[jillybean]

---

MP, diamonds is 4 unless 4432

[shyams]

Pass

[mw64ahw]

Strong NT?

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2025-September-23, 23:36, said:

Strong NT?

2♦ F1 or FG ?

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

You have what you promised, nothing more / nothing less,
the 6th diamond is good.
For starters, you are playing MP, do you believe 5D to be
better? You know nothing about p hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TMorris]

Happy enough, partner knows where my points are.

[DavidKok]

I'd like to know a lot more about the agreements. Sorry to say - as usual, these inverted minor auctions are messy.

• Was partner's 2♥ bid natural, showing an unbalanced hands with primary diamonds and secondary hearts? Was it stopper showing? If so, did it say anything about stoppers in other suits?
  
• What would a 2NT rebid by partner have shown?
  
• Which of the bids 2♦, 2♥ and 3♣ were forcing to 3♦, to 2NT, to game, F1R, or something else?
  
• What were partner's other options over 3♣ (note how this depends on the answers to the questions so far)? In particular, was 3♠ a game forcing asking bid looking for a full stopper, half a stopper, or something else? Note that responder already bypassed spades.

I really struggle to judge the hand without some of this information. If opener has 5(+)♦ with short clubs and good hearts I think 6♦ is not out of the picture.

P_Marlowe, on 2025-September-24, 04:00, said:

You know nothing about p hand.

Exactly right. MPs makes this more difficult, but we've consumed a lot of space - I'd want to have a pretty specific description of the hand so far. Or, putting it differently, how can we make good decisions if we're at the 3NT level and we know nothing about partner's hand? In my opinion poor agreements on inverted minor are tantamount to giving up on good 5m or 6m contracts - not the worst, by frequency, but that's what happens when you don't exchange information.

For completeness sake I'll give my own answers to my questions assuming the "4+ or 4=4=3=2" 1♦ opening, just to share some style decisions:

• 2♥ is natural, showing 4(+)♥, 5(+)♦ or 4=4=4=1.
  
• 2NT for me shows a balanced hand - in a weak NT context that'd be forcing to game.
  
• 2♦, 2♥ and 3♣ were all forcing to 3♦ for me. In a strong NT system you may want to be able to get out in 2NT, but I suggest only allowing this on the sequence 1♦-2♦; 2NT-P exactly. Note that, with my approach, responder rebids 3♦ (minimum, no second suit) rather than 3♣ over 2♥.
  
• • 3♦ any minimum.
    
  • 3♥ 5♥6♦, GF.
    
  • 3♠ GF asking for half a stopper or advance cue.
    
  • 3NT to play, likely 3=4=5=1//3=4=6=0 non-minimum.
    
  • 4♣ Non-minimum double fit.
    
  • 4♦ Slam try.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-September-24, 00:29, said:

2♦ F1 or FG ?

Could be GI too the way I play it with 2♠ being a relay.
If we can exclude the balanced 15-17 hand then I'm inclined to try for the ♦ slam at MPs

[mike777]

Sure, easy pass in the club or non experts world. No one has agreements other than stopper showing

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2025-September-24, 04:38, said:

Could be GI too the way I play it with 2♠ being a relay.
If we can exclude the balanced 15-17 hand then I'm inclined to try for the ♦ slam at MPs

Not sure you can exclude 12-14 balanced, But Axx, AJ9x, Kxxx, xx wants to play 5♦ not 3N, we don't know what 2♦ or 2♥ show in OP's world.

[jillybean]

Yes, sorry. No special agreements here . 15-17 nt, 1D:2D gf
2H forward going, likely a 4 card suit

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-September-24, 06:18, said:

Not sure you can exclude 12-14 balanced, But Axx, AJ9x, Kxxx, xx wants to play 5♦ not 3N, we don't know what 2♦ or 2♥ show in OP's world.

True-now we know 2♦ is a GF.

We should be able to count 8 tricks in ♦ and ♣ so partner can contribute the extra trick in a Major. I'm not sure that 5♦ makes so Pass

[jillybean]

---

Unlucky, inexperienced partnership.

[DavidKok]

Bidding these hands is difficult. I'd have preferred the auction 1♦-2♦; 2♥-3♦; 3♠-4♣; 4♦-4♠; 5♦-P, though different continuations also work. On your start I don't like 3NT by South - I think 3♠ is better. On my start South needs to be careful not to end up in 6♦ opposite a known minimum - the negative inference from North not bidding 3♣ helps with this, but it requires some sharp deduction.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-September-24, 09:12, said:

Unlucky, inexperienced partnership.

I really think Jxxx must be regarded as a stopper, on the theory that a 5-card spade suit would have bid something over 1♦.

[WasWinM]

Years ago I wrote an article on inverted minors published in Bridge World. The essence this: bid shape not stoppers.
A 2nt rebid was a weak nt hand and didn’t guarantee stoppers.
Suit rebids show shortage.

I would direct you to the issue but I don’t remember it. Published as Winston Munn.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2025-September-24, 09:12, said:

---

Unlucky, inexperienced partnership.

Perfectly normal contract, you would find in any club. If you don't have detailed agreements, and almost no one does, normal contract.

Next time you will be in 5D and get a non spade lead for a bottom bd.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-September-24, 06:39, said:

No special agreements here . 15-17 nt, 1D:2D gf
2H forward going, likely a 4 card suit

2D will bypass a major and is game forcing: "no special agreements?"

[johnu]

Unlucky to go down. Makes if spades aren't led, spades are 4-4, if the short spades are in opener's hand, if the spades are blocked, or if leader has the top 3 honors, etc.

At IMPs, you probably want to be in 5♦, but matchpoints can score 430 which will be a tie for top.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-September-24, 15:40, said:

2D will bypass a major and is game forcing: "no special agreements?"

I don’t bid 3cM, do you ?

Or perhaps you are referring to my preferred treatment a while back, not with this partner. :