Variation on inverted minors- please comment
Mauro Casadei
I would like to have some opinions on the following variation my p and I
have introduced on "standard" Inverted Minors.
In the past, we have missed many slams in a minor because after 1C-2C or
1D-2D, the focus shifts to stopper showing; both opener and responder often
have a hard time to limit their hand while also showing the stoppers for
notrump. This point is also discussed in Frank Stewarts' "Becoming a bridge
expert", page 33, where he states, on the basis of many hands played also by
expert players that:
"What usually happens is some ill-defined groping towards 3NT- which works
well only if 3NT happens to be the right contract".
In my relatively short experience this point happened to be true. When
responder had a really strong hand and opener was minimum or barely minimum,
responder felt awkward between passing without having had a chance to show
extras, or going further risking that 3NT was really the best spot at
Matchpoints but was going down in other contracts (such as 4NT signoff or
game/slam in a minor).
I thought about it, and after reading the suggested strong GF raise in a
minor suggested by Mike Lawrence (jumpshift in the other minor: 1C-2D or
1D-3C), I proposed to my p that we still use inverted stroing raise but ONLY
with hands 10-15 HCP, whereas as responder, 15/16+ HCP strong raise
wiithout a major suit would be shown with a JS.
This way, if responder jumpshifts and opener signs off in 3NT, responder
will not feel like he still has to show extras. It is easier to stop in NT
rather than exploring further slam, because opener will know more right away
of responder's hand.
So far we have been playing this agreement for about 2 months and a few
times it came up satisfactorily(although we cannot exclude thata good pair
wd have made the same choices after a regular inv min auction)
Yet, I am not a theoretician of bidding, so any suggestions/comments are
very appreciated !
Thanks
Mauro
Frances Hinden
This is going to be a long answer, I'm afraid.
I've commented before that I don't like the standard methods of
bidding after an inverted raise, because you have no way of finding
out anything useful about either hand. The (fairly simple) methods I
currently play are IMHO much superior to stopper-showing:
1C - 2C
2D = balanced 12-14 or 18-19
2H/2S = natural, 5+ clubs, 4+ major (now 2NT/3C by responder NF all
others FG)
2NT = 4 diamonds, 5+ clubs, F1
3C = minimum, long clubs
3D/H/S = splinter
3NT = 15-17, 6+ clubs, unsuitable for opening 1NT
4C = RKCB in clubs
after 1C - 2C - 2D responder can bid 2H neutral FG, 2NT or 3C nat NF
or 2S/3D/3H splinter.
these methods allow you to decide which way up to play 3NT.
We're currently thinking of playing more artifical methods. Opener's
rebids are the same, but after 1C-2C-2D-2H opener shows his length in
clubs and responder can, if he wishes, relay for exact shape &
potential ustopped doubletons. We haven't decided yet if the extra
definition gained helps more in accurate slam/game bidding than it
loses in oppo knowing more about one of the hands when defending 3NT.
As for playing JS as a game forcing raise, you don't lose so much with
1C-2D, but I can't use 1D-3C as a FG diamond raise, I need it to show
invitational in clubs. But this is a consequence of my 1D-2C methods
(another poor area for standard aproaches) as I need 1D-2C-2D/H/S
(artificial) - 3C as forcing.
Infidel 2001
After 1c-2c (constructive+), denying 4-c M
2d: "almost GF, confirming "real" suit, and 16+ points; asks for responder's
range
2H: "3NT" bid: 19-20 hcp. balanced
2S: "2NT" bid: 17-18 hcp, balanced
2NT: "1NT" bid: 12-14, balanced
3c: minimum, with real club suit
It allows opponents to make some cheap lead-directing doubles, but lets us
escape in 2NT/3c, and gets the point across when the minor raise was unwelcome,
cutting across opener's plans for a NT rebid. Comments welcome, preferably via
e-mail
Mike
John Blubaugh
"Mauro Casadei" <m_casade...@NOSPAMtin.it> wrote in message
news:vO5rb.436605$R32.14...@news2.tin.it...
wrote a booklet on this and it was an article in the Bridge Bulletin some 10
or more years ago. I tried to e-mail it to you. If you would like to have
it, send me an e-mail with your correct address and I'll be happy to send
it.
This is a much more flexible system than you are suggesting and best of all
it is simple in its nature and it fits with what you already play in the
major suits so it is easy to remember and explain to a new partner.
John Blubaugh