, minimum, maximum or in-between.

Once you start using 1m 2m 2M as simply ‘I have a four card major’, one can’t help but lose a great deal of bidding space on the other, mor common hands where no 4=4 major fit exists.

In addition, if you play that 1D could be three, then responder doesn’t really know that they have a double fit. If you play it is always 4 then, unless playing 4 card majors, your 1C is 2+ and now 1C 2C really doesn’t mean a double fit exists…clubs may be opener’s shortest suit!

Which would be ok, I suppose, except that the sequences that begin 1m 1M are really straightforward. I note, btw, that you explain the 1D 1H 3H as showing 15-17. Two points: the hand has 18 hcp so responder bought a surprising dummy. Secondly, if playing strong notrumps, 3H shows an unbalanced hand, else why not 1N? But I think you play some weak notrump?

My own thinking is that it’s not worth screwing up an inverted method since, imo, the 1D 1M approach is either already well developed or could be with some work.

You wrote that you adopted this form of inverted minor because of fears of screwing up 1m 1M auctions. Maybe you could elaborate on that, since right now I think you’ve adopted a solution that creates more problems than the problems you’re trying to avoid.

[DavidKok]

I've seen some complicated but supposedly very good structures after inverted minors that can distinguish min/max, 4-4 major suit fits, balanced/unbalanced and stoppers. I wouldn't recommend them though - they're complex and not standard, not to mention I'm not sure they've been sufficiently tested in actual play.

From my perspective some of the harm is self-inflicted, as I play the unbalanced diamond. The two horror sequences 1♦-2♣ and 1♦-2♦ are a lot easier without a balanced option. With a weak notrump I imagine that a 2NT rebid showing 18-19 and a 3NT rebid showing 15-17 balanced would work quite well though, only losing the stopper investigation.

Inverted minor structures are one of the relatively underdeveloped areas of bidding theory, with a few ambitious structures out there but mostly it's just simple methods and hope to land on your feet. Watch out for people claiming their pet structure is the best on the market - there's simply a lot of different ones, and on closer inspection most of them have noticeable downsides to go along with the upsides. On the bright side I think historically inverted minor was invented for weak NT systems and only later adapted to strong NT systems, so you might have a relatively easy time picking something up.

[Cyberyeti]

We play weak NT and inverted minors that can contain 4M (and are inv+ rather than GF).

Our auction would be similar to the second given, except we'd bid 3N (spade cue) rather than 4♣.

The key to splitting out the balanced hands is that 1♦-2♦-2N is an artificial GF (diamonds only or balanced hand) with an artificial 3♣ enquiry to distinguish, so 2♥ is 54 or 4441.

We play different methods over 1♣-2♣ with 2♦ inv+ and 2♥/♠/N as minimum with ♥/♠/♦ (and thus unbalanced)

[jillybean]

Mike, my 1m 1M auctions were problematic due to partner forgets or premature jumps to game where I'm left wanting one more bid because I have not shown my strength,. 5-1
The 1m:2m attempt to fix the problem became something I find quite playable.

LB 1m:3m is preemptive, 1m:2nt is invitational, no 4cm

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-January-21, 12:38, said:

Mike, my 1m 1M auctions were problematic due to partner forgets or premature jumps to game where I'm left wanting one more bid because I have not shown my strength,. 5-1
The 1m:2m attempt to fix the problem became something I find quite playable.

LB 1m:3m is preemptive, 1m:2nt is invitational, no 4cm

I understand the frustration but I’d have thought that getting partner to bid better after 1m 1M would be a lot easier than fudging your inverted auctions to cater to finding a 4=4 major fit. However, you know your partner better than do I 😀

[jillybean]

Yes, I'm sure you are right and showing stoppers vs. 4 cM's is problematic. I obviously don't have a large sample of hands to judge it by. I'll probably fool around with it for a while longer, not so much to put restraints on partner but to experiment.

[mycroft]

First, if you still insist on 1♦-1♥; 3♥ being 15-17, well then. My auction with 17 would start 1♦-1♥; 2♥-3♦, and then you're home free.

But of course south has 18. Not a great 18 (♣AJ tight), but married honours enough to keep it to strength. And yes, this does cramp style.

But even then, why the rush to blackwood? Don't you want partner to ask for keycards if she has tricks, since that's basically your hand (plus the shown ♠K)? Just bid 4♦ and see what partner thinks. It's the Ace, not shortness (at least, it shouldn't be a shortness cue in partner's suit). Even without showing fit, that should please partner.

I think there's room in the top auction for a 6♦ call or, if that shows a specific card to go with the 3 keys, 5NT "pick a slam", by south after 5♥. I realize that isn't what you're looking for (North never shows the diamond fit before slam is committed to), but could be helpful in other auctions.