The Convention You Never Use

The Convention You Never Use!

The usual way a bidding convention emerges is for a partnership to put to use a sequence that otherwise has no natural meaning, or to divert an otherwise natural bid to solve a more common problem, or to create a more profitable situation. By far the majority of these are when one member of a partnership has opened the bidding. After overcalls, well established pairs also use a few general purpose conventions, but they mostly apply after suit overcalls. What does your partnership do after one of you has made an overcall of 1NT?

At the table one usually meets one of two options: “no conventions apply” or “all conventions apply”, referring of course to what the partnership would do if the 1NT bid had been the opening bid. This solution has the benefit of simplicity, which has much to recommend it, but the conventionally(sic) minded may have missed a trick, so to speak. What price introducing another use for the popular “unassuming cue bid”, to make it much more pretentious?

To introduce the concept: suppose there has been an opening bid of 1C, and partner has overcalled with 1NT, strength 15 – 17 HCP. Then, assuming there is a Pass to your right, you have nothing to lose by using 2C as a strong Stayman-like enquiry, forcing to at least 2NT; all other two bids being weakness takeouts with long 5+ card suits. It is unlikely that you would wish to make a weakness takeout into Clubs, nor is there so much attraction in transfer bids. If you win the contract the opening lead will perforce be away from the opener’s presumed strength, in which partner has already indicated at least one stop.

The 1NT overcaller responds almost as usual:

2D: no 4-card major (min HCP);

2H/S: only 4-card major;

2NT: no 4-card major (max HCP);

3C: both 4-card majors.

Subsequent bidding is natural. For example, over a 2D response, the cue bidder could show 5 – 4 in the majors and minimum hand by bidding the 5-card major at the two level, but more (forcing to game) by bidding it at the three level.

One could no doubt adapt, even simplify the above, by allowing the 2C cue bid to have any HCP range, providing the bidder could deal with any of the more standard Stayman responses. I suggested the stronger “Stayman” version more for consistency, as you will see below. Consider the sequence:

1D - 1NT - Pass - 2D! [8+ HCP at least one 4-card major]

[ NB 2C now reverts to being a weakness take out into Clubs.]

Then, somewhat as above, the responses would be:

2H/S: only 4-card major;

2NT: no major (min HCP);

3C: no major (max HCP);

3D: both majors.

Note that the min/max distinction has had to slide upwards.

It now becomes obvious, I hope, that after the sequence:

1H - 1NT - Pass - 2H; or

1S - 1NT - Pass - 2S;

both showing 8+ HCP and the other 4-card major, the responses are:

2NT with no fit and minimum, 3NT with no fit and maximum, 3 of the other major with a fit and minimum, 4 of the other major (or even an “out of the blue” cue bid) with a fit and a maximum. As I implied above: it is a pity the situation never arises!