Responding to convenient minor

[Howard Brazee]

If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

[Adam Beneschan]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 2:13:37 PM UTC-7, Howard Brazee wrote:
> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

A convenient minor as opposed to what? A minor-suit bid that guarantees a four-card suit? I don't think anyone plays that way any more, if they ever did. Even the old 1944 Goren book I learned from, which taught a four-card major system, said you could open 1C on a three-card suit sometimes.

In any event, I don't see how your agreements about minor-suit openings are going to change your major-suit responses. If you give us an example hand for responder, and tell us why you're thinking it makes a difference whether partner's minor is "convenient" or something else, we might be able to give a better answer.

-- Adam

[Bertil]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:13:37 PM UTC-4, Howard Brazee wrote:
> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
>
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

There is a convention, the name which I can't remember,
that lets you respond 1D to 1C with at least one 4-card major,
and also stipulates that 1 M shows at least a 5-card suit.

Bertil

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

>On Friday, October 5, 2012 2:13:37 PM UTC-7, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
>> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?
>
>A convenient minor as opposed to what? A minor-suit bid that
>guarantees a four-card suit? I don't think anyone plays that way any
>more, if they ever did.

I do.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 5, 5:13 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

Not at all. Later on in the auction, if you are facing a _close_
decision, you might value a minor honor in his first suit a little
more than you would one in an unbid suit. However, it doesn't change
your initial response.

--
Will in New Haven

[Bertil]

I just found the 'convention'. It's the Kennedy Method/Convention.
It dates back to 1965 with the book 'The Kennedy System of Bridge".
Allan Truscott wrote an article about it.The "Bridgeguys" detail it.

Bertil

[jonathan23]

Howard Brazee wrote:

> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

Based on this limited information, my answer would be "it shouldn't."
But what system are you playing, what is a "strong" hand, and what
kinds of hands does partner have to open with a convenient minor?

Usually with a strong hand there's no problem because you know you will
bid freely more than once to try to find the right contract.

It's the weaker hands where you may have to give preference on the
second round that you might worry about, and in those situations
partner's rebid will usually reveal whether his first minor suit bid
was "convenient" or not. If parnter opens a minor and then bids a new
suit after your response then the minor probably wasn't a convenient
bid (or shouldn't have been). If partner rebids in notrump or raises
your suit, the minor suit opening may have been convenient but then
partner is limited and you should know what to do next.

--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA

[Tom]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:19ju68td00q4lemkr...@4ax.com:

> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

This is slightly off topic, but there is an opening bid system called
Montreal Relay for one level suit bid devised by Eric Kokish. Opener
must open 1C without a 5 card major. Responder with 6-9 HCP bids
1D/1H/1S with a 5 card suit, else 1N. I know of it because it is popular
with a lot of old folks in the East Valley of Phoenix.

See http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/MontrealRelayBidsTimm.html .

My analysis: It has a slight advantage of finding a 5-3 major suit early
but I get grins and good boards frequently by overcalling 1C,
particularly pre-empts, because all they seem to know is the opening and
responding parts of the convention. I strongly suggest not adopting it.

Tom Reid

[Sid]

"Bertil" wrote in message
news:4e3a0032-4a77-40c9...@googlegroups.com...

=================

And what do you respond to partner's 1C with
Kxx, xx, KJ9xx, xxx ?

Sid

[Bertil]

Why not 1NT, or would you like to be in a diamond contract?

Bertil

[Co Wiersma]

Op 6-10-2012 19:04, Tom schreef:

Oddly, I know what is here shown as Montreal Relay as "The club System"
, and some very old people where I live still play that system. ( and
its very bad indeed)
Also it has nothing to do with "convenient minor"

To the best of my knowledge, Montreal Relay is something totally different.
Being the 1D response to a 1C opening bid showing "no 5 card major"

Co Wiersma

[Bob M]

I understand the Montreal Relay to be a “Short Club” opening bid that denies a 5-card major AND a 5-card dia suit. So 1C could be a 4=4=4=1 hand. Should this 1C opener be alerted as “could be short” in an ACBL sanctioned General Conventions Chart game? Is this 1C opener forcing and is it similar in this regard to the Polish Club?
Bob M

[Co Wiersma]

Op 7-10-2012 14:28, Bob M schreef:

> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:50:47 AM UTC-4, Co Wiersma wrote:
>> Op 6-10-2012 19:04, Tom schreef:
>>
>>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>
>>> news:19ju68td00q4lemkr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
>>
>>>> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> This is slightly off topic, but there is an opening bid system called
>>
>>> Montreal Relay for one level suit bid devised by Eric Kokish. Opener
>>
>>> must open 1C without a 5 card major. Responder with 6-9 HCP bids
>>
>>> 1D/1H/1S with a 5 card suit, else 1N. I know of it because it is popular
>>
>>> with a lot of old folks in the East Valley of Phoenix.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> See http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/MontrealRelayBidsTimm.html .
>>
>>>
>>
>>> My analysis: It has a slight advantage of finding a 5-3 major suit early
>>
>>> but I get grins and good boards frequently by overcalling 1C,
>>
>>> particularly pre-empts, because all they seem to know is the opening and
>>
>>> responding parts of the convention. I strongly suggest not adopting it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Tom Reid
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oddly, I know what is here shown as Montreal Relay as "The club System"
>>
>> , and some very old people where I live still play that system. ( and
>>
>> its very bad indeed)
>>
>> Also it has nothing to do with "convenient minor"
>>
>>
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, Montreal Relay is something totally different.
>>
>> Being the 1D response to a 1C opening bid showing "no 5 card major"
>>
>>
>>
>> Co Wiersma
>

> I understand the Montreal Relay to be a �Short Club� opening bid that denies a 5-card major AND a 5-card dia suit. So 1C could be a 4=4=4=1 hand. Should this 1C opener be alerted as �could be short� in an ACBL sanctioned General Conventions Chart game? Is this 1C opener forcing and is it similar in this regard to the Polish Club?
> Bob M
>

Maybe my English is not so good , but the word "relay" make it seem to
me that you are wrong and I am right, no?

[Bob M]

I assume you mean diamonds. Yes, there are a number of players who guarantee 4+ dia when they open 1D. Usually their 1C opener may be only a doubleton club.
Bob M

[Carl]

> > I understand the Montreal Relay to be a “Short Club” opening bid that denies a 5-card major AND a 5-card dia suit. So 1C could be a 4=4=4=1 hand. Should this 1C opener be alerted as “could be short” in an ACBL sanctioned General Conventions Chart game? Is this 1C opener forcing and is it similar in this regard to the Polish Club?

>
> > Bob M
>
> >
>
>
>
> Maybe my English is not so good , but the word "relay" make it seem to
>
> me that you are wrong and I am right, no?

This is what the ACBL encyclopedia says:

MONTREAL RELAY. The idea of playing a major-suit
response to a 1♣ opening bid as a five-card suit is not
uncommon. In that context, playing 1♦ as an artificial response
makes sense. Eric Kokish devised a scheme of continuations
after the 1♦ response, characterized by playing 2♦ as
reversing values, possibly without real diamonds. Jumps by
opener to 3♦/3♥/3♠ are self-agreeing splinters.

Not the clearest description in my mind.

[Paul Hightower]

"Bob M" <bobri...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:88bd86dc-7c1d-453e...@googlegroups.com...

No, he means when he opens ANY suit, he has 4+ in that suit. This is one of
the most widely played styles in the world, though very rare in ACBL-land.

[Stu Goodgold]

You should announce "May be short" if the 1C is not forcing. You should alert if it is forcing. (per the alert chart).

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Paul Hightower]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:19ju68td00q4lemkr...@4ax.com...

> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

Can't think of how that would affect your bid -- the scoring favors major
suits, so it's normal to respond in the major in the vast majority of cases.
Where the "convenient minor" affects your response is when you have a
minimal responding hand with a weak four card major and/or three or four
cards in partner's suit. You practically never raise partner or respond 1NT
when you have even a worthless four-card major, and you'll be more likely to
respond in notrump rather than raise.

[Peter Smulders]

In it's simplest form the Montreal Relay is what Co describes, a 1D
response to a 1C opening that denies a 5-card mayor, and nothing else.
This is how it is often played out here. It does not say anything about
the diamonds, nor does it promise a 4-card mayor. It is useful in that a
1M response to 1C is definitely 5+. A disadvantage is that 1D loses it's
natural meaning.

[Peter Smulders]

On Oct 7, 2:47 pm, Co Wiersma <W...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Op 7-10-2012 14:28, Bob M schreef:
>
>

> >> To the best of my knowledge, Montreal Relay is something totally different.
>
> >> Being the 1D response to a 1C opening bid showing "no 5 card major"
>
> >> Co Wiersma
>

> > I understand the Montreal Relay to be a “Short Club” opening bid that denies a 5-card major AND a 5-card dia suit. So 1C could be a 4=4=4=1 hand. Should this 1C opener be alerted as “could be short” in an ACBL sanctioned General Conventions Chart game? Is this 1C opener forcing and is it similar in this regard to the Polish Club?

> > Bob M
>
> Maybe my English is not so good , but the word "relay" make it seem to
> me that you are wrong and I am right, no?

I am with Co. Montreal Relay basically is nothing more or less then a
1D response to 1C that denies a 5-card major. Consequently a 1M
opening guarantees a 5-card. 1C can be as short as 2 clubs. 1D is 4+.
The 1D response says nothing about the diamonds length.

[Bob M]

How can this “ one of the most widely played systems in the world” function when opener holds one of the following hands:
1. S-7542, H-9653, D-AQ6, C-AK
2. S-J542, H-J653, D-AKQ, C-AK
3. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AQ6, C-K7
4. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AKJ, C-AQ
Bob M

[David Stevenson]

Bob M wrote

>On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:34:32 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Adam Beneschan wrote

>> >A convenient minor as opposed to what? A minor-suit bid that
>> >guarantees a four-card suit? I don't think anyone plays that way any
>> >more, if they ever did.

>> I do.

>I assume you mean diamonds. Yes, there are a number of players who
>guarantee 4+ dia when they open 1D. Usually their 1C opener may be only
>a doubleton club.
>Bob M

My 1C opening shows 4+ clubs, except 1st/2nd not vulnerable.

Please explain "I assume you mean diamonds".

[David Stevenson]

Bob M wrote

>How can this “ one of the most widely played systems in the world”
>function when opener holds one of the following hands:
> 1. S-7542, H-9653, D-AQ6, C-AK

Open 1NT.

> 2. S-J542, H-J653, D-AKQ, C-AK

Open 1H.

> 3. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AQ6, C-K7

Open 1NT.

> 4. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AKJ, C-AQ

Open 1H.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 8-10-2012 15:39, David Stevenson schreef:

> Bob M wrote
>
>> How can this “ one of the most widely played systems in the world”
>> function when opener holds one of the following hands:
>> 1. S-7542, H-9653, D-AQ6, C-AK
>
> Open 1NT.
>
>> 2. S-J542, H-J653, D-AKQ, C-AK
>
> Open 1H.
>
>> 3. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AQ6, C-K7
>
> Open 1NT.
>
>> 4. S-Q542, H-Q653, D-AKJ, C-AQ
>
> Open 1H.
>

I play a system where I open all 4 with 1H

Co Wiersma

[Bob M]

Ok. From your writings I can now see that both your 1C and 1D openers show (usually) a 4+ card suit.

[Frances]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:04:51 PM UTC+1, Bob M wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 9:27:22 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote: > Bob M wrote > > >On Friday, October 5, 2012 6:34:32 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Adam Beneschan wrote > > > > >> >A convenient minor as opposed to what? A minor-suit bid that > > >> >guarantees a four-card suit? I don't think anyone plays that way any > > >> >more, if they ever did. > > > > >> I do. > > > > >I assume you mean diamonds. Yes, there are a number of players who > > >guarantee 4+ dia when they open 1D. Usually their 1C opener may be only > > >a doubleton club. > > >Bob M > > > > My 1C opening shows 4+ clubs, except 1st/2nd not vulnerable. > > > > Please explain "I assume you mean diamonds". > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways > > Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955 > > <webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412 > > bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm Ok. From your writings I can now see that both your 1C and 1D openers show (usually) a 4+ card suit.

There are (slightly less popular) systems played where 1C and 1D openers have a 5+ card suit more often than not:

- with a 4333, open 1NT or the 4-card suit depending on range
- with two 4-card suits, open the major or 1NT
- with a 4-card major, a 5-card minor and a minimum, open the major

[Mich Ravera]

"Bertil" <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab47616-32f3-41ec...@googlegroups.com...

Over here, they call it "Montreal Relay", but a better name for it is
"Stayman".

[Mich Ravera]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:19ju68td00q4lemkr...@4ax.com...

> If I have a 4 or 5 card major, and a strong hand, how does it change
> my response if my partner opens with a convenient minor?

"Convenient Minor" just means that you open 1C with 3-3 minors and 1D with
4-4 in the minors but otherwise generally your longer minor. It is an
outgrowth of the reuirement for a 1M opener to have 5 or more cards.

Compare and contrast with "Better Minor" or "1m promises 4+" or "1C may be
doubleton" or "Chicken Club".

Whether you strong jump shift, fit jump, or otherwise indicate a strong hand
and a 4-card major is a matter for you to decide with your partner. I do. A
lot of people don't without at least 5. Whether you just need to be game
forcing or whether you have to be nearly slam forcing or somewhere in
between is also a partnership choice. 13 and 17 point requirements are both
very playable. 13 gets all of the game forces off of your chest. 17 (Slam
curious) works pretty well. 19 never comes up. If you want to make a case
that some other number fits your system and tendancies better, fine.

If you are switching from a system where partner would likely have opened a
4-card major, anytime that he had one, then the switch to a convenient minor
means that you respond in a 4-card major (with or without a jiump depending
upon agreements) unless you have some really, really, really good reason to
do otherwise.

[Co Wiersma]

Op 8-10-2012 23:56, Mich Ravera schreef:

I thought that everybody agreed for the last 50 years or so, that for a
strong jumpshift its better to always have at least a good 6card suit
But maybe I am old fashioned again and there is some new thinking that I
am unaware of?

Co Wiersma

[Co Wiersma]

Op 8-10-2012 18:22, Frances schreef:

I played this summer a few times with someone this method. And it seems
very useful to me. Or at least , I liked it:)
It has some pre-emptive value
And you will find your 4-4 fit in the major faster

Co Wiersma

[Steve Willner]

A very old thread but a new topic...

On 2012-10-09 10:17 PM, Co Wiersma wrote:
> I thought that everybody agreed for the last 50 years or so, that for a
> strong jumpshift its better to always have at least a good 6card suit
> But maybe I am old fashioned again and there is some new thinking that I
> am unaware of?

As a matter of history, SJS didn't have to show a long suit, only a
strong one. That was often the only way to show great strength in a
balanced hand or with support for partner's suit. That was especially
true in Acol but also in Goren methods, for example.

I'm curious how people use SJS now. Does it always show length, or
could it be short with some hand types? I'm thinking of something like
xx AKx Axxx AKQx when partner opens 1S or maybe 1H. If you don't SJS,
what do you do? Or if my example isn't a SJS, is there another type
without great length that is?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <lq6o8l$gjr$1...@dont-email.me>,

Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:

> I'm curious how people use SJS now. Does it always show length, or
> could it be short with some hand types? I'm thinking of something like
> xx AKx Axxx AKQx when partner opens 1S or maybe 1H. If you don't SJS,
> what do you do? Or if my example isn't a SJS, is there another type
> without great length that is?

I use the Soloway style. It shows slam-invitational values and any of 3
distributions:

1. Balanced with a 5-card suit
2. Good single-suiter
3. Two-suiter where the second suit is support for partner

If opener doesn't raise, responder's next bid shows which type he has.
If he bids a new suit, it shows type 3, and the new suit shows shortness.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[RonKalf]

Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> A very old thread but a new topic...
>
> On 2012-10-09 10:17 PM, Co Wiersma wrote:
>> I thought that everybody agreed for the last 50 years or so, that for a
>> strong jumpshift its better to always have at least a good 6card suit
>> But maybe I am old fashioned again and there is some new thinking that I
>> am unaware of?
>

> I'm curious how people use SJS now. Does it always show length, or could
> it be short with some hand types? I'm thinking of something like xx AKx
> Axxx AKQx when partner opens 1S or maybe 1H. If you don't SJS, what do
> you do? Or if my example isn't a SJS, is there another type without great length that is?

I never have a SJS. Over 1m 2X shows a hand that would rather play in 2X
then in 2m opposite a minimum unbalanced. It might even be a decent 5crd
with a singleton in m, say S: KQJxx, H: xxx, d:xxxx, c:x as absolute
minimum. Over 1M we plan to play mini-maxi-splinters.

[S. Needham]

> I use the Soloway style. It shows slam-invitational values and any of 3
> distributions:
>
> 1. Balanced with a 5-card suit
> 2. Good single-suiter
> 3. Two-suiter where the second suit is support for partner
>
> If opener doesn't raise, responder's next bid shows which type he has.
> If he bids a new suit, it shows type 3, and the new suit shows shortness.

What he said. Soloway style followed Kaplan's maxim "my suit, your suit or
NT" while allowing, as I have seen it described, a solid suit SJS with 14ish
rather than the old-fashioned 18 or the newer fashioned 16.

The lack of SJSs in any of my 2/1 partnerships is one reason I really
advocate for XYZ.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Lorne]

On 16/07/2014 21:44, Steve Willner wrote:
> A very old thread but a new topic...
>
> On 2012-10-09 10:17 PM, Co Wiersma wrote:
>> I thought that everybody agreed for the last 50 years or so, that for a
>> strong jumpshift its better to always have at least a good 6card suit
>> But maybe I am old fashioned again and there is some new thinking that I
>> am unaware of?
>
> As a matter of history, SJS didn't have to show a long suit, only a
> strong one. That was often the only way to show great strength in a
> balanced hand or with support for partner's suit. That was especially
> true in Acol but also in Goren methods, for example.
>
> I'm curious how people use SJS now. Does it always show length, or
> could it be short with some hand types? I'm thinking of something like
> xx AKx Axxx AKQx when partner opens 1S or maybe 1H. If you don't SJS,
> what do you do? Or if my example isn't a SJS, is there another type
> without great length that is?
>

You do not have to show your strength - it may be better to bid 2C and
find out what partner has.

[paul...@infi.net]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ronald Kalf wrote:
<major snips>
> ...I never have a SJS.
I see a hand suitable for a flexible, two-level strong jump shift at least every other session. One partner and I reached an excellent slam recently no one else in a 12 table game bid. By "flexible" I mean could be a fair four-card suit, and no restriction on side suits, with a valuation of around 17+; 1C-2H; 2S-3S is a great way to establish a 4-4 spade fit with slam interest. Very weak hands with a long suit (about 0-3) appear to be quite rare over a one bid; I could see some advantage in playing a range of 4-7 for a WJS so that bidding and rebidding a suit is constructive, but I wouldn't trade for the ability to suggest slam immediately rather than torture partner with a series of uninformative forcing bids. Three level strong mumps are much less useful, but so are three level WJS; I don't mind using these as raises, including 1D-3C and perhaps 1S-3H as splinters.

[Steve Willner]

Very old thread (previous subject was "Responding to convenient minor"),
but it raised a side topic I want to comment on.

On 2012-10-09 10:17 PM, [doesn't matter] wrote:
> I thought that everybody agreed for the last 50 years or so, that for a
> strong jumpshift its better to always have at least a good 6card suit
> But maybe I am old fashioned again and there is some new thinking that I
> am unaware of?

It's the opposite. Mr. Goren had us jump-shifting any time we had 19
points and not suited for a (forcing) 2NT response. That could be, in
extreme cases, into a three-card suit. (I vaguely recall an example
with AKQ.)

Modern "Soloway" jump shifts show one of three hand types (balanced,
support for opener's suit, own good suit). Only the last of these will
necessarily have a six-card suit. In the second type, the suit will be
a promising source of tricks but not necessarily six long.

In the old days, opener often rebid as after a natural bid but one level
higher. That makes no sense in the Soloway JS context. Rebids should
be aimed at suggesting one of the two suits to play in or showing slam
interest or features.

Anyone have further thoughts or want to contradict me?