Describe this bid.

[jtfanclub]

You play Standard American or 2/1. When partner opens one club, you 'frequently bypass 4+ diamonds', as the ACBL puts it. I assume most of the people here either play that way, or are at least familiar with it.

 

So, you're in a tournament, against a nice couple from Poland. Your partner opens 1 !C, you respond 1 !D. The next player asks you what 1 !D means. For her, 'standard' means 0+ diamonds, 0+ hcp, no 5 card major, so that's not an option.

 

How would you explain your bid?

[luke warm]

4+ diamonds with 5/6+ hcp, which is exactly what my partner knows about my hand at this time... it denies a major unless i reverse next time

[P_Marlowe]

What does 1NT mean?

Could 1D be a 3 card suit?

 

If it shows a 4 carder, but denies a 4 card mayor

if being 4-4, then I would sugest

 

natural, with 4D and 4M we bid the mayor, if weak.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[inquiry]

3+♦'s, 6+ "points" (included distribution btw, otherwise I would say HCP), if 4+ major as well, then at least game invitational values.

 

The short one word description, that is not adequate is "Walsh" nor is "natural" adequate if they ask. Nor is "just bridge" or is "hey, I play 2/1, you should know what it is so bugger off", or "learn to play bridge it is not up to me to tell you the meaning of standard bids". This isn't being polite, this is providing full disclosure...

[Finch]

There are lots of slightly different ways of playing this. I say, when asked,

 

"4+ diamonds, denies a 4-card major unless invitational or better"

 

because that's the way I play it.

[jtfanclub]

OK, so, follow up question.

 

 

Partner opens 1♣. You have:

 

♠AQ5

♥KJ5

♦JT

♣AJ943

 

Your partner, first seat, opens 1♣. What is your call? Not playing inverted minors.

[mr1303]

Well, I don't bid 1♦ if that's what you're getting at. I can live with bidding a diamond suit such as AKx, but JT is not it. Otherwise how is partner meant to take my 1♦ bids seriously.

 

I bid whatever my forcing minor suit raise is, and if I don't have one I bid 3NT.

[luke warm]

I bid whatever my forcing minor suit raise is, and if I don't have one I bid 3NT.

me too

[Finch]

OK, so, follow up question.

 

 

Partner opens 1♣. You have:

 

♠AQ5

♥KJ5

♦JT

♣AJ943

 

Your partner, first seat, opens 1♣. What is your call? Not playing inverted minors.

If I'm really playing SAYC, then I believe 3C is forcing, so I bid that.

[bid_em_up]

I bid whatever my forcing minor suit raise is, and if I don't have one I bid 3NT.

me too

me three.

[neilkaz]

OK, so, follow up question. 

 

 

Partner opens 1♣.  You have:

 

♠AQ5

♥KJ5

♦JT

♣AJ943

 

Your partner, first seat, opens 1♣.  What is your call?  Not playing inverted minors.

If I'm really playing SAYC, then I believe 3C is forcing, so I bid that.

I believe that SAYC, unfortunately has no forcing minor raise ! Every place that I checked has 1C-3C limit in SAYC. http://www.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_book.pdf

 

I really don't know how anyone bids hands to their maximum potential w/out playing invm, or putting in something for a forcing minor raise !!

 

A SAYC-Modern card would be useful, and it could include invm and 4SF to game for starters. (well 4SF is at least played as forcing by most)

 

So on the followup hand, you are really stuck. In SAYC the jump from 1m to 3NT is supposed to show 16-17 HCP. You have 16..so that bid is fine except for the fact you may miss a club slam or the opps may run 5+ diamond tricks.

 

So if you try to tell a lie and bid 1D at least you can here PD's rebid and on a really good day it may be 2C, but you still cannot be sure of club slam or finding one with getting overboard in SAYC. Maybe by bidding 1D you can avoid a D lead when you call 3NT next.

 

Anyhow..without invm or at least some way to show a forcing minor raise, you really are left guessing and hoping here.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[kenrexford]

1♥. This is especially important in SAYC if 3316.

[SoTired]

I don't see what the problem is. Just bid 3N showing no 4-card major, a balanced hand, and this strength, which is exactly what you have. If partner has 16, partner will bid 4N and then you can bid 5C to show your club suit. With more, partner will bid 6N which should be a fine contract.

 

This is the price you pay for playing a simple system. SAYC requires little learning, but has many gaps. This is one of them: No forcing minor raise.

 

Don't worry about missing a minor suit slam, because SAYC does not have the tools to investigate for it, anyway.

 

The lack of a diam stopper is no concern, of course.

[HeartA]

If I'm really playing SAYC, then I believe 3C is forcing, so I bid that.

I believe so, too. 3NT is the second choice.

[kenberg]

Whether or not 1C-3C is forcing in SAYC is one of the few things that can be settled with firmness. It isn't. See page 5 of http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

where you find the unequivaical statement : "There is no forcing minor suit raise." I don't like it, but that's what it says. I suppose you could say that's just the acbl's opinion about how to play SAYC.

 

 

Playing undiscussed SAYC leads to some strange events. The other day I felt like playing a few hands so I logged on and went to the "send me to a game" button. Partner opened a diamond, I had a 16 count with five diamonds. Who knows? Beats me. No forcing diamond bid. I bid 3NT. Partner bid 4C. I bid 6D. Partner left the table. Her replacement came in and made 6D. SAYC is not a system for people who like scientific bidding.

 

Ken

[the hog]

3NT if we don't have a forcing C raise. I really cannot believe that one poster suggested 1H!!

[whereagles]

This hand is a hole in natural bidding systems. You can make the slight underbid of 3NT or 'invent' a suit.

[jtfanclub]

This hand is a hole in natural bidding systems. You can make the slight underbid of 3NT or 'invent' a suit.

That's fair. I was playing with somebody considerably better than me, and I called 1♦, because I could't find a better bid. When the hand was over, I asked what my correct call was, and she said 1♦ was the correct call. Which made me wonder...if the correct call with the 'hole' hand is to invent a suit (and the suit you're going to invent is almost certainly diamonds, since partner is less likely to get excited and insist on that suit than a major), shouldn't that be part of the explanation?

 

But it sounds like inventing a suit for this hand is not Standard after all.

[kenberg]

This hand is a hole in natural bidding systems. You can make the slight underbid of 3NT or 'invent' a suit.

That's fair. I was playing with somebody considerably better than me, and I called 1♦, because I could't find a better bid. When the hand was over, I asked what my correct call was, and she said 1♦ was the correct call. Which made me wonder...if the correct call with the 'hole' hand is to invent a suit (and the suit you're going to invent is almost certainly diamonds, since partner is less likely to get excited and insist on that suit than a major), shouldn't that be part of the explanation?

 

But it sounds like inventing a suit for this hand is not Standard after all.

If bridge is truly to be a game of fully disclosed methods then yes, 1C-1D should probably be alerted in SAYC. Actually, even if 1C-3C were forcing, then 1C-1D should be alerted since with 11 highs and 3-3-2-5 shape you would have no call (since 2NT shows 13-15 in SAYC). This alert is never given, in my experience. Not by me, not by anyone. I think a stronger case can be made for an alert here than in many situations where one is required, but I don't do it. Mostly because it is fairly rare for the situation to arise, so it seems like a lot of extra talk to little effect. If the powers that be wish me to start alerting it, I will happily do so. Actually I hope these powers will comment, as it's a point that should be settled.

 

 

 

SAYC is a simple system, described in a small number of pages. Naturally there are gaps, and the solutions to gaps tend to become, over time, known methods. It seems to be the same for virtuually all systems, but the fact remains it is an implied agreement when you agree to play SAYC that somtimes the auction will go 1C-1D without four diamonds and maybe without three. Not often, but it happens.

 

Ken

[rbforster]

If bridge is truly to be a game of fully disclosed methods then yes, 1C-1D should probably be alerted in SAYC.

So in SAYC with a good 3307 shape opposite a 1♣ opener, if you can't bid blackwood you're supposed to make up a suit? Is that suit supposed to be diamonds?

[1eyedjack]

I believe that in SAYC a 2N response to 1-suit is 13-15 (and therefore forcing). Personally I never got to grips with the logic, but there you have it. The cited hand has both a point and distribution in reserve, but hey, if 2N is forcing ...

[kenberg]

If bridge is truly to be a game of fully disclosed methods then yes, 1C-1D should probably be alerted in SAYC.

So in SAYC with a good 3307 shape opposite a 1♣ opener, if you can't bid blackwood you're supposed to make up a suit? Is that suit supposed to be diamonds?

With no forcing club raise, I guess you are in a tough spot. Seems like a 4-3 major fit may be playable. As I say, SAYC is a simple system and it should be no surprise that some hands arise that are not biddable in any sensible way. Not that SAYC is the only system where this happens. One of the many things I like about the writings of Mike Lawrence is that when presenting his approach to bidding, he points out some situations where it will leave you with no sensible bid. With a well thought out system this shouldn't happen often, but it will happen. Maybe that's the answer to the alert/explain issue. In any system, sometimes you don't have the hand to make a system approved bid, and so you fake it.

 

I actually like the feature of 1m-2N as balanced and forcing, since sometimes opener is not balanced. This gives him the opportunity to say someting like "Maybe we should rethink the NT idea here" and then responder can say either "trust me, the majors are well stopped, 3N is fine and unless you are really loaded my values may be wasted in a distributionaal slam" or "maybe you're right, let's go for the minor suit game/slam". All this conversation takes place below the level of 3NT. However, I would make 1m-3m as forcing if I were designing SAYC. For some reason nobody asked me.

[Free]

I don't see why "we play walsh" is not a good explanation. If opponents know it, they'll understand the situation better. And if they don't know they'll ask again and you can explain "4+♦ without a 4 card M, unless invite+". That pretty much covers it, but walsh says more about your other possibilities imo.

 

What to do with the hand posted? If you really don't have a forcing minor raise, bid 3NT. If you want to bid this hand accuratly, make an agreement with partner so you can bid this kind of handtype. :)

[sfbp]

Isn't there something called MAFIA?

 

Majors Always First In Auction iirc. This would certainly be an easy way to announce.

 

"Mafia except on game forcing hands" perhaps even......

 

Stephen

[Trinidad]

I don't see why "we play walsh" is not a good explanation.  If opponents know it, they'll understand the situation better.  And if they don't know they'll ask again and you can explain "4+♦ without a 4 card M, unless invite+".  That pretty much covers it, but walsh says more about your other possibilities imo.

 

What to do with the hand posted?  If you really don't have a forcing minor raise, bid 3NT.  If you want to bid this hand accuratly, make an agreement with partner so you can bid this kind of handtype.  :)

 

There are two reasons why you shouldn't use the names of conventions when explaining. The first reason is that you cannot be sure whether your opponent properly understands "Walsh", "Michaels", "MAFIA" or "DONT". He might think he understands it (the real possibility that you left out) and never ask for a clarification.

 

The second reason why you shouldn't use the names of conventions is that you cannot be sure whether you understand it properly yourself...

 

Rik