Robertn, on May 15 2004, 12:34 PM, said:
A few questions on inverted minors (i.e. 1
♣ - 2
♣ shows a forcing raise, 1
♣ - 3
♣ a preemptive raise)
1) After 1
♣ - 2
♣, opener should try to show stoppers for NT. How good a stopper should this be? Is QJx enough? Is AJ enough despite the short suit?
2) Should 1
♣ - 2
♣ still be a forcing raise in competition? (Over double and/or overcall)
3) If 1
♣ - (1
♠) - 2
♣ is still a forcing raise in competition, does it make sense to play 1
♣ - (1
♠) - 2
♠ as asking directly whether opener has a spade stop?
Thanks
Robert
Before you can get meaningful answers to your questions, I think you need to define a bit more what you mean by Inverted Minors (more later).
I play Inverted Minors with two steady partners (and a couple of casual partners). With none of them do we play that:
1
♣ - 1
♠ - 2
♣
is strong. Essentially, inverted minors are "off" in competition (in this sequence I would bid 2
♠ to show a Limit Raise or better, not 2
♣.
What I suggest you clarify, so that you get more meaningful input is:
What range of hands does 1m - Pass - 2m show? Many people play that it shows a Limit Raise or better. If this is the case, what do opener's and responder's rebids show? How does responder show that he has better than a Limit Raise? Does opener's showing a stopper for NT promise extra values, or is it forced?
I personally consider both the examples you gave (QJx and AJ) as perfectly good stoppers. In fact, excellent ones (I'd be happy with Q-10-x).
Getting back to the values for an inverted minor suit raise, with one partner (my friend for many, many years), we play what some people call "Criss-Cross". This is the scheme:
1m - Pass - ?
2m - shows a FORCING raise (denies holding a 4-card major)
Jump-shift in the other minor shows exactly a Limit Raise (denies holding a 4-card major)
3m - preemptive
So over 1m - Pass - 2m, bidding NT or showing stoppers is mandatory. Over 1
♣ - Pass - 2
♦, showing a stopper for NT promises extra values (and clearly after a limit raise in
♦, which is 3
♣, showing a stopper logically must have extra values).
Now where the competition is a Double, I play the same scheme with both steady partners (it is the reverse of what many people play, but I'll give the reasoning):
1m - Dbl - ?
3m = Limit Raise
2NT = Preemptive raise
I mentioned that many people play this the other way round (which is what we do in the Majors). We have switched the meanings because it is quite possible for opener to have enough extra as to want to play in 3NT opposite a Limit Raise. If that is the case, we want opener to be the declarer (both for the lead and to avoid tabling the stronger hand).
This convention (without our modification) is known as Dormer or Jordan (I think one only uses the 2NT = Limit Raise for the majors and the other for all suits, but I'm not 100% sure).