Better minor

[Hanoi5]

♠Axx

♥KTxx

♦AQx

♣T9x

 

My partner opened a similar hand to this with 1♣. We play better minor, which I understand means that when your minor suits are 3-2 you open with the longest one. With 3-3 in the minors I almost always open 1♣. I understand opening 1♦ might be a better tactical bid, though. How do you play it? Is there a 'right' way? What do 4-card-Diamond or Short-clubbers open with this hand?

 

The lady whose turn to bid was after my partner's asked what we played and was very angry when dummy hit the table with these minor suits holdings. Is she entitled to some kind of reddress? Is there a better way to alert the minor suits openings?

[barmar]

I don't think I've ever played "better minor", but I always thought it referred to the situation where the minors are the same length, you choose the suit with the better quality. Otherwise you're playing "longer minor". But it doesn't matter what you call it. If this is a regular partnership, haven't you discussed what your agreements are in a situation like this?

 

Did the lady actually ask you what your agreements are for opening with 3-3 minors? Explanations should be complete, not just the name of a convention (actually, this is ACBL and EBU regulation, I don't know what the regulations are in Venezuela).

 

Note that even if your agreement is that you should open 1♦ with that hand, there's no prohibition against deviating from agreements, so long as partner is no more likely to be aware of it than opponents. Opening 1♣ can be the better tactical bid, since you want to dissuade a club overcall or lead. This deviation is not gross enough to be considered a psych, IMHO. But if you would always open 1♣ with that hand, you should not explain that you open the minor with the better suit quality.

[ArtK78]

Better minor means just that - if the suits are equal in length you open the stronger one.

 

If you routinely open 1♣ with 3-3 in the minors and 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, you are playing what I consider to be standard, but not "better minor."

 

If you are playing that 1♦ openings promise 4 cards, then you open 1♣ on this hand. I am going to assume that "short clubbers" require 4 card diamond suits to open 1♦, so they would also open 1♣ on this hand.

[Hanoi5]

http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=18

 

http://www.coolumbridgeclub.com/docs/lesson15.pdf

 

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/teachers/Teacher-Manuals/Commonly-Used-Conventions-Lesson-5.pdf page 219

 

http://www.betterbridge.com/misc/StandardArticles/Standard200503.pdf (Though he doesn't call it 'Better minor')

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45333-sayc-better-minor/

 

http://www.ecbc.net.au/A%20Standard%20American%20System.pdf (page 4, number 3)

 

http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/br05/br05_com.htm

 

So, short club means you can open 1♣ even with 2 cards (4=4=3=2). If 'Better minor' means the minor with the best quality in high cards, how do you call the system where you open 1♦ with 3 cards in the exceptional case (4=4=3=2) but 1♣ on all 3-3's?

[ArtK78]

http://www.larryco.c...px?articleID=18

 

http://www.coolumbri...cs/lesson15.pdf

 

http://www.acbl.org/...ns-Lesson-5.pdf page 219

 

http://www.betterbri...ndard200503.pdf (Though he doesn't call it 'Better minor')

 

http://www.bridgebas...c-better-minor/

 

http://www.ecbc.net....an%20System.pdf (page 4, number 3)

 

http://www.jazclass....05/br05_com.htm

 

So, short club means you can open 1♣ even with 2 cards (4=4=3=2). If 'Better minor' means the minor with the best quality in high cards, how do you call the system where you open 1♦ with 3 cards in the exceptional case (4=4=3=2) but 1♣ on all 3-3's?

Standard?

[Zelandakh]

Note that even if your agreement is that you should open 1♦ with that hand, there's no prohibition against deviating from agreements, so long as partner is no more likely to be aware of it than opponents.

The problem is that after a time or two partner is aware of this tendency but it rarely, if ever, gets told to the opponents. As an example, there is a well-known player over here who makes a habit of responding in a weak suit on the way to 3NT but this agreement is never given. Note also that this tactic has been around for the longest time, famously sent up in The Menagerie books by the "Weaker minor, I presume?" question against The HH.

[manudude03]

I've always called the style of opening 1D with 4432 but 1C on all 4333 hands (3-3 minors) "convenient minor"

[aguahombre]

I've always called the style of opening 1D with 4432 but 1C on all 4333 hands (3-3 minors) "convenient minor"

That is the term I learned back in the covered wagon days, and it is indeed more accurate than "better minor", since I would still wonder if Jxxx AKJ would open 1C. Today, of course, we want to get away from calling these things anything --- and just describe our agreement about which minor we open when our hand is balanced.

 

With a balanced hand, 3-3 or 4-4 in minors, we open 1C. 1♦=4+ unless precisely 4=4=3=2. Doesn't take that long, and if a person asks we should disclose in that much detail -- assuming he wants the information, or he wouldn't have asked.

[Hanoi5]

It's true. People should ask about the meaning of the bid and never using the name of the convention or treatment they're asking about. But I usually get asked, better minor? 4-card Diamond? And I had never encountered the convenient name the last 2 posters mentioned (though I just looked it up and it is conveniently used in some places).

 

I always thought the name 'better minor' came from the fact it was the longest (when 3-2).

 

You live you learn, thanks for pointing out the name (though I just checked BWS doesn't use that name, though it uses the treatment).

[aguahombre]

Yes, people often ask about a convention or treatment by name. But, our answer is not yes or no. Maybe the opponents don't use the name to mean the same thing we do.

[barmar]

The problem is that after a time or two partner is aware of this tendency but it rarely, if ever, gets told to the opponents.

When my partner is 4-4 in the minors he sometimes opens 1♣, other times 1♦. I still haven't figured out the logic he uses, even though we've been playing together for about 13 years.

[Zelandakh]

When my partner is 4-4 in the minors he sometimes opens 1♣, other times 1♦. I still haven't figured out the logic he uses, even though we've been playing together for about 13 years.

And how is this relevant to having an agreement and knowing that your partner sometimes abuses it to try to gain an advantage? Many pairs have things for which they genuinely do not have an agreement. After 13 years I might have asked them about if I were their partner, mind...

[helene_t]

People should ask about the meaning of the bid and never using the name of the convention or treatment they're asking about.

Yes, but "better minor" sounds more like a description of a style than a convention name. For someone who isn't used to hearing the expression "better minor" it sounds like they open the stronger one with equal length, and presumably that could be the case.

 

I would say "1♣ can be 3" and if they ask for clarification I would say what, if anything, we have agreed to do with equal length, and with 4♦5♣.

[barmar]

And how is this relevant to having an agreement and knowing that your partner sometimes abuses it to try to gain an advantage? Many pairs have things for which they genuinely do not have an agreement. After 13 years I might have asked them about if I were their partner, mind...

It's relevant to the assertion that repeated actions result in an implicit agreement. While he may have logic that governs this choice, it's not an agreement, explicit or implicit, if I don't know what it is. And I can hardly be expected to disclose something I don't know.

 

Yes, I suppose could ask him. But then it's more for me to think about, as well as disclose, during auctions. Also, if we make this an "agreement", I think I would have to follow it as well -- both players are supposed to play the same system. So I'm happy to remain in the dark, and I don't think I'm violating any disclosure rules.

 

I do explain, if asked, that he varies whether to open 1♦ or 1♣ when he's 4-4. I once flippantly remarked (after the hand was over) that it's random, and he contradicted that, but didn't go into detail.