[STNJN]

Playing 5 and strong , with inverted minor suit raises , and talking about the raise , just in Clubs , for convenience . After 1C - 2C 2H/S are game forcing 5/4 . 2NT 11-14 balanced . 3NT 18/19 balanced so you lose the ability to invite in NT. All I can think of is to bid step one as weak no trump giving up the 1C - 2C - 2D as a 5/4 C/D GF. Anyone got any other ideas

[Cyberyeti]

We play 1♣-2♣(inv+)-2♦ as GI or better artificial (but we play a 4 card club and weak NT so the weak NT hands are excluded)
2M is not GF
2N is diamonds and clubs

You have to cope with the weak NT hands so is more complicated

[STNJN]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-02, 10:56, said:

We play 1♣-2♣(inv+)-2♦ as GI or better artificial (but we play a 4 card club and weak NT so the weak NT hands are excluded)
2M is not GF
2N is diamonds and clubs

You have to cope with the weak NT hands so is more complicated

Thank you so much for the response .
So what would you say is the range on the 1C - 2C - 2NT bid showing C &Ds ?
Is the 1C - 2C - 2D any shape ?

[Cyberyeti]

STNJN, on 2026-January-02, 11:04, said:

Thank you so much for the response .
So what would you say is the range on the 1C - 2C - 2NT bid showing C &Ds ?
Is the 1C - 2C - 2D any shape ?

2N is NF and minimum 4-5m not good enough for the 2♦, it's almost any shape 3♣ is minimum, 3suit is 6♣-4suit non minimum, 3N is a balanced range

[mikeh]

STNJN, on 2026-January-02, 10:31, said:

Playing 5 and strong , with inverted minor suit raises , and talking about the raise , just in Clubs , for convenience . After 1C - 2C 2H/S are game forcing 5/4 . 2NT 11-14 balanced . 3NT 18/19 balanced so you lose the ability to invite in NT. All I can think of is to bid step one as weak no trump giving up the 1C - 2C - 2D as a 5/4 C/D GF. Anyone got any other ideas

Why are you investing so much into showing opener’s 4 card major? I know a few players who can hold a 4 card major for an inverted raise but it’s easy to demonstrate that this is a flawed idea.

Without by any means showing all of the reasons, consider this elementary exercise in bidding theory

1C 1M 2M. Fit found at the 2-level. 1C 1M 1N. Fit denied at the one level.

Your inverted minor: 1C 2C 2M 3M. Fit found at the 3 level.

Bidding space matters and loading 4 card majors into an inverted structure destroys a level of bidding space when you have a major suit fit.

Then the hidden cost. Players who espouse their idiosyncratic methods often fail to even acknowledge or recognize the hidden costs. What are they?

Well, if you play a very basic inverted minor structure, they’re not horrible. But that’s only because a basic inverted minor structure is an extremely inefficient method.

More sophisticated methods allow opener to describe various important features of the hand rather than simply bidding stoppers. Such as…balanced or unbalanced. Minimum or minimum or extras or lots of extras

The rationale for inverted minors is to find…drum roll please…minor suit contracts. Yes, notrump is often in the picture but when one has two balanced hands with, in combination, values for 3N, almost any bidding method works. It’s finding good minor suit games or, especially, slams where a good inverted minor structure works. By devoting 1C 2C 2M to looking for a major suit fit, one is using two economical bids that can be put to a much better use if 2C denies a major, as it does. (In my experience) for the majority of good players who use inverted minors.

I’ve posted my preferred inverted minor structure at least twice…invented by one of the all time great bidding theorists, it’s the best I’ve tried, and I’ve played quite a few inverted minor structures.

[Cyberyeti]

Inverted minors can work really well, but they depend on the system you are dropping them into.

Clearly there is a HUGE difference between what you can play if your club is always 4 and can't be minimum and balanced, and the US 2 card club strong NT type system.

I don't think you can play non GF inverted minors, allowing 4M in a strong NT setting, but you can easily in weak and we do.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-January-02, 13:44, said:

I’ve posted my preferred inverted minor structure at least twice…invented by one of the all time great bidding theorists, it’s the best I’ve tried, and I’ve played quite a few inverted minor structures.

I've read the structure you posted before and think it's excellent, though I've come across structures that I consider superior. If I'm not mistaken I did write about them before, but I might be misremembering. It is worth pointing out that all these structures have something in common: they are quite a lot of work, but have excellent returns on that effort.

STNJN, on 2026-January-02, 10:31, said:

Playing 5 and strong , with inverted minor suit raises , and talking about the raise , just in Clubs , for convenience . After 1C - 2C 2H/S are game forcing 5/4 . 2NT 11-14 balanced . 3NT 18/19 balanced so you lose the ability to invite in NT. All I can think of is to bid step one as weak no trump giving up the 1C - 2C - 2D as a 5/4 C/D GF. Anyone got any other ideas

There are a lot of other ideas available, but they are not simple natural structures. I think it's good that you are showing shape (rather than stoppers). In general I think there's a huge gap between a beginner inverted minor structure, an advanced inverted minor structure and an expert inverted minor structure. My estimate is that your structure is advanced - you're establishing the degree of fit, the strength of the hands (demanding that a new suit bid is game forcing) and the hand type. If you want to push this structure with artificiality, there is a lot of room for improvement here! As an obvious example, if 1♣ is frequently 3 cards (or perhaps even 2), it is common to require that responder have 5(+) clubs for the inverted minor raise. It is rare that opener now has an unbalanced hand with primary clubs on an uncontested auction - one simply doesn't have 10-card fits¹ at the 2-level in uncontested auctions these days. So you might wish to compress certain unbalanced responses into a smaller artificial set, saving more space for bidding with different types of balanced hands.

Cyberyeti, on 2026-January-02, 15:04, said:

I don't think you can play non GF inverted minors, allowing 4M in a strong NT setting, but you can easily in weak and we do.

I think you can, though you may choose not to. The gains are limited and it only works in a system with quite a bit of effort put into it.


¹Some 4♣441 opposite 5♣ is possible but low frequency, normally unbalanced primary clubs means opener has 5(+) along with responder's 5(+).

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2026-January-02, 13:44, said:

Why are you investing so much into showing opener’s 4 card major?

It's Moyse's original issue. The Roth-Stoners insisted as a matter of religious faith that they must go down in 3NT or five of a minor, rather than making game in a 4-3 major fit.

What is wrong with opener showing a _strong_ major, along with a good 5+ minor? Those hands play wonderfully in a 4-3.

[gszes]

All systems make tradeoffs and I am perfectly willing to miss an occasional slam that I could not bid because I did not know what opener's 4 card major was after an inverted minor sequence. I say this because I have a lot of trouble dreaming up a hand where I cannot safely show our double fit by simply bidding 1M (x Axxx x AKxxxxx I am bidding 1H over 1C) and raising the minor later.
If you wish to pursue a simple concept just show stoppers and if NT seems inadvisable you at least have a minor contract you can fall back on.

[jillybean]

This discussion has been ongoing for over a decade, I think it is a matter of style, preference and agreement.
I am in favour of 1C 2C(limit+) may have a 4 card major with one condition, responder must have a gf to bid 2C, with inv+ we bid the 4cM.

Yeti, why can I play this as non gf in a weak nt setting and not in strong?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-January-05, 22:09, said:

I am in favour of 1C 2C(limit+) may have a 4 card major with one condition, responder must have a gf to bid 2C, with inv+ we bid the 4cM.

At first sight you might as well go the whole hog and play 1C - 2C as a "2/1" GF with 5+C-4M or clubs or balanced without 4M like a normal Italian
That also frees up 1D - 2D as natural which has worked well for over a century and meets LoTT too.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-January-06, 14:04, said:

At first sight you might as well go the whole hog and play 1C - 2C as a "2/1" GF with 5+C-4M or clubs or balanced without 4M like a normal Italian
That also frees up 1D - 2D as natural which has worked well for over a century and meets LoTT too.

I LOVE that, but I am swimming against the tide.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2026-January-05, 22:09, said:

Yeti, why can I play this as non gf in a weak nt setting and not in strong?

Because opener doesn't need a cheap bid to deal with 12-14 balanced if playing weak NT. 1♣ is 5+ or 4414 if minimum for us and not (332)5.

[DavidKok]

1♣ (2+, contains a weak notrump)-2♣ (invitational+, 5+ cards); ?

• 2♦: 12-14 balanced with at most 3 clubs, offering to play 2M in the Moysian, 2NT or 3♣ depending on responder's hand.
  
• 2♥: 11-14 with a singleton or void somewhere, not strong enough to force to game.
  
• 2♠: (14)15-17 any 5422 or 6322, forcing to game (very rare).
  
• 2NT: 12-14 balanced with 3-4 clubs, offering a choice of contract between 2NT, 3♣ or game/slam investigation. Not forcing.
  
• 3♣: 11-14 (semi)balanced with 4(+) clubs, choosing clubs over other partscores. Not forcing.
  
• 3♦: Game forcing 4(+)♣ no splinter.
  
• 3♥: Game forcing 0-1♥ splinter.
  
• 3♠: Game forcing 0-1♠ splinter.
  
• 3NT: 18-19 balanced at most 3 clubs (otherwise bid 3♦).
  
• 4♣: Game forcing 0-1♦ splinter, optionally zoom immediately to show controls.

It's very possible to play an invitational(+) 1♣-2♣ in a strong NT system, saving space, finding the right partscores, rightsiding the contracts, investigating COG and slam and re-invites, ánd find 4-4 major fits a good amount of the time when one exists (though it's not the main purpose of the structure). Unfortunately, it's a lot of work.

By contrast I would make 1♦-2♦ forcing to 3♦. Since the opening usually shows 5 and always an unbalanced hand, and the response shows 4+ or even 3+, the priorities and the structure are completely different.

[Cyberyeti]

David - what do you rebid on a 2434 minimum ? Also it makes a HUGE difference if 2♣ shows 5 which it doesn't for us (also does it deny 4M?).

[DavidKok]

3♣, 11-14 (semi)balanced with 4+♣.
The original structure of this inverted minor is based on 2♣ showing 4(+), I just changed the club requirements a little for opener. The three rebids for minimum balanced hands cater to different lengths without issue. If you prefer you can change it back, of course.