Forced Response to a Convenient Minor Opening?

Question

My bridge club plays by a rule that an opening of a convenient minor requires a demand response by the partner unless intervening opponent does an overcall.

Situation:

1. My partner opened with 1-Diamond; opponent passed.

2. As Responder I had no 4-card major, 3-cards each in the minor suit, and less than 6 points. We play that a minor response to a minor opening implies that the responder has a 5-card minor suit, such as the bidding: 1H; pass; 2D (5-card diamond suit)

3. But in my case I did not have 5 diamonds or anything, really. After fretting whether to pass (against our rules) or bid "something" (leading to a disaster), I bid 1-NT expecting/hoping partner to put contract in her best suit.

4. My partner (the opener) responded 2-NT and the bidding: 1D; pass; 1NT; pass/ 2NT; pass; pass; pass And we went down big time.

To me - and hoping partner would realize it, my 1NT implied a bust hand and she was to then pick her best suit. But didn't work that way

Any advice how we can properly handle this situation the next time? What is the ACL rule for responding to a "convenient minor opening"? Is a demand response the rule?

Answer 1

First of all, the Laws of bridge do not mandate any particular bidding system and except in dealing with an irregularity, do not mandate any particular bid.

Secondly, it is very unusual, and not permitted in ACBL open games, for the bridge club to mandate a particular system, much less a particular bid in a given bidding sequence.

Thirdly the question says:

I had no 4-card major, 3-cards each in the minor suit

But this is not possible, as it leaves at most 12 cards in the hand. There must be at least one 4-card suit in the most balanced possible hand (4, 3, 3, 3)

Fourthly, most players using convenient minor that I have played with or against do not bid with a bust, even if partner opens 1 club. They will strain to make an otherwise borderline bid. If your agreement is that 1C must not be passed, then you should discuss what bid(s) to make with a sub-minimum hand. I would favor bidding a 4-card (or longer) major, or 1D with no such major. Responder would be free to pass any rebid that is not forcing (A bid of 2H or 2S would be a reverse, and 2NT would be a strong jump, and any of those would be forcing.) However, other agreements are possible.

Answer 2

Playing in North America, I have noticed two main approaches to responding to a convenient minor opening:

• Only respond with normal responding strength (usually given as 6 HCP).
• Respond with any hand that has an ace, a king, or shortness in the minor opened.

The first is covered by many bidding books, so let us discuss the second.

First of all, you must not respond 1NT without at least 5 HCP; this will lead to disaster, as you have learned. When you are broke, your first priority is to bid a four-card major; if you do not have one and partner has bid 1C, you may bid 1D and pass partner's 1-level rebid (or 2C -- other 2-level bids are reverses and thus forcing).

The real issue comes when partner has opened 1D, and you hold a hand like Jxx xxx x xxxxxx. This is the worst case, and probably the least bad action is to pass and hope that your left-hand opponent comes into the auction. The only alternative is 1NT, but this is a terrible alternative (you must not bid 2C, as this must promise strength).

Answer 3

Other answers are correct. "Convenient minor", even "could be 2" 1♣ (if 4=4=3=2 exactly), are not demand bids and can (and should!) be passed with appropriate dead minimums.

If you want to just read the "but here's something new, rather than support for other answers", go to the bold bit.

But many players have this "rule" - basically "It's not forcing, but you can't pass!" Nobody mentions it until something goes wrong, of course.

It's only a problem if they are in fact short and end up playing 1♣ on a 2-2 fit where anything else would be better (they don't realize they might be doubled and even -300 in 1♣-3 is better than -500 in 1♥X-2, or that the opponents might bid if you found a fit, and be +400 or +600 in game) but boy will they complain to partner about it.

For some reason those players also complain when it goes 1♣-1♥; 2NT-p and partner puts down that 1-count with some clubs. Especially if they have 4 or 5 this time, and 1♣ would have been a very comfortable contract.

Players like this also are very reluctant to (or annoyed when partner) raise the "convenient minor", especially if it "could be 2"). The convolutions they go to are usually worse than any 3♣ passed out on a 5=2 fit would ever be.

I don't know how you win playing with those partners; except maybe by not.

Now, stronger players also "will bid on anything" - but they know when the odds are on there being a better contract they can stop in; they know that there are times (like that 18 balanced) where it will be wrong and it will be their fault; and they are better at discouraging partner from flying to the moon (1♣= for +70 is still better than 5♥-1 for -100!) - and their partners will be more capable of reading said discouragement, because they "expect" it. But even then, they know when to pass, too.

Also, system may be a factor in "bidding on nothing". For instance I play a weak (12-14) NT in my primary partnership; more often than not, partner's convenient minor is a strong NT - that everybody else in the room is opening 1NT. Assuming 1NT plays about as well as 1m, we won't score better in 1m; and at matchpoints, +70 in a room full of +90s (or +90 or +110 in a room full of +120s; it happens!) is the same zero as -200. Of course, when partner doesn't have the strong NT, or has the 18-19 instead, I look foolish.

But there's another issue with this "agreement" - Full Disclosure.

If it truly is a demand bid, then according to the definitions in the Convention Charts it is "Forcing" by agreement. That means, in the ACBL:

• you must Pre-Alert this agreement ("a 1-level Opening Bid that is ... Forcing");
• This allows the opponents to have a meaning for "pass and come in" knowing that they will get a chance, that they don't necessarily get without that;
• This information must be in any explanation of any response that could be a hand that "would have passed except for the forcing opening";
• if "convenient minor" includes opening a 2 card suit that is not exactly 4 cards in each major and 3 diamonds, it is also not Natural. That also must be in the Pre-Alert, and allows for much freer defences (and much lower Alert requirements, especially of bids in that suit) from the opponents.

As most of the people who "play" this "it's not forcing, but you can't pass!" treatment only are willing to complain to partner, after the hand (or after the auction, if they're really frustrated), rather than ensure the opponents know their agreements; it opens up another way to get a poor score: "Director, if we had known..."

Answer 4

I've played systems like this, but only One Club demands a rebid of one diamond. In this situation,the opener will bid one of a four card major, or 1NT, or pass the 1 diamond bid with four diamonds. This is still too high opposite a bust hand, but no worse that a "weak NT" opposite a bust.

One diamond can be passed by a bust hand, because the bust bid would be 1NT (leaving the majors open for "natural" bids). The ABCL frowns on bidding systems where the "bust" bid is higher than the one suit rank above the opening bid (2 clubs, 2 diamonds is okay, 2 clubs, 2NT (bust) is frowned upon), because it takes up bidding space.

Besides, your team has left more room for the opponents to overcall following the approach I outlined.