Say it ain't so

[paulhar]

LHO: 1C. Pard: 1D. RHO: Pass. You: 1S.

 

I have always learned this to show at least five spades and have not seen any books that contradict this. However, some experienced players are stating that in some regions of the United States, this is routinely played as showing 4+ spades, not just by the beginners, but by "everybody", and is the recommended treatment in these regions. I don't get to many tournaments outside my hometown, so I can't refute this statement.

 

All comments and replies would be appreciated.

[Echognome]

I play it ostensibly as 4+ spades. Usually I will have 5 spades, but I can certainly think of hands where I wan to bid 1♠ with only 4. How else am I to bid:

 

♠AQTx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣xxx?

 

Furthermore, I would state that 1♥ also shows only 4+ hearts. Suppose I'm 4-4 in the majors, such as:

 

♠KQxx ♥AJTx ♦xxx ♣xx

 

As much as I'd like to make a negative double over partner's 1♦, I wouldn't want to have the TD at my table to sort out the rest.

[Fluffy]

I've seen this debate around here several times, and its always like this:

 

beginners: 5+ and not forcing

experts: 4+ and forcing

[inquiry]

I will try a different approach to "say it is so"....

 

I did a BridgeBrowser search on the auction (1C)-1D-(pass)-1S to see what people have when they bid 1S. To keep it simple, I looked at 10,000 such auctions (this was not 10,000 unique deals, but each player gets a chance to bid 1S or pass or something else, so this was 10,000 bidding decisions). I choose 10,000 because it makes the percentages easier to calculate.

 

The one spade bidder held four spades 2391 times (or 23..9%). This doesn;t mean of the other times when he had longer spades, they would not have bid 1S if they had only four spades, just that on those hand they were not dealt precisley 4 biddable spades. They had 5S when then bid 1S 5768 times.

 

I think it is safe to say people will bid 1S with a four card suit.

[mikeh]

I have seen some players bid this on 4 cards, but I am not one of them (and I am not a beginner).

 

Some people play that the 1♠ bid is non-forcing, and, if so, it is extremely risky to bid it with a 4 card suit: catch partner with a minimum 5332 with a doubleton ♠ and you may well be playing there.

 

I personally prefer that 1♠ is a one-round force, and I can understand the logic behind then using 1♠ as perhaps only 4. However, I far prefer that it shows 5+, because I want to be able to raise (and to show enthusiasm when doing so, with the right hand) with 3 card support. I think bidding on 4 card suits adds unnecessary complexity to subsequent auctions.

 

This is not really analogous to uncontested auctions, in which it is common (altho far from universal) to raise a major suit response to our minor suit opening on 3 card support.

 

When we overcall, our range of strength is, if anything, wider than when we open, and our suit length, in our own suit, is usually more precisely known. Add to this that the opps are in the auction, showing signs of shape and strength, and there are wide differences between the considerations that govern constructive bidding after openings and after one-level overcalls.

 

Thus, I am almost always going to raise advancer's major with 3 cards because to do otherwise may be impractical. Two reasons for that:

 

1) to rebid 1N, I need not only a stopper but opening bid values. When I open 1minor and rebid 1N over partner's 1major, I do not promise stoppers in side suits...only balanced shape. When I overcall a minor and rebid 1N, I am showing extra values (not huge values, but more than a minimum) and a stopper. What do I do with a minimum overcall and 3 card support, with a balanced hand? I raise.

 

2) to rebid my suit, in preference to raising partner, will usually be a retrograde step... if I have a medium hand with 3 card support, it will usually be vital to raise (encouraging) rather than rebid my suit (discouraging).

 

I suspect that I could come up with more reasons, but these spring to mind immediately.

[mikeh]

I will try a different approach to "say it is so"....

 

I did a BridgeBrowser search on the auction (1C)-1D-(pass)-1S to see what people have when they bid 1S. To keep it simple, I looked at 10,000 such auctions (this was not 10,000 unique deals, but each player gets a chance to bid 1S or pass or something else, so this was 10,000 bidding decisions). I choose 10,000 because it makes the percentages easier to calculate.

 

The one spade bidder held four spades 2391 times (or 23..9%). This doesn;t mean of the other times when he had longer spades, they would not have bid 1S if they had only four spades, just that on those hand they were not dealt precisley 4 biddable spades. They had 5S when then bid 1S 5768 times.

 

I think it is safe to say people will bid 1S with a four card suit.

What that says is that some people will bid it on a 4 card suit: but it doesn't say that all people will sometimes bid a 4 card suit.

[Echognome]

I have seen some players bid this on 4 cards, but I am not one of them (and I am not a beginner).

Mike - I don't disagree with your arguments, but rather simply ask what you would bid with my two example hands.

 

Note I carefully constructed the first hand. If we swap the minors around, then 1NT becomes a more attractive bid. As for the second hand, I'm sure it's a fairly common hand type and you want to be able to find a 4-4 major fit when you have both majors.

 

I like to have my cheaper bids covering more hand types and here we are talking about 1-level advances. I consider the 1-level advances to (usually) be 5 cards, but may be 4 cards if the hand warrants no better bid. This inevitably means I must say that they show 4+ cards overall. I think a good analogy is overcalls. We say that overcalls are usually 5 cards, but may ostensibly be 4 cards with the right hand.

[skjaeran]

This discussion would be even more interesting if the sequence was:

(1m) 1♥ (p) 1♠

 

As I'd "never" double with 4-5 in the majors, but instead overcall 1♥, it's obvious for me to bid 1♠ on a 4 card suit as advancer. I play it as 4+ and F1.

 

I bid the same way over a 1♦ overcall (if that's natural - which it's not at the moment in my methods - we use transfer overcalls over 1♣), but here playing 1M as 5+ has more going for it. Still, I prefer 4+ and F1. And I can often bid 1M on a lousy 4-bagger here if no other bid looks much better.

[Finch]

I play it ostensibly as 4+ spades. Usually I will have 5 spades, but I can certainly think of hands where I wan to bid 1♠ with only 4. How else am I to bid:

 

♠AQTx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣xxx?

 

Furthermore, I would state that 1♥ also shows only 4+ hearts. Suppose I'm 4-4 in the majors, such as:

 

♠KQxx ♥AJTx ♦xxx ♣xx

 

As much as I'd like to make a negative double over partner's 1♦, I wouldn't want to have the TD at my table to sort out the rest.

I'm with mikeh, though there are hands where I would succumb and bid a 4-card major.

 

Both of your sample hands have 3-card diamond support, and I would bid 2C (good diamond raise) on them. We might play in 2D instead of a 4-4 major suit fit opposite a minimum, but I think that is a worthwhile exchange for the precision in other sequences.

 

Now, give me AQ10x xxx Kx xxxx after 1C 1D P and you might tempt me into 1S, but it would be asystemic.

[mikeh]

I have seen some players bid this on 4 cards, but I am not one of them (and I am not a beginner).

Mike - I don't disagree with your arguments, but rather simply ask what you would bid with my two example hands.

 

Note I carefully constructed the first hand. If we swap the minors around, then 1NT becomes a more attractive bid. As for the second hand, I'm sure it's a fairly common hand type and you want to be able to find a 4-4 major fit when you have both majors.

 

I like to have my cheaper bids covering more hand types and here we are talking about 1-level advances. I consider the 1-level advances to (usually) be 5 cards, but may be 4 cards if the hand warrants no better bid. This inevitably means I must say that they show 4+ cards overall. I think a good analogy is overcalls. We say that overcalls are usually 5 cards, but may ostensibly be 4 cards with the right hand.

Well, I am with Frances on these points.

 

I have in fact advanced on a 4 card suit, but probably no more than a handful of times... I doubt that I have done so as often as once a year.

 

 

As for the analogy re four card overcalls, I se your point, but do not agree with it.

 

When I overcall a 4 card suit, I am initiating my side's entry into the auction, in a strictly non-forcing manner. My goals include preemption (I am more likely to overcall a 4 card ♠ suit over 1♦ than over 1♥), lead-directing (I will always hold a chunky suit) and constructive bidding... but constructive bidding is not the dominant issue.

 

When I respond to partner's overcall, especially after third hand passes, I am far more focussed on constructive bidding. Improving the contract (including game or even (rarely) slam is the main reason I am making my forcing bid.

 

I have already pointed out that 4 card suits are really a bad idea (in my opinion) if non-forcing, so I am going to be assuming, for this discussion, that 1♠ is F1.

 

Given that the objectives of advancing the overcall are so different from the objectives of an overcall (altho there is obviously an overlap) I do not find the analogy particularly helpful.. ;)

[Codo]

I never met big downsides while bidding four card majors in this sequence.

 

If the opponents stay silent or opener bids are still low (like 2 Club f.e.), we should have all possibilities to find the right suit and level.

 

And this will happen quite often:

rho passed over pds bid so opener bids simply on its own, he needs some very special hands to jump - strong one or two suiters.

If he has such a hand things are getting more difficult for us and you would like to have a 5 card suit in your hand, but even then you are not sure to reach the right level and the right fit.

 

But maybe Mike or Frances can point out which sequences are so bad when you answer with 4 card majors?

 

And surely 4 card suits non forcing are silly, I think most do agree about this point.

[Guest Jlall]

I've seen this debate around here several times, and its always like this:

 

beginners: 5+ and not forcing

experts: 4+ and forcing

Count me in as a beginner :)

[Guest Jlall]

But maybe Mike or Frances can point out which sequences are so bad when you answer with 4 card majors?

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

[han]

I've seen this debate around here several times, and its always like this:

 

beginners: 5+ and not forcing

experts: 4+ and forcing

Count me in as a beginner :)

Me too, which won't surprise anybody.

[Echognome]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

[cherdano]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

They do for me. :)

[Finch]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

Playing forcing 1NT response, you can indeed play 2/1s as showing 5 card suits (and traditionally 1S - 2H shows 5) for much the same reasons. Some people play a 2C response as artificial, or a 2NT response as artificial, to make other 2/1s show 5.

 

One just finds that constraining a 2/1 (over a 5CM) to be a 5-card suit makes too many hands impossible to bid without adding a set of extra methods. Whereas constraining responses to overcalls to be (90%) 5-card suits gives fewer problems. Not least because you have a cuebid available if you are desperate, which you don't have in an uncontested auction.

[Echognome]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

Playing forcing 1NT response, you can indeed play 2/1s as showing 5 card suits (and traditionally 1S - 2H shows 5) for much the same reasons. Some people play a 2C response as artificial, or a 2NT response as artificial, to make other 2/1s show 5.

 

One just finds that constraining a 2/1 (over a 5CM) to be a 5-card suit makes too many hands impossible to bid without adding a set of extra methods. Whereas constraining responses to overcalls to be (90%) 5-card suits gives fewer problems. Not least because you have a cuebid available if you are desperate, which you don't have in an uncontested auction.

Ok. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I thought my argument was that 1-level advances were 90% 5 carders? I had to strain to make examples, but was just saying there were some. But if it's 90% 5 card, 10% 4 card, then min length is 4 card right? I guess it's all semantics in the end. Maybe there should be an 'often 4 card suit' tickbox? :)

[mikeh]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

They do for me. ;)

Well, never having played with you, it's tough to dispute this, but I suspect that you are in a tiny, tiny minority.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and you hold x AKJx Qxxx AKJx: you bid a forcing 1N? Or do you (like 99.99999% of the rest of the world) bid 2♣?

 

But the argument that advancing an overcall at the one level is analogous to a 2/1 response to an opening bid is flawed: if only because in this analogy, we have each announced opening values, have established a game force, and have almost infinite bidding space in which to clarify our destination. Our overcall structure cannot possibly be the same as our 2/1 structure.

 

A more valid analogy would be if partner overcalled 1♠ (over, say, a 1♣ opening) and we advanced via 2♥. Is there anyone in the world who would do this on a 4 card suit (please, don't clutter this up with comments on transfer advances... that's not what this post is about)

 

As for the 'advantages' of a 4 card advance, they certainly exist: we can find 4-4 fits with more modest values (if we have game values between us, normal bidding will always find the 4-4 major).

 

However, as I wrote earlier, the main problem will be when overcaller has no choice but to raise the advance on a 3 card holding: sometimes a poor 3 card holding in a minimum hand. Now advancer has NO clue as to whether we are in a 4-4 or 4-3 fit, and don't kid yourselves, this can be critical when we are in an auction in which our high card strength may be questionable.

 

And if the opps compete, we get into LOTT issues that we can't answer because neither side knows the trump length... and I know all about the criticisms of the law... but the idea that one can judge one's ability to compete by reference to trump fit is not exactly dead :)

 

If partner advances 1♠ and opener rebids his suit: does overcaller raise with 3? Arguably there will be many hands on which that is a bad idea, but on which a raise on 3 opposite a known 5 card suit is the best call. I suppose one could pervert the support double to this sequence, but I think that most would agree that there are better uses than to show a relatively undefined hand with precisely 3 card support.

[jdonn]

Ok. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I thought my argument was that 1-level advances were 90% 5 carders? I had to strain to make examples, but was just saying there were some. But if it's 90% 5 card, 10% 4 card, then min length is 4 card right? I guess it's all semantics in the end. Maybe there should be an 'often 4 card suit' tickbox? :)

No, it's like raising partner's major suit response to an opening bid. It "shows" 4, but is clearly the best bid on a substantial minority of hands with 3. But if the auction becomes competitive or such that you have no way to find out which, you will assume it's 4. Same for this type of bid.

[Echognome]

No, it's like raising partner's major suit response to an opening bid. It "shows" 4, but is clearly the best bid on a substantial minority of hands with 3. But if the auction becomes competitive or such that you have no way to find out which, you will assume it's 4. Same for this type of bid.

I disagree. It's like overcalling on a 4 card suit. Hence my point about "often 4 cards".

 

I don't see your analogy of an auction such as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♥ as ostensibly 4 when you're agreed to raise on 3 (with e.g. a minimum hand and shortness). Then your agreement is that you raise with 3-4 card support! Calling it anything else is kidding yourself and I would even go far as to say it wouldn't be full disclosure not to say that it's "often 3 card support".

 

At the end of the day, it's all down to frequency. My argument is that the way many people play it, raising responder's 1M response with 3 cards is more frequent than overcalling on a 4 card suit. Of course if you play the overcall structure or some other methods, that may not be the case.

 

So again, it's semantics. But if you want to say my analogy wasn't germane, then I stand my ground and say the analogy you gave is less germane.

[cherdano]

umm...when you have a 5-3 fit it's bad for your bid to have shown 4+. When you have a 4-4 fit it's good for you to be able to bid a 4 card suit. However, you are less likely to have a 4-4 fit when partner has shown a 5+ card suit somewhere else and you might well find it anyways if you bid something else unless parnter is minimum.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise, but by this argument if playing 5cM, 2/1's should show 5 card suits.

They do for me. :)

Well, never having played with you, it's tough to dispute this, but I suspect that you are in a tiny, tiny minority.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and you hold x AKJx Qxxx AKJx: you bid a forcing 1N? Or do you (like 99.99999% of the rest of the world) bid 2♣?

I was just being a smart-ass. I like to play 2♣ as artificial, including both a natural GF and a balanced GF. So with this hand, I would never show clubs, I would show it as a balanced GF (which I would also do with, say, 3=4=4=2, so unlike the standard 2♣ punt with, say, 3=4=3=3 it really doesn't show clubs).

Anyway, my point was that it is indeed desirable to have 2/1s show 5 cards.

 

Some people play a 2C response as artificial, or a 2NT response as artificial, to make other 2/1s show 5.

You mean an artificial 2N showing a balanced GF? :)

[jdonn]

No, it's like raising partner's major suit response to an opening bid. It "shows" 4, but is clearly the best bid on a substantial minority of hands with 3. But if the auction becomes competitive or such that you have no way to find out which, you will assume it's 4. Same for this type of bid.

I disagree. It's like overcalling on a 4 card suit. Hence my point about "often 4 cards".

 

I don't see your analogy of an auction such as 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♥ as ostensibly 4 when you're agreed to raise on 3 (with e.g. a minimum hand and shortness). Then your agreement is that you raise with 3-4 card support! Calling it anything else is kidding yourself and I would even go far as to say it wouldn't be full disclosure not to say that it's "often 3 card support".

 

At the end of the day, it's all down to frequency. My argument is that the way many people play it, raising responder's 1M response with 3 cards is more frequent than overcalling on a 4 card suit. Of course if you play the overcall structure or some other methods, that may not be the case.

 

So again, it's semantics. But if you want to say my analogy wasn't germane, then I stand my ground and say the analogy you gave is less germane.

Uh you lost me with this post lol. You took my analogy and inserted an agreement I never assumed, and then everything else you wrote went totally over my head. But ok!

 

I don't even know what analogy of yours you think I was criticizing. I was just saying you would still define the bid as 5+ even if on some minority of hands with 4 you consider it the best bid. Calling it 4+ implies that you make the bid at least most of the time with 4.

[Finch]

Some people play a 2C response as artificial, or a 2NT response as artificial, to make other 2/1s show 5.

You mean an artificial 2N showing a balanced GF? :)

Ah well, to us English brought up with limit bids 2NT showing a balanced GF is indeed artificial.

[Echognome]

Calling it 4+ implies that you make the bid at least most of the time with 4.

Ok. This is clearly the point I'm misunderstanding. And I'm sure it's in part my ignorance of what you are trying to say. The following points will certainly help me understand.

 

In the ACBL, you have checkboxes for minimum length say in opening a major or a minor. Suppose that you sometimes open 1M on 4 cards in 3/4 seat. How often must that be the case before you should check that the min length in those positions is 4 cards vs 5 cards?

 

Related point. I believe there's also a checkbox on the CC that says for overcalls something like "often 4 cards". I presume for *that* checkbox one would have to regularly overcall on 4 cards (say 50+% of the time) in order for it to make sense to check the box.

 

Finally, we have a different question which is if the opponents asked you about a bid and asked you the min length for the bid, what would you respond if the auctions were: (uncontested) 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♠ or (contested) (1♣) - 1♦ - (P) - 1♠