[pescetom]

One of the more interesting hands from yesterday.

Let's start with these two possibilities:

a)

---

b)

---

[mw64ahw]

a) 1♣ 3+?
b) 3♥ stopper ask
c) slam potential in ♣

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2026-August-20, 15:26, said:

a) 1♣ 3+?

It says 2+
Only in 4=4=3=2, 1♦ would always be 4+.
1NT 15-17, in this case no 5cM.

mw64ahw, on 2026-August-20, 15:26, said:

b) 3♥ stopper ask

I would take it as a GF raise in clubs, but that is one of the many reasons of post.

[paulg]

On the first auction this looks like a simple 2♣, an inverted minor raise and we'll go from here. Of course there will often be doubt about how forcing this is, but I expect you'll be rebidding 3♦ so that will not matter.

For the second auction, I think the most common continuations (in the UK) after a two-suited overcall when both suits are known is "cheapest cue is a good raise, higher cue is FG other major". This might not be optimal but at least it is simple, so 3♦ would show good clubs here.

With my wife, who is int/adv and plays few conventions, I would respond 3♦ to show a good hand, probably with club support, and a stop in diamonds (when there are two suits to cue, bid the suit you hold), which rates to work better on this hand.

An option is to double as you have a good diamond holding. But your heart length means that you will probably find it difficult to catch them so making a more descriptive call feels better to me.

When playing a short club I always expect partner to hold a weak no trump so, initially, I am not thinking about a club slam; perhaps later.

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2026-August-20, 15:46, said:

On the first auction this looks like a simple 2♣, an inverted minor raise and we'll go from here. Of course there will often be doubt about how forcing this is, but I expect you'll be rebidding 3♦ so that will not matter.

In Italy nobody plays inverted minors as such (1♦-2♦ is good old natural) but 1♣-2♣ is a "2/1" GF (analogous to 1♦-2♣) which seems automatic here.

paulg, on 2026-August-20, 15:46, said:

For the second auction, I think the most common continuations (in the UK) after a two-suited overcall when both suits are known is "cheapest cue is a good raise, higher cue is FG other major". This might not be optimal but at least it is simple, so 3♦ would show good clubs here.

Interesting, thanks. My understanding of traditional Unusual over Unusual is that the cheaper cue is an invitational raise and the higher cue is a GF raise.

[mike777]

1) It seems too easy 3H splinter. Hopefully splinters are allowed in Italy, smile
2) I bid whatever our game forcing bid is over unusual NT, for me that is a cuebid in the higher ranking suit the opponent is showing, in this case 3H. Double is an option, however, will probably lead to a more confused auction for nonexpert level players...but could be very profitable if handled well.

[akwoo]

I have been convinced that the right way to play UvU is that the cheaper cue is a gf showing the 4th suit and the higher cue is limit+ raise.

[mikeh]

When both opp suits are known, my preference is that a cuebid of the lower known suit is for the lower of the other suits. So over 1C (2N) for te reds, 3D is a (really good) limit raise or better…it has to be really good because we may end up in 4C opposite a minimum opener without real clubs…and 3H is limit or better in spades. 3C is competitive and 3S is sort of like a weak two in spades with good spades. KQ109xx and a side king would be roughly what opener should assume.

To me it makes no sense not to maximize our options and using the two cuebids to show raises of opener’s suit seems strange to me. What do people do to show spades?

Note that this is the worst situation, because partner opened 1C. After, say, 1D (2N) showing clubs and hearts, 3C as a limit+ in diamonds is easy.

I play the same when they make a Michaels cue over 1m since both suits are known. After 1M (2M), we only know one suit..the other major. Now a cue of the known suit is limit+ in partner’s suit and we play transfers to show a minor…2N shows long clubs and at least competitive values, 3C shows diamonds. One can use 3D for whatever one chooses

[jillybean]

I've just started playing with partner who likes over (2nt) the lower known suit is a limit+ raise in partner's suit, the higher is gf in the 'other suit'.

I have no strong opinion, the frequency is rare. The most important thing is that we have, and remember our agreements.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 inv. minor raise or 3H splinter
#2 either 3D as good club raise or 4H splinter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pescetom]

 mike777, on 2026-August-20, 16:30, said:

1) It seems too easy 3H splinter. Hopefully splinters are allowed in Italy, smile

Splinters over a minor opening are not widespread here, most play 3M as a weak jump (and some play 4om as Kickback). But if you have the splinter then fine.

 mike777, on 2026-August-20, 16:30, said:

2) I bid whatever our game forcing bid is over unusual NT, for me that is a cuebid in the higher ranking suit the opponent is showing, in this case 3H.

Looking around the Internet (and indeed this thread) I see there is a babel of different agreements about how to play the two cues offered by opponents (which is which, both Inv+ or one GF, one explicitly about 4th suit or both implicitly, etc.). As Jillybean says, the important thing is that you are both singing off the same sheet.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2026-August-20, 16:13, said:

In Italy nobody plays inverted minors as such (1♦-2♦ is good old natural) but 1♣-2♣ is a "2/1" GF (analogous to 1♦-2♣) which seems automatic here.



Interesting, thanks. My understanding of traditional Unusual over Unusual is that the cheaper cue is an invitational raise and the higher cue is a GF raise.

The first "unusual" meant 2-suited. That's how it was 40 years ago, anyway.

[pescetom]

So let's progress it, trying not to peek the other hand...

a1) after a Nebulous 2♣ or an Inverted Minor raise

---

a2) after a Splinter raise

---

b) after an Unusual over Unusual raise

---

[apollo1201]

Late in the thread but ok with others, 2C inverter in a (or 1D if playing natural, I would fear 3H is a weak preempt a bit like a 3H opening but even less strength with the ‘protection’’ that partner opened), and whatever cue you use for the strong raise.

After an inverted, which I play as GF, 2NT nat (12-14 or 18-19 who will make another move), partner then shows the sg H and Axx will make me abandon NT and reach a small slam in C:
2NT - 3C relay to 3D to introduce sg
3D - 3S (sg H, 3H sg S and 3NT sg D, NF)
4C (reject NT) - 4D (interested in more)
And then someone will soon launch Blackwood and we are done

I guess it would be the same after the splinter.

On the 2nd hand; our hand has grown nicer but it the cue Is limit + I do not how to say it other then 5C facing the limit. Unless 4C is min, and pass is ok for game considering partner forced us to 4C anyway? A few cues will take us to 6C but not as confidently I guess.

[WasWinM]

I've never understood our preoccupation with stoppers after inverted minor. If we have a weak NT hand, why don't we simply bid 2NT and leave the other bids for better uses?

[apollo1201]

 WasWinM, on 2026-August-21, 10:01, said:

I've never understood our preoccupation with stoppers after inverted minor. If we have a weak NT hand, why don't we simply bid 2NT and leave the other bids for better uses?

+1
Unless partner shows an unbalanced hand, when we are bal, the minor game has 9 tricks and not 11.

[DavidKok]

I like (a slight modification of) Ted Brashler's inverted minor structure, though it's complicated.

Currently I play inverted minor as GF, just to be rid of the problem. It's not best, but it is very practical.

[mikeh]

bluenikki, on 2026-August-21, 04:38, said:

The first "unusual" meant 2-suited. That's how it was 40 years ago, anyway.

Al Roth wrote about playing 2N (as a jump over their opening bid of 1M) as both minors in a tournament report he wrote back in 1948. I have pretty much all of The Bridge Worlds from the early 1940s on. So I think it started as for both minors and became ‘two lowest un bids’ some years later. Afaik, and I’ve read a lot of bridge material plus I was playing since the early 1970s, 2N was never ‘any two suits other than opener’s’ but of course there are regional variations so maybe it had that meaning in some regions. It was never ‘standard’…for example I never saw it described as such in any material I’ve read.

[mikeh]

WasWinM, on 2026-August-21, 10:01, said:

I've never understood our preoccupation with stoppers after inverted minor. If we have a weak NT hand, why don't we simply bid 2NT and leave the other bids for better uses?

It’s common throughout the history of this game for early agreements both to become ‘standard’ and to be later seen as inefficient. In some cases, ‘standard’ changes to become better but in others a form of inertia seems to take hold and much of the bridge playing population never moves on.


Stayman (invented by Rapee but soon known as Stayman’ was quite different from what we now think of when we agree to play stayman. Negative doubles, originally known as Sputnik, are un recognizable compared to the early writeups of the idea.

Jacoby 2N is sort of in-between. It’s my impression that virtually all club level players still show or deny shortness and ver 2N while virtually all good players use opener’s first rebid to describe shape.

Inverted minors are similar…I’d be surprised if I encountered any expert pair showing stoppers after the inverted raise but I’d be equally surprised if I saw a club level player who used a more efficient method.

Carding: standard methods are quite clearly not as good as upside down, especially in terms of attitude. The difference is real but not large, and most people like to stick with what they…and partners…know. I will say that most of the club players around my area play udca but that wasn’t true 30 years ago.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2026-August-21, 10:28, said:

Al Roth wrote about playing 2N (as a jump over their opening bid of 1M) as both minors in a tournament report he wrote back in 1948. I have pretty much all of The Bridge Worlds from the early 1940s on. So I think it started as for both minors and became ‘two lowest un bids’ some years later. Afaik, and I’ve read a lot of bridge material plus I was playing since the early 1970s, 2N was never ‘any two suits other than opener’s’ but of course there are regional variations so maybe it had that meaning in some regions. It was never ‘standard’…for example I never saw it described as such in any material I’ve read.

I meant the first "unusual" in "unusual over unusual." The second "unusual" meant any 2-suited defensive gadget.