[Bugsgray]

I have a new partner who is pressing me to bid 1C as asking for any 5 card suit and 1D as asking for a 4 card major. The negative response is 1NT. I've tried playing this but soon found that because of the forced 1NT bid to take out the artificial opening, despite having low or no points, we were ending up having to play in 1NT with often disastrous results. I have also pointed out that the same 4 4 fit in a major can be found via conventional bidding anyhow. What I need is confirmation of these points from someone who has some expertise... Kerry Gray, Victor Harbor Bridge Club, South Australia.

[helene_t]

I know one pair who plays this. I don't know the system well enough to say whether it is good or bad, but as an opponent I can say that I absolutely need to know what the minor suit openings show: Don't tell opps that a a 1♣ opening asks for a 4-card major, explain which hand types open 1♣. For example, it could be:
1♣: 12-19 points, no 5-card major, if it has a 4-card major it will have three in the other.
1♦: 12-19 points, at least one four card major, if only one major the other will be 2 or shorter.
I don't know if that is exactly how you play it but something like that
Be aware that this means that
♠Axx
♥Kxxx
♦KQJxxx
♣-
opens 1♣, while

♠Ax
♥Kxxx
♦-
♣KQJxxxx
opens 1♦. If this is not the way you actually play it, you have to find out what the correct way of explaining the opening bids is.

Now for the responses:
That 1♦ "asks for a 4-card major" is fairly normal (but don't explain it that way to opps: just say what the 1♦ opening shows, and then when they ask about the responses you can say that they show 4 or more). However, 1NT is not the only negative response, it is limited and stronger hands (plus maybe some not so strong hands that want to play a minor suit contract rather than 1NT) respond something at the 2-level.

The responses to 1♣ are usually played as Montreal Relay:
1♦ most hands without a 5-card major
1M: 5+ cards
and I think that is what your partner has heard from someone else and misunderstood: it is probably not the 1♦ opening that asks for a 4-card major but rather the 1♦ response

If your partner insists that the 1♦ response shows five diamonds, you will need to respond 2♦ or higher with stronger hands without a 5-card suit. Don't forget to discuss how strong the 2♣ response to 1♣ is. Obviously, if 1NT denies any five-card suit, the 2♣ response will have to be something like 6-9 points so stronger hands with clubs will have to bid something higher.

Also don't forget to discuss how you respond with very weak hands. Passing with any 0-5 points when opener could be void in their suit is maybe not a great idea. But responding 1NT with zero points is also not great. Probably to make this system playable you will need to include most very weak responses to 1♣ in the 1♦ response, and make the 1♦ opening promise some diamonds. Then maybe you could open either 1♣ (17+ points) or 2♣ (12-16 points) with hands that should have opened 1♦ except that they don't have diamonds, and open 2♦ with very strong hands that don't fit in the 1♣ opening.

Finally, discuss opener's rebids. For example,
1♣-1♥
1♠*
presumably shows 3 spades since a hand that has 4 spades and not 3 hearts would have opened 1♦
1♣-1♠
2♦*
presumably shows a weak hand with three hearts and long diamonds? But what do you do do then if you actually have strength for a reverse? Or maybe this is a strong bid and opener would then have to rebid 1NT with all minimum hands, even with a 7-card diamonds?

Systems like this can be great fun to develop but it takes a lot of work before you reach a point where they are also fun to play. So if you want to play something crazy but don't enjoy the enormous work it is to develop your own system, I would recomend that you buy a book describing some already worked out crazy system (for example Moscito) and just follow that book.

[mw64ahw]

Looks fun. I'll have to study this one.
https://www.acblunit...on/montreal.htm

[DavidKok]

Helene's overview is excellent! Regarding Montreal responses to 1♣ in particular, a slight word of caution. Over here the method has a reputation of being ineffective, and for beginners only. The main upside is that the 1♣-1M auctions resemble the information content of the 1M openings, so people don't have to learn as much. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not an effective system.
If you are thinking of something else, or even something custom, that might be very interesting. But at the very least you need to show that your system outperforms Montreal. My expectation is that the 5cM responses are simply too restrictive and space-inefficient to make a good foundation for a bidding system, and it puts too much pressure on the 1♦ and 1NT responses in particular.
This is a little bit funny as I'm fond of Dutch Doubleton which puts a ton of pressure on the 1♦ response to 1♣, but Montreal is much worse still.

[mycroft]

Living (for half the year, anyway) in the current Canadian home of Montréal Relay (which isn't Montréal. Which might be a flag when determining how good it is)(*), I agree with most of the above. And I reiterate the comments above on "explain what it shows, not what it asks". And if you do end up playing Full MR, don't do the common trick "here" of explaining 1♣-1♦ as "denies a 5-card major". Sure, *if you ask*, they'll make it clear that yes, 1♣ can be passed (but have difficulty explaining exactly *when*, of course) and that yes, there are responses higher than 1♠, some of which also don't promise a 5-card major (in particular, 1NT and 2NT are "standard", but appreciably stronger than standard (IIRC 1NT is 10-11 and 2NT is bigger yet). So, oddly enough, the bidders know a lot more about the "denies a 5-card major" bid than their opponents do...

One interesting fact is that "we will always find our 4-4 major fits as well as all our 5-3s, simply". I'm actually thinking strongly of playing (explicitly, rather than as a psych) Wonder Bids (1♥ is "long or short hearts") after the 1♦ response. I think it might work, and I look forward to, whether it works or not, the sheer indignation that we would do anything to take advantage of a response structure that doesn't show values or a suit...I want to play "grunt defence" to the 1♣ opener, but partner tried it once and got confused. So, I guess "bid" it is (Wonder Bids over 1♣ would be "Purely Destructive" if it didn't promise 10 high. But "hearts or 5-4 or better in two suits that aren't hearts" isn't - so Go for Psycho-Suction?)

(*)It's also a hotbed, amusingly enough for me, of the Mexican 2♦.

[akwoo]

I have a feeling that all our "expert advice" is barking up the wrong tree.

Montreal Relay isn't great, but it's a playable system. More to the point, it solves the problems that various forms of New Minor Forcing solves, at a lower level with fewer bids. If New Minor Forcing is too complicated for your partner but Montreal Relay isn't, it's a reasonable solution.

Playing a bidding system your partnership is comfortable with is far more important than playing some optimally best bidding system. So your system loses on net maybe one hand in twenty. You can easily gain that back and more by playing the cards better, and playing a more comfortable system can help with that.

At the end of the day, if your partner really wants to play a particular convention, your choices are to go along or find another partner. The technical merits of the convention are irrelevant.

[helene_t]

Maybe you are right, maybe the system OP's partner wants to play is a fairly normal 5cM system, just with Montreal Relay. That's ok, then.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-March-12, 11:39, said:

It's also a hotbed, amusingly enough for me, of the Mexican 2♦.

It's also a hotbed, amusingly enough for me, of one of the many Mexican 2♦ openings.

FYP.