[Sevogle]

My partner came across this and wants to use it instead of traditional Inverted Minor responses of 2 or 3. Anyone familiar with this?

[DavidKok]

I play something similar but slightly different ranges over 1♣ (2+). The exact definitions of the three raises are:

• 2NT - "Even if you have a strong balanced hand (17-19 for us, 18-19 for most) I don't think 3NT is making. Put us in some level of clubs, partner!". Typically shows 0-6.
  
• 3♣ - "If you have the 18-19 balanced hand you may bid 3NT. With unbalanced clubs 5♣ is possible". Typically shows 6-9.
  
• 2♣ - Anything stronger than 3♣, game might be on even if partner doesn't have the big balanced option.

You could play the same over 1♦, but e.g. 3=3=2=5 or 3=3=3=4 10-11 hands might be stuck for a bid (or, depending on system, even (32)=2=6 or 3=3=1=6 hands with a so-so 6-card suit). We do play the same structure in competition, i.e. 1♦-(1♠)-?, but not without interference.

[P_Marlowe]

No, but it gets played.

I did not read this thorougly:
https://www.bridgewe...te%20Minors.pdf

[P_Marlowe]

No, but it gets played.

I did not read this thorougly:
https://www.bridgewe...te%20Minors.pdf

[helene_t]

We had a discussion about this many years ago.

In a system in which a 1m opening is likely to be 12-14 OR 18-19, it makes sense to distinguish between hands that
1) just want to play 3m (0-5)
2) want to play 3N opposite a balanced 18-19 (6-10)

The reason for putting the very weak hand in 2NT is that since you are not going to play 3NT anyway, you can bid 2NT without risk of wrongsiding the contract.

Justin Lall argued that it is backwards. You should bid 3m with the very weak hands to put maximum pressure on the opponents, and don't worry about rightsiding a 3NT contract. Often it doesn't matter who declares anyway.

Then again, maybe you could argue that you also want to put maximum pressure with the 6-10 hands, and they may be more frequent (especially if opener's RHO is a passed hand).