[JeffMorrow]

This might go better in Novice. If so, please feel free to move it there.

I have a number of questions about inverted minors. In most cases, I feel I know the correct answers, but I’d like to make sure.

1m, (P), 2m, (P) means that opener absolutely must bid because responder’s hand is unlimited, correct? But

1m, (P), 2m, (X or overcall), P is acceptable and shows a bare minimum opening, correct? Similarly,

P, (P), 1m, (P), 2m, (P), P shows a bare minimum opening, correct?

1m, (P), 2m, (P), a suit means now responder must bid because opener’s suit may be (and most likely is) showing or asking about a stopper rather than showing 6+/5+ distribution, correct?

But 1m, (P), 2m, (P), Z suit bid, (P), any bid, (P), Z rebid does show an extreme 2 suiter, correct?

All of the aboove seems intuitive.

Now, for the question, I have no confidence in an answer. When showing controls, is it better to ask or to show. I have a suspicion that asking is better, but I cannot strongly defend that suspicion.

[DavidKok]

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

This might go better in Novice. If so, please feel free to move it there.

I have a number of questions about inverted minors. In most cases, I feel I know the correct answers, but I’d like to make sure.

There are two, in my opinion very important, points that I'd like to share here already.
Firstly, there are different versions of inverted minors. There is no 'correct' answer here, though there are standard and common ways to play this convention. Personally I actually think that the standard way to play inverted minors is awful, and we'd be better off using some non-standard ones (even simple schemes!) - though of course I'll give the standard answers as much as I'm able. Keep in mind that, in choosing a convention including continuations, you are making an agreement with your partner about which hands bid how. Different partnerships have different agreements. Although some agreements are better than others, none are objectively correct.
Secondly, I see intermediate, advanced and even expert players make a mess of inverted minor auctions with moderate frequency. I think the topic definitely deserves some attention beyond the novice level. This ties in to my point above - I think standard does a poor job of providing the information needed to make sound decisions, and people end up guessing as a result.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

1m, (P), 2m, (P) means that opener absolutely must bid because responder’s hand is unlimited, correct? But

Yes. Some people play special versions where this raise can be passed, but this is highly uncommon.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

1m, (P), 2m, (X or overcall), P is acceptable and shows a bare minimum opening, correct? Similarly,

Pass is acceptable, as partner gets to bid again regardless. It depends on partnership agreement what it shows. I personally think bidding should emphasise shape over strength, so I'd reserve bids to show extra shape and pass as a catchall with no other options. If you have the additional (common) agreement that an inverted minor auction is forcing to at least 2NT, or to at least 3m, you are guaranteed to get to take another call even if you pass - pass is forcing with that agreement.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

P, (P), 1m, (P), 2m, (P), P shows a bare minimum opening, correct?

Pretty much. By passing then bidding inverted minor partner has shown 10-11 hcp with support for our minor suit. If we think game might still be on opposite that it's wise to take another bid. If we can rule out game based on this information, which means a minimum opening, we can pass.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

1m, (P), 2m, (P), a suit means now responder must bid because opener’s suit may be (and most likely is) showing or asking about a stopper rather than showing 6+/5+ distribution, correct?

Stopper showing is common, and responder should definitely bid again. Not only is opener's bid possibly not a real (4+ cards) suit, also opener might hold a very strong hand for such a bid. We don't want to drop in a partscore when game or slam might be on.
The 6+/5+ distribution is not really accurate. In the non-standard schemes where opener shows something other than stoppers (such as hand type, or a secondary suit) the minimum requirement isn't 6+/5+ but rather just another 4(+)-card suit. It is very uncommon for opener to hold such a shapely hand, for responder to raise a minor suit rather than introduce a suit of their own, and for the opponents to be silent on this deal. Putting extreme shape requirements on rebids here just means the bids will be idle.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

But 1m, (P), 2m, (P), Z suit bid, (P), any bid, (P), Z rebid does show an extreme 2 suiter, correct?

This depends on the auction (in particular, responder's second bid) and your agreements. As mentioned above, you will likely never encounter this. I would not worry about it much.

JeffMorrow, on 2025-August-24, 08:58, said:

Now, for the question, I have no confidence in an answer. When showing controls, is it better to ask or to show. I have a suspicion that asking is better, but I cannot strongly defend that suspicion.

I think neither. Showing stoppers is, in my opinion, a confused mess and a waste of bidding space. However, if you stick with one, it is common to agree the following:
If two or more suits are not known to be stopped yet, we show.
If a single suit is remaining, we ask.

This way we show our controls until we've got three suits covered, and then coordinate on stopping the last one.

[JeffMorrow]

Thank you so much for very helpful answers, but they do lead to others.

DavidKok, on 2025-August-24, 10:17, said:

There are two, in my opinion very important, points that I'd like to share here already.
Firstly, there are different versions of inverted minors. There is no 'correct' answer here, though there are standard and common ways to play this convention. Personally I actually think that the standard way to play inverted minors is awful, and we'd be better off using some non-standard ones (even simple schemes!) - though of course I'll give the standard answers as much as I'm able. Keep in mind that, in choosing a convention including continuations, you are making an agreement with your partner about which hands bid how. Different partnerships have different agreements. Although some agreements are better than others, none are objectively correct.
Secondly, I see intermediate, advanced and even expert players make a mess of inverted minor auctions with moderate frequency. I think the topic definitely deserves some attention beyond the novice level. This ties in to my point above - I think standard does a poor job of providing the information needed to make sound decisions, and people end up guessing as a result.[

The obvious question is whether there is a document online in French or English (my German is no longer up to reading bridge in that language) on one of the non-standard approaches you think is worth considering. Can I further assume that, with exception of two-suiters, I have a decent grasp on what is fairly standard treatment of inverted minors?

Quote

6+/5+ distribution is not really accurate. In the non-standard schemes where opener shows something other than stoppers (such as hand type, or a secondary suit) the minimum requirement isn't 6+/5+ but rather just another 4(+)-card suit. It is very uncommon for opener to hold such a shapely hand, for responder to raise a minor suit rather than introduce a suit of their own, and for the opponents to be silent on this deal. Putting extreme shape requirements on rebids here just means the bids will be idle.

I get a bit lost here. I interpret part of it as saying that, in non-standard methods, a rebid of opener’s second suit gives information about partner’s non-flat distribution, but does not imply such an unusual distribution as I mentioned. Further, reserving bids for such infrequent cases leaves such bids “idle,” and so is undesirable in principle. But so long as you are playing standard methods, I don’t see any alternative use for them except for these admittedly unlikely cases.

Quote

I think neither. Showing stoppers is, in my opinion, a confused mess and a waste of bidding space. However, if you stick with one, it is common to agree the following:
If two or more suits are not known to be stopped yet, we show.
If a single suit is remaining, we ask.

This way we show our controls until we've got three suits covered, and then coordinate on stopping the last one.

Again I am not entirely sure I fully grasp this. One way to interpret it is that the non-standard methods you prefer have a more economical way to avoid hopeless no trump games than either asking about or showing stoppers suit by suit. The other way to read it is that you can combine asking and showing, which does not sound economical but does sound like a high probability for miscommunication.. The reason that I suspect that asking is at least better than showing is that (a) if I don’t ask about a lower ranking suit, the inference ought to be that my ask for the higher ranking suit already implies showing hard stoppers for the lower-ranked suits, and (b) the soft stoppers get put into declarer’s hand and so are protected against the initial lead. Maybe I’ll be clearer about all this after I read about the non-standard approaches.

Sorry to be a bit dense. I really do appreciate the obvious care that goes into your answers.

[mikeh]

I agree completely with David’s view of how bad the ‘common’ or ‘standard’ inverted minor methods are. I’ll go further. When playing with someone with whom I do not have a lot of agreements, I refuse to play inverted minors at all. That’s how bad I think the ‘common’ (stopper showing) methods are.

When I do play inverted minors, and I do with one first class partner, we play a treatment developed by Kokish. It’s quite complex…especially if you’re not used to playing detailed gadgets.

In short, opener’s first duty is to limit his hand. For example, after 1D 2D, 2H says only that we’re going to game. It has nothing to do with stoppers or hearts. 2S says opener has an unbalanced hand with game interest but not game force….2N then asks for shortness, with step responses

Over 1D 2D 2H, responder bids 2S to announce a limit raise. We’re still forced to game but opener is warned that he needs a very good hand to explore for slam. Any call other than 2S shows an opening hand, so slam is in contemplation from a low level.

There’s more to it, of course. Either partner can relay for shortness or show shortness, and after 1C 2C, 2H is still gf but opener bids 2D with an unbalanced game try hand, rather than 2S

Google Eric kokish inverted minors and you’ll find system notes for kokish-Kraft methods, including, starting at p 36, inverted minors

On reflection, standard inverted suffers from much the same kind of problem that standard jacoby 2N has. Neither method deals with relative strengths very well. J2N focuses too early on shape while inverted minors focuses too early on stoppers. Since one has a fit and at least game invitational values, it’s far better, imo, to focus on strength early. Shape, controls, etc can wait. Let’s find out whether we’re interested in game or slam or, in the case of inverted minors, notrump.

[JeffMorrow]

mikeh, on 2025-August-24, 17:16, said:

I agree completely with David’s view of how bad the ‘common’ or ‘standard’ inverted minor methods are. I’ll go further. When playing with someone with whom I do not have a lot of agreements, I refuse to play inverted minors at all. That’s how bad I think the ‘common’ (stopper showing) methods are.

When I do play inverted minors, and I do with one first class partner, we play a treatment developed by Kokish. It’s quite complex…especially if you’re not used to playing detailed gadgets.

In short, opener’s first duty is to limit his hand. For example, after 1D 2D, 2H says only that we’re going to game. It has nothing to do with stoppers or hearts. 2S says opener has an unbalanced hand with game interest but not game force….2N then asks for shortness, with step responses

Over 1D 2D 2H, responder bids 2S to announce a limit raise. We’re still forced to game but opener is warned that he needs a very good hand to explore for slam. Any call other than 2S shows an opening hand, so slam is in contemplation from a low level.

There’s more to it, of course. Either partner can relay for shortness or show shortness, and after 1C 2C, 2H is still gf but opener bids 2D with an unbalanced game try hand, rather than 2S

Google Eric kokish inverted minors and you’ll find system notes for kokish-Kraft methods, including, starting at p 36, inverted minors

On reflection, standard inverted suffers from much the same kind of problem that standard jacoby 2N has. Neither method deals with relative strengths very well. J2N focuses too early on shape while inverted minors focuses too early on stoppers. Since one has a fit and at least game invitational values, it’s far better, imo, to focus on strength early. Shape, controls, etc can wait. Let’s find out whether we’re interested in game or slam or, in the case of inverted minors, notrump.

Thank you very much.

[Cyberyeti]

Everybody plays them differently.

First decide - GF or just F1 by an unpassed hand

Can you have a 4 card major

Do you play a short club, and if so, do you need 5 for the raise

Do you play a weak NT or strong, you have more latitude if you play weak as you don't have to handle minimum balanced hands

What is 1m-2N

Then, I would recommend playing 1♣-2♣-2♦ as your enquiry, you can do this regardless of any of the above. You can do similar over diamonds but we don't playing weak NT with 2♦ inv+ may contain 4M as 1♦-2♦-2N can be GF and an artificial 3♣ ask over that solves most of the issues

My opinion is that if you play strong NT, you need to deny 4M and/or play the inverted raise FG, with a weak NT you can work round both of those.

[JeffMorrow]

Again thank you to all. The light may be beginning to break through.

(1) Yes, of course, inverted minors have to be considered in conjunction with the meaning of other agreements, for example the agreed meaning of 1m, (P), 2N.

Thus, it might make sense to limit initiation of inverted minors to distributional responses or game going responses, and, in either case, no major with 4+ cards. We can use the immediate jump to 2N for balanced, invitational hands. If that is the agreement, it merely entails that (1) opener must keep the bidding open for responder to make one rebid to clarify strength, and (2) opener must have an unambiguous way to indicate a minimum opening to avoid going too high. For example, natural bidders might agree that any call by opener in immedite respone to an inverted minor EXCEPT 2N, 3 of the agreed suit, or pass (if intervention) shows more than a minimum opening and is forcing to at least 3N whereas 2N or 3m or pass show a minimum and are not forcing. I am not arguing that such a set of agreements is optimal; I am arguing that inverted minors must form part of some coherent system.

(2) I hate to appear to be ungratefully turning up my porcine snout at pearls, but I have no regular partner who would ever agree to Kokish inverted minors or a similarly detailed artificial approach. I cannot even find an American partner who will try weak no trump when not vulnerable. But still the purpose of the Kokish relay system was on exchanging information other than just stoppers. That is a thought that can apply to players of all levels of skill and commitment. How high to play and where to play depend on more than stoppers. Got it After all, the sequence 1N, (P), 3N says nothing about stoppers and gives no signposts to defenders on what to lead. Further, the Kokish system made me think more about why openers may want to disclose even a 4-card major.

(3) I am now persuaded that a sequence of stopper showing bids is neither necessary nor helpful to anyone except defenders. What I tentatively think I am going to propose to my more flexible partner is this.

An inverted minor must deny a 4-card or better major and ALSO deny an evenly distributed hand of invitational strength. If an inverted minor is only of invitational strength, it is distributional. But it may be an evenly distributed hand with 12+ HCP and is unlimited. Therefore, opener must ensure responder gets a rebid.

An opener in turn shows a minimum by rebidding 2N or 3 of the agreed suit or passing after intervention. Any other action is forcing to 3N but does not preclude stopping at 4 of the agreed minor.

If opener bids a new suit, opener is not minimum. Responder should interpret it INITIALLY as asking for a stopper in the bid suit and bid either 2N or 3N, depending on strength, with a semi-stopper or better in that suit. Without a stopper in the indicated suit, responder bids 3, 4, or 5 of the agreed suit or maybe 4N (rkc), all depending on strength.

If opener bids a new suit and is not asking for a stopper, opener rebids that suit. THAT promises at least 4 in that suit and at least 5 in the agreed minor, but, more importantly, indicates a hand with at least one void or two singletons such as 5/4/4/0 or 7/4/1/1.

I am not asking whether an expert would tolerate such an approach, but whether it looks as if it improves upon the standard treatment by taking advantage of your suggestions while staying mostly true to a style of natural bidding.

[DavidKok]

As you say, the context of the rest of the system matters. Let me assume for the moment that you are playing a fairly standard 5cM system, i.e. '5543' openings with 4=4=3=2 shoved in somewhere. If partner opens 1♣, I would play your responses in standard as:

• Pass: rare, 0-4 ish
  
• 1♦: 4+♦
  
• 1♥: 4+♥
  
• 1♠: 4+♠
  
• 1NT: 3=3=3=4, 6-9 hcp (you may wish to allow some other balanced hands that wish to become declarer in NT, but I personally wouldn't).
  
• 2♣: 5+, 10+ hcp
  
• 2♦/2♥/2♠: ???
  
• 2NT: 3=3=3=4, 10-11 hcp
  
• 3NT: 3=3=3=4, 12-15 HCP

Note that there's no bid for 3=3=3=4 16+, though all experts will invent 1♦ without trouble.

Over partner's 1♦ opening I would instead play something like the following, keeping with 2/1 GF principles:

• Pass: rare, 0-4 ish
  
• 1♥: 4+♥
  
• 1♠: 4+♠
  
• 1NT: 6-9 hcp, no other bid¹
  
• 2♣: [5+ or 3=3=3=4], GF
  
• 2♦: 4+♦, 10+ hcp
  
• 2♥/2♠: ???
  
• 2NT: '3=3=3=5 minus a card', 10-11 hcp
  
• 3♣: 6+♣, 9-11 hcp

Fairly standard. This helps define which hands will respond with an inverted minor. You can rule out most hand types through negative inferences.² However, I do still allow 1♣-2♣ on 5♣332, and 1♦-2♦ on 3=3=4=3 as well as (32)=4=4, so that neither raise strictly denies a balanced hand. This is because 1m-2NT is a dreadful bid, much more unpleasant than the inverted minor, so we should relieve it of some pressure if we can.
I think the main alternative is to shuffle around 2♣, 2♦ and 2NT a little, so that 2♣ is 4+, 2NT can be (32)=4=4 or 3=3=4=3 and 2♦ is not balanced. However, bidding 2NT without majors is unpleasant when opener is unbalanced, and the possibility of 3=3=2=5 makes it not ideal for opener to run to 3♦ on 1♦-2NT; ?. My variant gives slightly more flexibility.

I think there are many wonderful artificial continuations available on inverted minor starts, including some that I personally prefer to Kokish-Kraft. However, as you mention, this can get very complicated.

Sticking to the more natural methods, I suggest bidding shape. It's far from optimal use of the bidding space, but it's reasonably effective. With a balanced hand, opener bids 2NT (12-14), 3m (offer to play) or 3NT (18-19). Personally I gain a little bit from my 14-16 NT here so that I don't have to rebid 2NT with the dreaded 14-count, but we'll take the system loss on the chin for the sake of simplicity. Other bids show an unbalanced hand and a natural suit, and are forcing to at least 3-of-the-minor - now that both of us have shown the suit, it's preferable to 2NT. Notice that on 1♣-2♣ this is practically never going to happen - we don't find ourselves in a sudden 10+ card fit very often, nor will we often find opener with shortage opposite a suit responder bypassed in an uncontested auction. But oh well, we were keeping it simple, and on 1♦-2♦ this structure is much more reasonable.
With this rule, the only way to still stop in 2NT is 1m-2m; 2NT-P. All other sequences are forcing to at least 3m. If either side bids 3m, this round or a later one, it is an offer to play and shows a minimum. Once you are past 3m, you are committed to (at least) game - no getting out in 4m either! Both sides show shape, bidding their hand pattern.

Other than the aforementioned 14-balanced-opposite-inverted-minor, where I want to be in game but might be dropped in 2NT in this scheme, this structure does a great job of identifying 3m-vs-2NT, 3m-vs-game and 3NT-vs-5m. It does poorly on finding slams (though better than stopper showing), but I fear that's a sacrifice you will have to make to keep things simple.

My scheme differs from your suggestion in a few ways. My proposal has more complicated rules for stopping in 3m, but in return gets to be more descriptive on a wider range of hands. If a suit rebid is immediately forcing to game by opener we have to self-preempt with 3m too often for my tastes. I also took away the ability to stop in 4m - I think trying to stop there is a very poor idea. I also took away your extreme shape notions of a void or two singletons - any 5-4 is enough to show both suits.


¹Personally I am actually a fan of playing this semiforcing 6-11, so that I don't have to bid 1♦-2NT with invitational hands. But that's not mainstream.
²Actually, I prefer not to rule out all these hand types through negative inferences. However, the exceptions are rare and inverted minor is already complicated enough, so for now I recommend playing inverted minor as denying a 4cM always. This also has the cheeky benefit of reducing the frequency with which you bid it, which helps avoid disasters.

[akwoo]

When playing 12-14 1N openings, I ask my partners to play:

1m-2m, then

2N = 17+ balanced
3m = 10-14 single-suited (good 14s upgrade)
3N = 15-16 balanced
4m = single suited 6322 or 7222, strong enough to play 4N without worry
non-jump new suit = natural unbalanced
jump new suit = splinter, 15+

[JeffMorrow]

DavidKok, on 2025-August-25, 11:17, said:

I think there are many wonderful artificial continuations available on inverted minor starts, including some that I personally prefer to Kokish-Kraft. However, as you mention, this can get very complicated.

Not only are they complicated, you can also waste days arguing with partner about adopting them.

Quote

My scheme differs from your suggestion in a few ways. My proposal has more complicated rules for stopping in 3m, but in return gets to be more descriptive on a wider range of hands. If a suit rebid is immediately forcing to game by opener we have to self-preempt with 3m too often for my tastes. I also took away the ability to stop in 4m - I think trying to stop there is a very poor idea. I also took away your extreme shape notions of a void or two singletons - any 5-4 is enough to show both suits.

I cannot express how grateful I am that you took the time to try improving my suggestion. I am not going to respond substantively to your effort (at least not immediately) because I want to think about it carefully and in detail.

Quote

Personally I am actually a fan of playing this semiforcing 6-11, so that I don't have to bid 1♦-2NT with invitational hands. But that's not mainstream.

Interesting.

Quote

This also has the cheeky benefit of reducing the frequency with which you bid [inverted minors], which helps avoid disasters.

This made me laugh.

[mycroft]

Two things that nobody has mentioned here (and the comments are good!):

• Many people (in my area, it's "standard") play inverted minor as GF+ (what they do to show a limit raise varies). I happen to dislike this treatment, but when in Rome Alberta... So, check. It does solve the "are we going to game" nonsense, but of course (like the similar "shape over strength" responses to a GF 2/1 also common here) introduces "are we going to slam" nonsense instead.
  
• Many people (not as many here, but certainly me) play that inverted minors are off by a passed hand (whether they play them GF or LR+ by UPH). There are two reasons to play invm:
  • you don't have a forcing minor raise otherwise without "inventing a bid". Passed hand - you incredibly rarely need a forcing minor raise.
    
  • You want to win the partscore immediately, before the opponents get in and find their fit, so the 3m raise is "weak" (whatever that means in your agreement (*)). A passed hand non-competitive raise means that both opponents have passed already, and the "forcing on the opponents" 2m weak raise is much less ineffective (and the limit raise doesn't need the 2 level as often either). Plus, sometimes you only make 8 tricks - it's great to "win the partscore", but winning it with -100 when it could have been won with +90 is always disappointing.

As always (!), agree with your partner, or surprising things will happen (otherwise known as "if you talk about it, it won't come up. If you don't, it will.")

(*) Rather than a specific strength, I like to base my agreement on "what kind of hand can('t) make 3NT after 1m-3m"; in particular "can I expect to make 3NT with a flat 18?" The number of times people have languished in 3♦ with 3NT on because "I couldn't risk it" is only surpassed by the number of 3NT-1 or more with 3♦ on "because I had to try". This also (perhaps more so) applies to "weak jump shifts" to 3m (so much so that I play any of the other options - including "slam invitational" - in an occasional partnership unless I am forced).