[flytoox]

I understand there are quite some threads about inverted minor riase strucutree and there are different ways. My question here is about the follow up after 1m-2m. Suppose playing 15-17NT, and sound opening style (which implies rebidding NT assures non minimum 11hcp or bad 12hcp hand).

Most follow up structure after inverted minor raises treats 2M as stopper showing, without showing strength. My question is, is stopper showing really that important for nontrump contract？Or right siding the contract? Would it make more sense to treat 2M as showing extra stength or shape?

[Flameous]

There are some style issues related. For example if you can bid inv minor raise with 4 card major, it's important to check for them later.

However, I think the most important thing is to dedicate first step for all balanced hands. I don't really mind what you do with other bids, but bidding stoppers with nothing know about the shape makes sensible slam investigation impossible. Over 1♣ - 2♣ this is simple, after diamonds you may need some more complex structure to check for the heart stop.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 flytoox, on 2012-March-05, 02:07, said:

..... is stopper-showing really that important for nontrump contract.....

On a previous Inverted Minors thread, Ken Rexford offered this: " Stoppers are for losers" .

But I think he favored suppressing a 4 card Major Response in favor of creating the GF when holding 4+ in the bid minor.
Thus, a 2M rebid by Opener would be natural ( for him, I think ) .

The "Coaches Corner" at the Pitbulls site is in favor of Responder suppressing the 4 card Major too, but says ONLY ONE of the partners should bid the MAJOR as natural.... and they say that should be Responder's job ( I believe it is
a treatment by Erik Kokish ) . Thus, Opener's 2M would NOT be a 4 card Major but just show a "stop" .
[ EDIT : Personally, I think OPENER should be the one to rebid 2M as natural.
This way Responder can show a fit ( actually it will be a double-fit ) at the 3-level with 3M . If the pair has to wait for Responder to first bid a 4 card Major, he most likely will have to 1st show it at the 3-level. Then Opener, with a slammish hand, is stuck for a forcing bid showing suit agreement. ]

I know I haven't addressed your main concern about "strength-showing", but if you choose one, then another action( or the other two actions ) must suffer .... I think .

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2012-March-05, 11:02

[flytoox]

Thanks for the reply. Lets say we play a very sound opening style, in this case isnt it sensible to play 2N as gf, and only 3m is passable? If we treat 2N as GF, then we can play 3N as min 12+ to 15-, and 2N as showing good hand. 2M shows real suits.

[flytoox]

 Flameous, on 2012-March-05, 03:15, said:

There are some style issues related. For example if you can bid inv minor raise with 4 card major, it's important to check for them later.

However, I think the most important thing is to dedicate first step for all balanced hands. I don't really mind what you do with other bids, but bidding stoppers with nothing know about the shape makes sensible slam investigation impossible. Over 1♣ - 2♣ this is simple, after diamonds you may need some more complex structure to check for the heart stop.

I actually like the idea to raise minor with side major suit if minor suit is longer than major. This will help to bid shape and help pd to reevaluate his hand.

My key concern is, leaving 2N and 3m both for partial is not very efficient, especially for sound opening style players. Exploring slam possibility or looking for 5m with unbalanced hand are far more important than staying in low level part score contract. This is particularly true in IMPs, so why not keep 2N as GF and just leave 3m as the only way out of game?

[Zelandakh]

Like Flameous I would suggest using 2m + 1 as balanced. I think I would then use 2NT to show that suit though. So after 1♣ - 2♣, 2♦ = bal; 2M = natural; 2NT = diamonds; 3♣ = nat and min, and after 1♦ - 2♦, 2♥ = bal; 2♠ = nat; 2NT = hearts; 3♣ = nat; 3♦ = nat and min.

[tolvyrj]

My humble opinion is that yes it is important to show and have stoppers when u r heading to NT contract . But i understand u question wheter or not its important to show some strenght via that too.
We use following structure in our inverted minor suit raise; 1. openers 2Nt tells that his opening hand is not "kosher", but merely based on rebiddable suit and some defencive strentght or shape that has prohibited use of weak opening. 2. all other responses from opener r FG and promise a decent opening hand, 3Nt promising stoppers in both majors and bidding other minor promises minor two-suiter with fair values; now advancers bid in major promises stopper in that suit and DENIES stopper in other.
We dont allow 4 card major in advancer who bids inverted minor suit raise, that violates major suit principle IMO.
After opener has bid 2Nt advancer can stop the auction by biding 3 of the opening suit; all other bids from advancer r FG.

[the hog]

I play a simple structure that works.
1m 2m
3m = min to play opposite 10-12
2 new = stopper showing
2Nt = stoppers in the outside suits
3 new = splinter
3NT = solid m

By the way, I regard the comment "Stoppers are for losers" as ridiculous.

[han]

I regard the comment "that works" as ridiculous, especially in combination with really bad inverted minors structures.

[inquiry]

When deciding on a structure for 1m-2m, one question has to be addressed. Do you have a structure to include a limit raise outside of the direct raise (some people play 1C-2D and 1D-3C as limit raise)? If so, then 1m-2m is game forcing (or at least quasi game force), if not, you need ways to stop short of game.

So for instance, if 1m-2m is not game forcing, then 1m-2m-2nt or 1m-2m-3m are best if not forcing.
i switch the meaning suggested earlier in this thread.

1D - 2D

• 2H - minimum UNBALANCED (2S ask for short suit, lower middle highest replies)
• 2S - balanced that didn't want to rebid notrump (to right side it, or for some other reason)
• 2N - balanced and forcing to at least 3D, could include big balanced hand (18-19, or 17-19 depending on 1nt range)
• 3C - balanced minimum with 5 or 6 card diamond suit
• 3D - 5+ suit, for me forcing one round because I have limit raise by responder available.
• 3H/3S/4C - GF Splinter
• 3NT - generally balanced 14 that wants to play the hand from his side (rare bid)
• 4D - keycard blackwood
• 4H/4S/5C - Exclusion blackwood

1C - 2C

• 2D - minimum UNBALANCE (2Hask for short suit, lower middle highest replies)
• 2H - balanced that didn't want to rebid notrump
• 2S - balanced GF with 5+ clubs
• 2N - natural, forcing to 3C's (could be the strong balanced hand)
• 3C - 5+ clubs, for me forcing one round because limit raise opposite is not possible
• 3D/3H/3S - game forcing splinter
• 3NT - generally balanced 14 that wants to play the hand from his side (rare bid)
• 4C - Gerber (not really, keycard blackwood)
• 4D/4H/4S - EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD

This is not original to me, but for the moment, I plead senioritis as I can't remember where I got it from. Maybe something by fred or from glen ashton's excellent bridgematters webstuff.

[flytoox]

 inquiry, on 2012-March-07, 13:21, said:

When deciding on a structure for 1m-2m, one question has to be addressed. Do you have a structure to include a limit raise outside of the direct raise (some people play 1C-2D and 1D-3C as limit raise)? If so, then 1m-2m is game forcing (or at least quasi game force), if not, you need ways to stop short of game.

So for instance, if 1m-2m is not game forcing, then 1m-2m-2nt or 1m-2m-3m are best if not forcing.
i switch the meaning suggested earlier in this thread.

1D - 2D

• 2H - minimum UNBALANCED (2S ask for short suit, lower middle highest replies)
• 2S - balanced that didn't want to rebid notrump (to right side it, or for some other reason)
• 2N - balanced and forcing to at least 3D, could include big balanced hand (18-19, or 17-19 depending on 1nt range)
• 3C - balanced minimum with 5 or 6 card diamond suit
• 3D - 5+ suit, for me forcing one round because I have limit raise by responder available.
• 3H/3S/4C - GF Splinter
• 3NT - generally balanced 14 that wants to play the hand from his side (rare bid)
• 4D - keycard blackwood
• 4H/4S/5C - Exclusion blackwood

1C - 2C

• 2D - minimum UNBALANCE (2Hask for short suit, lower middle highest replies)
• 2H - balanced that didn't want to rebid notrump
• 2S - balanced GF with 5+ clubs
• 2N - natural, forcing to 3C's (could be the strong balanced hand)
• 3C - 5+ clubs, for me forcing one round because limit raise opposite is not possible
• 3D/3H/3S - game forcing splinter
• 3NT - generally balanced 14 that wants to play the hand from his side (rare bid)
• 4C - Gerber (not really, keycard blackwood)
• 4D/4H/4S - EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD

This is not original to me, but for the moment, I plead senioritis as I can't remember where I got it from. Maybe something by fred or from glen ashton's excellent bridgematters webstuff.

Good point about limited raise, Ben. But we dont have limited raise for minors so we must keep at least one of 3C or 2N for part score. The structure you gave looks good. I need some time to digest it.

[the_dude]

Count me among the "stoppers are for losers" crowd. I think the most valuable thing you can do at the second bid is distinguish between 12-14 balanced and "not 12-14 balanced".

If you want to stick with a natural-ish structure, do this by bidding 2NT regardless of stoppers (which is forcing to 3m). You may occasionally get to stopperless or wrong-sided 3NT contracts, but, your good hands will be much easier to handle.

Inquiry's structure looks like a nice improvement as well.

[the hog]

 han, on 2012-March-07, 11:55, said:

I regard the comment "that works" as ridiculous, especially in combination with really bad inverted minors structures.

Perhaps you need to be a decent player to use it.

[fred]

What Ben posted looks like it came from me - I have been playing this for 20+ years. At least some of it is based on ideas I learned from Eric Rodwell.

One relateively recent change is that the "game forcing splinters" are now defined as always containing at least 5 cards in the minor that was opened.

With a game forcing 4441 hand, bid the first step (tentatively describing a minimum unbalanced hand). When partner asks, the 4th, 5th, and 6th steps describe game forcing 4441 hands with shortness in the low, middle, and high suits. Some of these patterns may be impossible if you have rigid rules about which minor you open with strong hands that are specifically 1444 and/or 4144.

If partner signs off in 3m instead of asking for your shortness, Pass with a minimum unbalanced hand and use the next 3 steps if you have a strong 4441.

If you can handle the concept of not using low/middle/high in some specific auctions, there is something to be said for changing to middle/high/low for the strong 4441 hands when diamonds is the agreed minor. If you can't figure out why then you probably shouldn't be playing this

As far as I can tell, aside from memory considerations there is basically no downside to this modification and it definitely helps responder to evaluate when opener has a strong hand with shortness (because it is easier for responder to picture how the play might go if he knows whether or not opener is 4441).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

Thanks Fred,

I actually thought it came from you. I will tell you that the memory constaints on using this is easier than remember where I stole the idea from.

Also, I will add that this has been very effect method for me over the years (when I can get partners to play it).
I will examine the hand records to see it the 4441 modification would have helped on any hands. It seems like a reasonable and easy to add addition.