The Inverted Minor Suit Raises, better known as Inverted Minors, is defined as a treatment and was devised for the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, which originated with Mr. Edgar Kaplan and Mr. Alfred Sheinwold. Many bridge partnerships have decided to employ the Inverted Minors treatment as part of their partnership agreement. The concept behind Inverted Minors is considered to be only a reversal of the single and double Minor suit raises as incorporated in the 5-Card American Standard bidding system.
Principle of the Concept
| 1. |
A single raise of the Minor suit of the opener is strong and forcing, and shows generally at least 10 plus high card points and a 5-card plus Minor suit support. (Note: in the original version an Inverted Minor double raise is treated as unlimited.) |
| 2. |
A double raise is weak and obstructive, and shows 8 high card points or fewer in strength and a 5-card plus Minor suit support. |
Note: The original concept includes the requirement that the auction be opened by one partner in order that the conventional method can be initiated. If one partner has previously passed, then the original concept states that the support of any opened Minor suit reverts back to being standard.
Note: Many more experienced bridge players on the national and international scene have made changes to the three types of raises, namely the forcing raise, the invitational raise, and the preemptive raise. Among these changes is the fact that the single raise is to be treated as game-forcing as opposed to the original version whereby the single raise is considered to be only one-round forcing.
Note: Other variations contain the agreement that the double Minor suit raise is a limit raise, while other variations consider the double Minor suit raise as unlimited. The original version stated only that the double Minor suit raise must contain at least 10 high card points as minimum values and no upper limit was established.
In order to apply the Inverted Minor Suit Raise, the responder should have at least a 5-card support of the opener's Minor suit, in case the opener was forced to open a 3-card Minor suit.
The responder should not hold a 4-card higher-ranking suit, the bid of which takes priority. This is especially true for all those partnerships using 5-card Major suit openings.
The following examples show how the Inverted Minor raises are used, and illustrate how the structure of the responder's holding should be when making a single raise.
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
|
|
1  |
|
2 |
The responder, with the structure of the above example, would bid 2 Diamonds, showing at least 10 plus high card points. This bid is one-round forcing. There is also no 4-card higher-ranking suit, which meets the parameters for the employment of Inverted Minor Suit Raises.
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
2 |
The responder, with the structure of the above example, would bid 2 Diamonds, showing at least 10 plus high card points. This bid is one-round forcing. Again, there is also no 4-card higher-ranking suit, which meets the parameters for the employment of Inverted Minor Suit Raises.
Since the single raise is considered forcing, the opener has several options. Some partnerships play that the sequence 1 - 2 is forcing to game. However, according to the original concept the following continuances are as follows, a few of which are not game-forcing.
All bidding sequences should be viewed as after the initial bidding sequence of 1 - 2 without competition.
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
Meaning |
| 1 |
|
2 |
|
|
2  |
|
|
|
This rebid by opener is one-round forcing and promises additional strength and values plus a 3/4-card Heart suit. It is generally considered to be game forcing. |
2  |
|
|
|
This rebid by opener is one-round forcing and promises additional strength and values plus a 3/4-card Spade suit. It is generally considered to be game forcing. |
| 2NT |
|
|
|
This rebid by opener is non-forcing and promises a minimum and balanced to semi-balanced holding with only a 3-card Diamond suit. The responder is required to pass with a minimum and semi-balanced holding; otherwise the responder rebids the Minor suit at the three level. |
|
|
3 |
|
This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Club suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing. |
|
|
3 |
|
This rebid by the responder indicates a holding unsuitable for No Trump with minimum to moderate values, and no stopper in any higher-ranking suit. |
|
|
3 |
|
This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Heart suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing. |
|
|
3 |
|
This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Spade suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing. |
| 3 |
|
|
|
A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution. |
|
|
3 |
|
A rebid by the responder after a 3 rebid by the opener shows no interest in continuing the auction and promises no stopper(s) in the higher-ranking suits. This rebid is considered non-forcing. |
|
|
3 |
|
A rebid in another suit by the responder promises full opening values and a stopper in the suit bid. |
|
|
3 |
|
A rebid in another suit by the responder promises full opening values and a stopper in the suit bid. |
| 3 |
|
|
|
A raise in the Diamond suit by the opener promises minimum values and a 4-card Diamond suit. This bid is considered non-forcing. The concept behind this tactic should be considered to be purely obstructive in nature. |
| 3 |
|
|
|
A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution. |
|
|
3 |
|
This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Spade suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing. |
|
|
3NT |
|
Since the rebid by the opener of 3 Hearts is one-round forcing, the responder is forced to bid. A response of 3 No Trump can indicate, per partnership agreement, no stopper in the Spade suit or a semi-stopper in the Spade suit. If the opener has a stopper in the Spade suit, then the opener will pass. If the opener has no stopper in the Spade suit, then the opener may or may not bid 4 Diamonds. |
|
|
4 |
|
A rebid of 4 Diamonds by the responder shows no stopper in the Spade suit and no stopper in the Club suit. This response is non-forcing since the opener has shown no stopper in the Club suit. |
| 3 |
|
|
|
A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution. |
|
|
3NT |
|
This rebid by the responder promises a stopper in the Club suit and the Heart suit. Full opening values are also strongly indicated. |
|
|
4 |
|
A rebid of 4 Diamonds by the responder shows no stopper in the other unnamed suits. This response is non-forcing. |
| 3NT |
|
|
|
This rebid by the opener promises a balanced distribution and 18-19 points, a holding too weak for a 2 No Trump opening and too strong for a 1 No Trump opening with a 15-17 point range. For partnerships playing a 16-18 point range for 1 No Trump, then this rebid promises 19-20 points. This rebid strongly promises a 3-card Diamond suit. |
| 5 |
|
|
|
This rebid by the opener promises very strong values, an unbalanced distribution, and a lack of stoppers in at least two of the unnamed suits. |
These rebids and responses can be varied and modified to meet the requirements of the individual partnership.
Possible Rebids by the Responder
The possible rebids by the responder after the opener has rebid either Hearts or Spades are shown below. It must be noted that these rebids can be altered or modified by the individual partnership as seen fit. However, the general guidelines are outlined as follows and the reader should read the schematic correctly since both Minor suits are combined:
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
Meaning |
| 1/1 |
|
2/2 |
|
|
| 2/2 |
|
2NT |
|
Once the opener forces the responder to further describe the holding, a 2NT rebid shows a natural Inverted Minor raise and no additional values. The responder does not promise stoppers in either or both of the unbid suits. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1/1 |
|
2/2 |
|
|
| 2/2 |
|
3/3 |
|
This rebid by the responder shows a minimum single raise, which is unsuitable for play in No Trump. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1/1 |
|
2/2 |
|
|
| 3/3 |
|
3/3 |
|
Once the opener, after the initial sequence, strongly promises a stopper (see above), then the responder can show additional strength in the other Minor suit. This information could assist the partnership to reach a final contract of 3 No Trump. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1/1 |
|
2/2 |
|
|
| 2/2 |
|
3/3 |
|
This rebid by the responder shows normally a good 3-card Heart or Spade suit. If this forced rebid also shows a stopper in the bid suit, then this is normally considered to be a partnership agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1/1 |
|
2/2 |
|
|
| 2/2 |
|
3NT |
|
This forced rebid, also a jump response, by the responder promises stoppers (one or more) in the unbid suits. |
The double raise is generally considered to be not game forcing or even one-round forcing. Following are examples of this double raise and when it should be employed:
Example 1:
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
3 |
In this example, the responder bids 3 Diamonds to show 8 or fewer high card points, the necessary five cards support in Diamonds, and no 4-card higher-ranking suit.
Example 2:
| Opener |
|
Responder |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
3 |
In this example, the responder bids 3 Diamonds to show 8 or fewer high card points, and the necessary five cards support in Diamonds. Since the responder would not bid a 4-card Major suit, if he had a 4-card Major suit, he cannot bid owing to the lack of values. Therefore, the double raise used in the Inverted Minors treatment is purely obstructive. The opponents, if they wish to compete, must enter the bidding on the three level.
Note: Opponents love to intervene and overcall and/or double. It is generally accepted and agreed upon by partnership understanding that the Inverted Minors treatment becomes then inactive and that the system is off. Any raises of a Minor suit opening and/or the bid of a new suit becomes then standard.
It is of the utmost importance that the partnership realize that both Mr. Edgar Kaplan and Mr. Alfred Sheinwold both agreed that if there were any interference from the opponents before the responder has a chance to use the Inverted Minors treatment, then the Inverted Minors agreement is off. Once the opponents enter the bidding before the responder has a chance to bid, then the meanings of the Minor suit raises become standard.
Note: However, many partnerships have agreed to continue to employ the Inverted Minors conventional method if an overcall by an opponent on the one level in a suit or after an immediate Takeout Double does not interfere with the application of the Inverted Minors conventional method.
Note: As stated above in the introduction to the Inverted Minors conventional method, it is only by partnership agreement whether or not the Inverted Minors conventional method continues to be in effect by a previously passed hand.
Note: The general guideline is as follows for the partnership: After a single Minor suit raise, if either partner returns to 3 or 4 of the agreed Minor suit or 2 No Trump, then this continuance is not forcing (except if either partner has bid 3 No Trump prior to a return to 4 of the Minor suit) and indicates minimum values for his/her previous bidding. Therefore, any other (re)bid that does not equal game is forcing for one round.
If you wish to include this feature, or any other feature, of the game of bridge in your partnership agreement, then please make certain that the concept is understood by both partners. Be aware whether or not the feature is alertable or not and whether an announcement should or must be made. Check with the governing body and/or the bridge district and/or the bridge unit prior to the game to establish the guidelines applied. Please include the particular feature on your convention card in order that your opponents are also aware of this feature during the bidding process, since this information must be made known to them according to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. We do not always include the procedure regarding Alerts and/or Announcements, since these regulations are changed and revised during time by the governing body. It is our intention only to present the information as concisely and as accurately as possible.