4-4 versus 5-4 fit

[Echognome]

Was having this discussion with some of the players at our university. There are a lot of references that say playing in a 4-4 fit will often be superior to playing in a 5-3 fit. (Victor Mollo has a chapter on it.) Some reasons are:

 

1) In a 4-4 fit, you can gain a trick by ruffing in either hand, whereas in a 5-3 fit, you need to ruff in the short trump hand.

2) In a 5-3 fit, you are more vulnerable to a force if you must ruff with the long trump hand.

3) When you have drawn trumps with your 8 card fit, then the 5-3 fit will provide potential discards, whereas the 4-4 fit will not.

 

For these reasons, I suggested to our players that even if you had found an 8 card fit, you should consider looking for another one. Thus playing 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠ as natural 45 (also with game try strength minimum). Furthermore, if you have slam interest, then finding the 4-4 might be crucial. This relates to Justin's suggestion to play your first rebid, after finding a fit, as natural.

 

The question however, is how you would compare a 5-4 fit versus a 4-4 fit. Typically this is not a part-score decision for if you are only interested in a part-score, then you want to find any reasonable fit and then drop out of the auction. So, my question for everyone, is what factors would you use to judge playing in a 4-4 fit versus in a 5-4 fit? I imagine there are several, but think it would be helpful to get the views of others.

[hrothgar]

While I can see the benefits of being able to explore for the second major suit fit, I doubt that the frequency would justify the bidding space. In order for this to pay off you need

 

1. A double fit

2. The ability to discover that one fit plays better than the other

2. An uncontested auction

 

Personally, I'd prefer to reserve bidding space to imprve the accuracy of my game tries... Your milage may vary.

 

I'll note in passing that if you're really concerned with this type of problem, relay might be a better way to go.

[cherdano]

I don't think finding a 4-4 major fit needs special agreements. I am sure most players would understand the sequence 1♥-2♥-2♠-3♠ without discussion as

2♠ long/help suit game try, could be 3 or 4

3♠ accepting game try, 4+ spades, suggestion to play 4♠ in case opener has 4, and showing double fit in case opener has slam interest.

 

Natural bidding can do magic things :P

 

Arend

[Echognome]

I don't think it is just a matter of finding a second major suit fit. A 4-4 minor suit fit might be the only slam possible. Also, I do not think you need a relay system to find it out. Natural bidding is enough. Hence why I consider this to be a BIL topic.

 

What I am interested in is what judgments you might use to determine where to play.

 

Am I looking for game or slam?

How good are my trumps?

What form of scoring are we playing?

etc..

[1eyedjack]

The game try sequences that I prefer after a major suit raise leave room for identifying a second major suit fit, although as with Cherdano the initial game try does not at that stage promise the second major.

 

Generally you want to use the available space to preserve the options of showing either a long suit trial or a short suit trial. You can achieve this by using the first step to show any long suit trial and the remaining bids to show short suit trial.

 

The short suit trials should be shown in steps lowest ranking to highest ranking, in order to preserve the space to investigate the possible secondary major suit fit (which cannot arise if showing the highest short).

 

If you show a long suit trial, partner puppets to enquire which long suit try, and in this case you show them in the opposite order: Highest ranking being the cheapest bid, as that may be the major suit containing a potential fit. You are abjured from making a long suit trial in a minor when you have a concealed second major, but then it seems rather unlikely that you would want to (prefer to make a short suit trial if available).

 

Partner does not have to puppet to enquire about the long suit trial: He can make a short suit counter-trial of his own (again lowest ranking first), this being likely to be of greater interest to partner than the other's long suit trial will be.

 

You could use the first step as any short suit trial and otherwise make direct long suit trials, and some players certainly do this, but I think that the above method is marginally better for two reasons:

 

Reason 1: if you have a long suit trial and partner has a short suit counter-trial, the alternative method does not guarantee the opportunity to show the short suit counter-trial

 

Reason 2: the location of the long suit trial is likely to be less critical to partner's decision than the location of the short suit trial. Mere knowledge that partner has a long suit trial somewhere (but no short suit) may be sufficient, without knowing the location of the long suit trial, in order to sign out or accept game without enquiring further of the location of the long suit trial, thereby restricting superfluous information to the defence. It is less frequent that the location of the shortage is irrelevant.

 

As to whether you should seek to play in a 4-4 fit or 5-4 fit, it is possible to construct hands where either is better. You have to visualise the need/benefit of the discard. If your 4-4 fit is poor you may be able to discard losers in your 4-4 fit on high cards in one of the remaining 2 suits (in which the 5-4-?-? hand is short). At slam level the discard on the 5-4 fit is more likely to be of benefit, because if you lack values to try for slam then there are good chances that the oppo will establish and cash their winners in the remaining short suits before you have established the 5-4 fit and drawn trumps. If you have weakness in the 5-4 fit then it is rather unlikely that you will be able to get rid of them by discards.

 

On balance, it tends to be rather less frequent that a 4-4 fit is superior than a 5-4 fit than compared with 5-3 -- if you had to rely on a priori frequency. Apart from anything else, there is one fewer discard available in the 5-4 fit as a side suit, and the prospect of losing trump control in a 5-4 fit is much less than a 4-4 fit, where the reverse MAY be the case with a 5-3 fit.

[ochinko]

What we do is that we bid 1Sp over 1H with four spades and 3-4 hearts (but not with 5 hearts for obvious reasons). The opener now gives a spade fit only with 4+ cards That way you can comfortably find your 4:4 spade fit immediately. You conceal your heart fit which will provide a number of tricks, and this can prove beneficial if opps decide to double you on their strength. This saves the 1H-2H-2Sp for the suit trial where it belongs :P

 

On the other hand, with 5+ spades and 3+ hearts it's better to raise hearts, and conceal your spades this time. Opps can try a spade game with trumps breaking 5:0, or you'll have a second fit in spades, and thus, more tricks.

 

Basically, bid what is relevant for your partner to know, don't explain your hand unnecessarily.

 

Petko

[Guest Jlall]

As for which you'd rather play in, the 4-4 or 5-4, I would say usually the 5-4.

 

For hands that will just play game, there are usually some holes. You don't have everything locked up and just need one discard. So the trump control in the 5-4 is much nicer than the potential problems with the 4-4. 4-4 fits are generally pretty vulnerable to taps. Also if your 4-4 fit is pretty weak trump quality wise you'll be very vulnerable to a bad split. ALSO they if your 5-4 fit is 3-1 and youre in your 4-4 they may get ruffs.

 

For hands going to slam, it's probably about equal. Presumably your suits will be pretty good, and the discard will come in handy. That may be the 12th trick, and getting tapped is not a consideration anymore. Still, in a 4-4 fit a 4-1 split may give you problems. On these just take it on a case by case basis. If you can see the discard being helpful, go for it.

 

For grands, I would guess the 4-4 is usually better. If you dont have 13 tops in the 5-4, then the 4-4 will often be better as it gives you the discard.

 

As for form of scoring, in MP i suppose playing the 4-4 at a game level could work out to give you an extra trick. I wouldn't try it though.

[hrothgar]

What we do is that we bid 1Sp over 1H with four spades and 3-4 hearts (but not with 5 hearts for obvious reasons). The opener now gives a spade fit only with 4+ cards That way you can comfortably find your 4:4 spade fit immediately. You conceal your heart fit which will provide a number of tricks, and this can prove beneficial if opps decide to double you on their strength. This saves the 1H-2H-2Sp for the suit trial where it belongs :)

 

On the other hand, with 5+ spades and 3+ hearts it's better to raise hearts, and conceal your spades this time. Opps can try a spade game with trumps breaking 5:0, or you'll have a second fit in spades, and thus, more tricks.

 

Basically, bid what is relevant for your partner to know, don't explain your hand unnecessarily.

 

Petko

Weird... My attitude is pretty much exactly the opposite.

 

I reserve the 1♠ advance for hands that have some interest in exploring game.

The prototypical hand would be a 5=3=(32) with 9 losers or so

 

♠ KQ852

♥ K75

♦ 86

♣ 984

 

On occasion, I'd consider this bid with a 4=3=(32) or some such, but I'd need a good spade suit.

 

Most of the time that I hold 4 Spades, 3 hearts and appropriate strength for a single raise, I'll make the raise as to clarify strength and trump support ASAP.

[Guest Jlall]

I take Richards principle further. With 6-3 I would often raise immediately.

 

The problem with bidding 1S then later raising hearts (when it's not a jump) is that partner never knows you have 3 of them. This auction is almost always a doubleton. He may misevaluate on a hand where he loves his hand opposite a fit, but he thinks hes on a misift (such as 1543 15 counts). Also I don't think 1S causes MORE problems for the opps, as they have much more room. They can X, bid 1N, or most importantly, 2m.

 

If I was going to show a 3 card limit I would show a spade suit on the way, though, as I can clarify later my 3 card heart holding.

[Flame]

Totally disagree with the idea of finding a second fit when you already found one, it wont pay off.

Second i think the 4-4 fit is not as good as people like to think, and not always better then the 5-3 fit.

Third If you have 5-4 dont look for 4-4, because 5-4 is usually better then 4-4.

Bridge is a game where its usually wrong to try for perfect, you better look for good enough. exceptions are slam bidding especially grand slam bidding.

[ochinko]

Also if your 4-4 fit is pretty weak trump quality wise you'll be very vulnerable to a bad split. ALSO they if your 5-4 fit is 3-1 and youre in your 4-4 they may get ruffs.

True, but bridge is also a probability game, and it pays off to play along the percentages, not against them. 3:2 trump split is about 68%. Which do you prefer to be your trump suit if your have

 

[hv=w=st876hakq87dc&e=s5432hjt9dc]266|100|[/hv]

 

You are likely to make 2 tricks in spades from ruffing if they are trumps, and 0 if not. Opponents will hardly lead a heart for ruffing if the suit was not supported, and even if they ruff one of your hearts, that will more probably be from their longer trump with a high card that was going to take a trick anyway.

 

And many times opponents will even lead a trump when they know they are 4:4 in you fearing that you're going to crossruff. I've seen cashing the Ace and King from AK9 and unluckily dropping their partner's Jack and Queen at the table. Who would have thought you didn't have a single honor in the suit?

 

That said, I too prefer to play with 5:4 rather than 4:4 fit. But 4:4 is clearly better for a trump suit than 5:3, and with two fits you rarely belong in no trump.

 

Petko

[1eyedjack]

... bridge is also a probability game, and it pays off to play along the percentages, not against them. 3:2 trump split is about 68%. Which do you prefer to be your trump suit if your have

 

[hv=w=st876hakq87dk4c94&e=s5432hjt9daqj93ca3]266|100|[/hv]

 

Indeed. But you can alter the percentages. The art of constructive bidding is that of identifying additional information that changes the percentages from the a priori.

 

A 3-2 break in a "poor" trump suit may indeed be 68%. Buf if you can identify from the bidding that you do no have to rely on that suit as a source of tricks, the 32% of sustaining 3 losers in the suit can be reduced further, by discarding losers in that suit and refraining from playing on it.

 

On the above example the opponents may, as noted, cash their winners in Spades at trick 1. But they may not. Or the suit may be blocked.

 

If I had to operate by general rules, I would suggest that if each partner has a 5+ card suit then it is usually wrong to play in the 4-4 fit.

[the hog]

I don't think it is just a matter of finding a second major suit fit. A 4-4 minor suit fit might be the only slam possible. Also, I do not think you need a relay system to find it out. Natural bidding is enough. Hence why I consider this to be a BIL topic.

 

What I am interested in is what judgments you might use to determine where to play.

 

Am I looking for game or slam?

How good are my trumps?

What form of scoring are we playing?

etc..

My views fwiw. If I am looking for a game only, I try to give away as little information as possible and abandon scientific bidding.

 

If I have a strong hand and am or may be looking for better things, I will explore the possibility of a 4-4 fit, even if I know that a 5-3 fit exists. That is why when playing a 2/1 or similar system the following is forcing and shape asking:

 

1S 2C

2any 2N

 

The hand Ochinko poses is to some extent a furphy. If S break 4-1 you are going down in any contract on a S lead. If a C is led and S happen to break 3-2, then you need to rely on a 3-3 D break or on the long trump hand having to ruff. To attempt to discover that the S are poor will in the long term lead you to overscientific auctions which will cost more than it gains.

[Fluffy]

5-4 will be in practice always better at game, at slam you can find specific situations you can figure out where 4-4 is better.

[Free]

5-4 or 4-4 depends on the rest of the hand. If you really need a discard then the 4-4 might be better. Otherwise 5-4 is better. So you can't really give a decent judgement on that without more information.

 

About that finding out about 4-4 fits: I don't see any reason to play 1♥-2♥;2♠ as a 4 card... If you really want to find these 4-4 fits, then responder should look for it immediatly, not after a fit is found. So just 1♥-2♥ denies 4 ♠s (otherwise just bid 1♠). With a 1♠ opener it might be a bit more difficult, but you can easily bid your minor (or 2♣ with a 3-4-3-3) when you have 10+HCP. With less, the 4-4 fit might be lost.

[han]

At partscore level you rarely know, and you never care.

 

At game level you sometimes find out by accident. I remember holding the following hand a couple of years ago: Axxx AQxxx Jxx x. Partner opened 1NT (14-16) and in resonse to my Stayman inquiry told me that he had a maximum with both majors. I let partner play in 4S, and it turned out to take one more trick than 4H. The club ruff in my hand was an extra trick when playing spades, but not when playing in hearts.

 

At the game level this problem is fairly rare though, because you need to stumble upon fits in both majors. At the slam level you have much more opportunities to find a side 4-4 fit, and even if this is in a minor, it can be worthwhile to play there. Also, there is less danger of being forced, hopefully the opponents can only lead a suit twice.

[ochinko]

At partscore level you rarely know, and you never care.

Unless, of course, you play MP or BaM. One trick more or less makes a world of difference there.

 

There were times when people didn't care for rightsiding the contract. Perhaps some still don't care.

 

Petko

[han]

Very good, of course we care. Let me rephrase:

 

At the partscore level you rarely know, and you just want to play in your longest major suit fit.

 

 

The comfort that an extra trump offers is at lower levels usually much more important than the ability to score an extra trick by ruffing in the short suit.