It finally happened....

[jtfanclub]

I opened a club, 'could be short' with exactly 4432.

 

Partner, who's a decent intermediate player with a lot of experience with Standard American, responded 1 spade with...

 

95432

9862

654

3

 

I give. Why is it that SA players, who never seem to pass 1 club anyways, won't play 1 diamond as a waiting bid? Is it a complexity issue? Style? That it's associated with evil Precision?

 

It's just not that complicated, and if you open 1♦ with all non-reverse strength hands with 4+ diamonds (which they all seem to), what's the point in showing diamonds anyways?

 

I suppose the question also applies to 2/1. Why no waiting 1♦ bid there either?

[han]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it a plea for using 1C-1D as artificial after a natural (but short) 1C opening? Are you writing this to vent your frustration with players who respond very light when they have a 5-card major? Or is it to celebrate your victory of getting to the 9-card fit after you opened in your 3-card fit and they won't compete over 2S? It isn't clear to me.

[helene_t]

My personal opinion is that it's for the same reason as why I'm typing this comment with a QWERTY keyboard. Few people even know that artificial responses to 1♣ exist, still fewer know what their advantages and disadvantages are and what specific agreements you need to make to avoid misunderstandings. Even those who have sufficiently knowledge don't bother to play artifical responses, because

- You never know if some BBO TD might think that the conventions violates his idiosyncratic rules.

- You'll have to understand standard bidding anyway because everybody plays it, and you will still have to play standard with most of your semi-regular partners. So you're better of investing your time perfecting your standard bidding.

- There are many conventions that I should probably learn and might find time to study one day. No reason to assume that the 1♦ negative is in top 10.

 

FWIW, I don't like the 1♦ negative, I think T-Walsh offers more value for less complexity. But that's just me. Of course this is comparing apples to oranges since the problems addressed by the two conventions barely overlap.

[cherdano]

I opened a club, 'could be short' with exactly 4432.

 

Partner, who's a decent intermediate player with a lot of experience with Standard American, responded 1 spade with...

 

95432

9862

654

3

 

I give. Why is it that SA players, who never seem to pass 1 club anyways, won't play 1 diamond as a waiting bid? Is it a complexity issue? Style? That it's associated with evil Precision?

 

It's just not that complicated, and if you open 1♦ with all non-reverse strength hands with 4+ diamonds (which they all seem to), what's the point in showing diamonds anyways?

If I had to bid 1♦ waiting, or 1♦ 0-8, or 1♦-not-a-4-card-major-with-8+-points with this I would rather pass. The point of bidding 1♠ rather than passing is to show my shape, quickly, and make it tough for opponents to enter the auction.

The same principle might explain why it is useful to have a bid to show, uhm, diamonds...

[whereagles]

jtf: this is one of the reasons the sayc 2♣ opener is obsolete. If you're never going to pass 1♣, you might as well dump the 2♣ opener into it and free the bid to something more interesting, e.g. a WEAK TWO ;)

[paulg]

I'm a big anti-fan of 1♦ "waiting" in such a system, but I do see a lot of beginners and intermediates panic bid in such cases of short clubs. A gentle friendly word about the real risks normally sorts them out.

 

Of course, if your partner does it again (following the friendly chat), then he is essentially playing 1♣ as forcing and it should be alerted as such.

 

Paul

[ochinko]

If I pull that 1♦ with any of my partners, we'll end up playing 1NT with nine spades and eight hearts in the line, because I have denied having a four card major.

 

It's just a matter of style and agreements whether you could afford to bid the other minor here.

[Gerben42]

Does he do that only with the short ♣ or also with other 1-bids? If so he is basically playing Fantunes without using the solutions to the problems he is creating :huh:

[navit]

I learned that 1 D response to partner's 1 C opening bid means less than 6 points.

Any comments please

[paulg]

I learned that 1 D response to partner's 1 C opening bid means less than 6 points.

Any comments please

Generally a 1♦ response to 1♣ shows diamonds and at least, say, 5+ HCP. Hands with fewer points pass.

 

Using 1♦ as a negative response is playable but non-standard.

 

Paul

[david_c]

I give.  Why is it that SA players, who never seem to pass 1 club anyways, won't play 1 diamond as a waiting bid?  Is it a complexity issue?  Style?  That it's associated with evil Precision? 

No, it's because a 1♦ waiting bid is not part of SA. If you've agreed to play SA, then 1♦ is not an option. :blink:

 

Maybe your partner would have been happy to play 1♦ as a waiting bid, but that requires discussion.

 

Also, you might find more like-minded partners if you write "WJ" in your profile.

[kenberg]

One of the things I have never understood is why players want to open a 4-4-3-2 hand with 1C. It causes problems and solves little. But I realize that's not your question.

 

Actually your question seems to presuppose I would not pass 1C. I would. Several reasons:

 

No one has doubled yet. Given my hand, that's a blessing.

 

My partner might have clubs. Six of them, say.

 

Fourth hand might bid, after which any action I take will be much clearer in light of my original pass.

 

If I do anything other than pass, partner is likely to think I have something. This is likely to be bad.

 

If I bid with this trash, partner will remember it next time and not trust my bidding.

 

If someone puts a gun to my head and says I must bid, I bid spades of course. But only if the gun is loaded.

 

PS If I play transfer Walsh responses, assuming that means what I think it does (I have never played them) I guess I might do that. Have to discuss it first.

[foo]

I opened a club, 'could be short' with exactly 4432.

 

Partner, who's a decent intermediate player with a lot of experience with Standard American, responded 1S with...

 

♠95432♥9862♦654♣3

 

I give.  Why is it that SA players, who never seem to pass 1C anyways, won't play 1D as a waiting bid?  Is it a complexity issue?  Style?  That it's associated with evil Precision? 

 

It's just not that complicated, and if you open 1♦ with all non-reverse strength hands with 4+ diamonds (which they all seem to), what's the point in showing diamonds anyways?

 

I suppose the question also applies to 2/1.  Why no waiting 1♦ bid there either?

The "short club" in SA or 2/1 causes more problems than it solves unless you play a fairly sophisticated structure based on it.

 

I have =once= while using SA or 2/1 opened 1C with =4432. My D's were xxx and my C's were AK.

 

I =do= play 1C-1D as a waiting sequence, but that's because I play 1N= 12-14 and therefore want to reduce the risk of wrongsiding NT contracts after GOP opens 1m.

since for me 1C-1N= 9-11, 1C-1D! is where 6-8 counts w/o a 4cM go.

~99% of the time the 1D responder has D's. Thus it is more or less a natural bid.

 

But the =real= problem here is that Responder should never take a bid on the example garbage unless you are playing methods to field it.

 

Responder probably felt (correctly) that if 1C could be short, they had to "rescue" Opener and try to "improve the contract". This is an example of one of the hidden costs of playing the "short club".

[helene_t]

Short club deviates from SA only with respect to the specific 4=4=3=2 pattern. Don't worry about it. If you want to be able to respond to with zero HCP you should choose that because:

- Even if you assume opener has at least 3 and probably 4 clubs, passing with a singleton is a gamble.

- You don't want LHO to be able to balance at the 1-level, and you don't want him to know that it's safe to bid because you have nothing

- You want to cater for the possibility that opener has a monster hand which didn't qualify for a strong 2-bid, say 4315.

 

Of course if you play 1♣ as forcing you could open with a singleton as well (so that 1♦ promises 5) and you could put a number of ultra-strong hands into 1♣. I doubt that's a good idea, though. I'm already uncomfortable with the SA minor suit openings which mean too many different things. In fact I've persuaded both of my IRL partners to play systems with more informative minor suit openings. Putting even more possibilities into the 1♣ makes it even more vulnerable to preemption.

 

As others have suggested, playing WJ may be the way to go for you. An alternative is to play the Mexican 2♦ opening. Then you know that when you play 1♣ in a 3-2 fit (or worse) at least the board belongs to the opps.

[jtfanclub]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it a plea for using 1C-1D as artificial after a natural (but short) 1C opening? Are you writing this to vent your frustration with players who respond very light when they have a 5-card major? Or is it to celebrate your victory of getting to the 9-card fit after you opened in your 3-card fit and they won't compete over 2S? It isn't clear to me.

Well, it's certainly not the last one...I had Axxx AJx x AK9xx. I'd rather have played it in 1 club than 3 spades.

 

Really, it's none of the above. It's my frustration with SAYC. If everybody on the planet responds to 1♣ very light (probably not THIS light, but you know what I mean) then the system should reflect it, either with a nebulous 1 diamond response or through something else. SAYC just seems like a huge house of smoke and mirrors to me...partner opens his better minor, which will be at least 4 cards, except when it isn't his better minor and/or it isn't at least 4 cards. You respond with 6+ hcp except when you respond with 0, etc. etc.

 

It seems like SAYC is a system now built around lying. You try to guess ahead of time what your partner is going to say next, and then you make the call that will get you to the right place if your partner is being honest. You learn the rules not so that you'll obey them, but so you'll know what partner means so you can trick him into doing the right thing.

 

I know, it's just my frustration with trying to learn SAYC...25 years now of working on it, and I'm still not very good at it. But if I hear or read one more time "I did this because if I did the book thing I wouldn't have a convenient rebid"...come on, say what you mean. You lied to your partner because you thought dishonesty would get you to a better result, and I don't mean fudging a jack or even a queen.

 

I have enough frustration with "overhangs"...partner opens 1 diamond, you have 5 spades and 4 hearts, or 5 clubs and 4 spades. Do you go "up the line" or bid your longest first? Well, from reading here, it seems you bid the longest first, unless you think that'll be inconvenient later. Then you bid up the line. Whichever one you do, you'll surely be able to browbeat partner by saying that it's standard, and surely he should have known what you have.

 

Maybe this works for everybody else. It's certainly popular. But Good Lord, is this really the system we want to teach beginners? Can't we have a Green Card where everybody agrees that this bid means X or sometimes Y, and not "partner wants you to think he has X, and you'll find out what he actually has when he puts down the dummy"?

 

Sorry for venting. I'll be good now.

[Guest Jlall]

Well, it's certainly not the last one...I had Axxx AJx x AK9xx. I'd rather have played it in 1 club than 3 spades.

Why? 3S is a better spot. Your partner's gamble paid off.

 

 

But Good Lord, is this really the system we want to teach beginners?

 

I don't think anyone would teach a beginner to respond with this hand.

[jtfanclub]

But Good Lord, is this really the system we want to teach beginners?

 

I don't think anyone would teach a beginner to respond with this hand.

It's not the beginner who makes this call. It's beginner's partner. Or it's beginner's opponents playing the 'same system', who get to 3♠, get a good result, and the beginner is trying to figure out what the heck happened. Or worst of all, the beginner passes, gets a bad result, and either gets chastised by his partner for making the book bid, or sees the bad result and can't figure out what the heck he did wrong.

 

I dunno. It's bad enough for me, and I'm only a beginner compared to people like you. :)

[helene_t]

[.....]SAYC just seems like a huge house of smoke and mirrors to me...partner opens his better minor, which will be at least 4 cards, except when it isn't his better minor and/or it isn't at least 4 cards. You respond with 6+ hcp except when you respond with 0, etc. etc. [....]

But Good Lord, is this really the system we want to teach beginners?

I don't think SAYC is that bad for beginners. OK, most other systems are better but then again, SAYC is what potential partners play and most books for beginners and intermediates assume some SAYC-like system.

 

Of course you must teach beginners to bid with dicipline. They must know the rules before they can make the decision to deviate from them once in a while. This means passing 1m with less than 6 HCP.

 

If your beginning students can't swallow that because they are phobic of the 3-1 fit, you might consider a different system. But I think you'll get similar problems with any system. Someone should write a book about all the bad habbits beginners aquire again and again, with enough examples, statistics and logical arguments to convince at least the brighter students that it's usually not a good idea

- to overstate your values when rescuing partner from a part-score that hasn't been doubled and might not even be bad

- to overstate your values and/or suit length in order to avoid a notrump bid just because there might be an open suit and opps might lead it and partner might not take out your notrump bid.

- to repeat a 5-card (non-forcingly) because you have only promised 4 and partner might have 3-card support (but might also have zero)

- to lead a naked ace just to have a look at the dummy (or because you want to cash it before it's too late)

 

Of course if you can't swallow it yourself, you must teach some other system. I think it's important for a teacher to believe in what you're teaching.

[bid_em_up]

The "short club" in SA or 2/1 causes more problems than it solves unless you play a fairly sophisticated structure based on it.

.........

This is an example of one of the hidden costs of playing the "short club".

One of the things I have never understood is why players want to open a 4-4-3-2 hand with 1C. It causes problems and solves little.

Statements like these are usually based on a lack of appreciation for subsequent changes to other auctions and the inferences implied. They are totally false, and are strictly the opinions of the posters quoted. I used to feel the same way as they do until a player much better than myself showed me why I was mistaken. There is no additional "sophisticated" structure required.

 

Problems like the original one are nothing more than an indication of the lack of discipline on responders part to pass 1C. There is absolutely no reason to respond on garbage such as this. This is a direct result of partner being an "beginner/intermediate" player who thinks he must "rescue" his partner, and has no bearing on the 1C opening itself. In most cases, they simply do not have the experience/discipline required to pass and risk partner playing a 2-1 fit, all the while knowing that if 1C gets doubled for penalty back to them they can run then. And they also don't appreciate is that by holding a stiff, it actually reduces that likelihood that partner only holds a 2 card suit.

 

Your issue really shouldn't be with the system. Your issue is with your partner who cannot follow the system and pass as he is supposed to.

[jtfanclub]

Someone should write a book about all the bad habbits beginners aquire again and again, with enough examples, statistics and logical arguments to convince at least the brighter students that it's usually not a good idea...

I think that's a wonderful idea. Anybody know if such a book exists?

[kenberg]

Another thing that I have never played is a big club system. Of course then a 1C bid is forcing. It also shows a strong hand, and usually the big club pairs have a number of agreements as to how to develop the auction after the 1C opening. If I am told that I have to respond 1D with the sample hand, then I want to play precision. At least then I get something for my money.

 

As has been mentioned, the 4-4-3-2 hands are not all that frequent, although certainly they arise. In all my partnerships, such hands are opened 1D. There is rarely a problem with sorting out the number of diamonds. Example: 1D-1M-1NT. Partner has 4+ diamonds since he obviously is not 4-4 in the majors. Example: 1D-? when I don't hold a major. If I am balanced I bid some number of NT. I don't care if partner has only three diamonds. If I am unbalanced I raise diamonds or bid clubs, or if I have clubs but lack the strength for 2C I bid NT. I guess sometime or another the auction has developed so that I had to worry about partner's three or four diamonds, but I think it was five or six years ago.

 

Opening 1C on a two card suit seems to make sense only if it is forcing but then? He bids 1C forcing, I bid 1D forcing, I don't know if he has clubs, he doesn't know if I have diamonds, I don't know if he has a 12 count or an 18 count. I assume that if I had six diamonds and a ten count I would also bid 1D so he knows nothing really of my hand either. I might have the example trash. Playing precision, if I have ten points and diamonds it is safe to show that, presumably with 2D. But here? This doesn't sound like a winning system to me.

 

 

Anyway, with this hand I pass. As Helene notes it's a gamble, whether 1C promises three or not. True. But bidding a spade is suicide. Worse yet, I'll be the declarer. At the very least, I want to be playing Wolfe sign-offs if I bid 1S with this. Not usually the case playing pick-up. I can't say I am thrilled by the thought of bidding 2S as a weak jumps shift here either.

[kenberg]

The "short club" in SA or 2/1 causes more problems than it solves unless you play a fairly sophisticated structure based on it.

.........

This is an example of one of the hidden costs of playing the "short club".

One of the things I have never understood is why players want to open a 4-4-3-2 hand with 1C. It causes problems and solves little.

Statements like these are usually based on a lack of appreciation for subsequent changes to other auctions and the inferences implied. They are totally false, and are strictly the opinions of the posters quoted. I used to feel the same way as they do until a player much better than myself showed me why I was mistaken. There is no additional "sophisticated" structure required.

 

Problems like the original one are nothing more than an indication of the lack of discipline on responders part to pass 1C. There is absolutely no reason to respond on garbage such as this. This is a direct result of partner being an "beginner/intermediate" player who thinks he must "rescue" his partner, and has no bearing on the 1C opening itself. In most cases, they simply do not have the experience/discipline required to pass and risk partner playing a 2-1 fit, all the while knowing that if 1C gets doubled for penalty back to them they can run then. And they also don't appreciate is that by holding a stiff, it actually reduces that likelihood that partner only holds a 2 card suit.

 

Your issue really shouldn't be with the system. Your issue is with your partner who cannot follow the system and pass as he is supposed to.

Huh? Totally false? It's totally true that I never understood why players want to open 1C on 4-4-3-2 and moreover it has a lot to do with appreciating the changes in the subsequent auction.

[keylime]

Chuck,

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, to the maximum extent. It has nothing to do with systemic choices; it has everything to do with biting the bullet and passing.

 

Pass is not an evil word.

[bid_em_up]

As has been mentioned, the 4-4-3-2 hands are not all that frequent, although certainly they arise. In all my partnerships, such hands are opened 1D. There is rarely a problem  with sorting out the number of diamonds. Example: 1D-1M-1NT. Partner has 4+ diamonds since he obviously is not 4-4 in the majors.

So, what you are saying is that in the auction 1D-1S-1N, opener has to have 4 diamonds. Why can't opener be 3-4-3-3? (Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.) So you do not know partner holds 4 diamonds. I am, of course, assuming you open your better minor when 3-3, you may also always open 1C instead. If you always open 1C when 3-3, then yes, opener will have at least 4 diamonds.

 

Opening 1C on a two card suit seems to make sense only if it is forcing but then?

In terms of an SAYC or 2/1 context, it is only forcing if responder actually has some reason to bid. Partner is not supposed to be bidding on garbage under the misguided conception of "rescuing" opener, simply because he MIGHT have a doubleton club. I think we can agree that the given hand should pass originally, unless playing some sort of big club system where 1D is a known artificial response indicating a bad hand.

 

He bids 1C forcing, I bid 1D forcing, I don't know if he has clubs, he doesn't know if I have diamonds.

You will on his next call. If he is 4♦-4♣ or 4♦-5♣, he will ALWAYS raise to 2♦. If he rebids a major, he can still be 4-4-3-2 (but he cannot hold 4D), which will be determined by your next call.

 

Note, I struck out the forcing after 1C. In playing 1C as a 2 card suit in a 2/1 or SAYC context, 1C is not forcing, no more so than any other opening bid is (other than 2C). 1D is quasi-forcing as it tends to promise a "real" responding hand, but it does not promise a second call.

 

If the auction goes, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2S, by inference, partner was originally 4-4-3-2. If the auction goes 1C-1D-1H-2H, you don't really care if he was 4-4-3-2, as a fit has been located.

 

Where you really gain is that 1D openings now always promise 4 cards. This practically assures you of being able escape into 2D on a known 4-3 fit, if needed. It makes it easier to know whether or not to compete in diamonds. It also makes evaluating diamond game/slam contracts much easier later in the auction. Granted, at MP play, this isn't a top priority, but at IMP play, it certainly can be.

 

There are other inferences involved as well. Certainly, if you are not used to playing it this way (as you state), it is difficult to appreciate many of the nuances involved. But really, there are very few "sophisticated" responses/bids required by doing so. You simply bid your hand naturally, 4 card suits up the line.

 

jmoo.

[bid_em_up]

Huh? Totally false? It's totally true that I never understood why players want to open 1C on 4-4-3-2 and moreover it has a lot to do with appreciating the changes in the subsequent auction.

I misinterpreted your post then.

 

It is one thing to say you don't understand the logic behind the 1C opening, or what is gained by doing so, which is apparently what you meant.

 

I read it as "I don't understand how anyone could think this is playable, because it causes problems and solves nothing!!", as in being a sarcastic comment.

 

Sorry.