Some questions that have arisen

[Orla]

After opening 1♣ and Partner's 1♦ response; what is my bid now?

 

Holding:

♠ Q 6 4

♥ A K 6 2

♦ Q J 6

♣ J 6 4

 

 

Does 1♦ deny a 4-card major in "standard" SAYC?

 

B) rla

[ralph23]

1. 1♥, for sure.

 

2. No, not at all. SAYC bidding is up the line "in principle" -- however depending on style, responder may skip over a ♦ suit in some circumstances.

 

There are different philosophies on this. In fact there is one school called Majors Always First in Answering (or similar), MAFIA, that would always skip the ♦. But it is not at all standard.

 

Some authorities recommend skipping over it if your hand is weak, and bidding up-the-line if your hand is strong. This too is subject to debate.

 

But in standard, in no way does responding 1♦ deny a major suit. So bid your ♥s.

[jtfanclub]

Does 1♦ deny a 4-card major in "standard" SAYC?

No.

 

1♦ absolutely does not deny a 4 card major. 1NT by you generally denies a 4 card major- Walsh is not part of SAYC.

 

Of course, if you decide that 4333s like NT better and you decide to bid 1NT, I don't think your partner should come after you with an axe.

[vang]

no, 1♦ doesn't deny a 4card major. it's a matter of style what to rebid, but with 4333 I think most will rebid 1NT. with 4432, rebid your major if possible.

[PedroG]

Hi,

 

IMHO. and that is from a beginner, in SAYC you bid up-the-line, so you show your lowest 4card suit first...

 

Some play showing the major first by-passing diamonds. but think it's non-standard.

 

ty

Pedro

[helene_t]

You would probably have opened 1♦ with 4-4 minors and maybe with 4-5 as well, so there's not much point for responder to show a 4-card diamonds if he has a more useful message tell. It would be logical for a 1♦ response to promise 5, then, but I have never seen that suggested anywhere.

 

This is something that is incoherent in SAYC. Playing with a pick-up partner I would usually bypass a 4- or 5-card diamonds, but as opener I would tend to bid up-the-line just in case responder is on a different wavelength.

 

With this 3433-hand it would never occur to me to rebid 1♥, though, even if specifically having agreed not to play Walsh.

[BillHiggin]

MY choice would be to bid 1N (but there is some Hidious Hog blood in me).

Either 1♥ or 1N might work out better on any given day (and neither should be subject to much criticism).

 

1♦ definitely does not deny a major at all in SAYC.

Some partnerships agree to Walsh responses to 1♣ which means that the diamond suit is skipped in favor of a 4-card major with either less than game forcing strength or less than invitational strength (both agreements are playable) and others choose MAFIA where not bidding a major denies having one (regardless of strength). These are not "standard" SAYC agreements.

 

I would choose 1N because of the absolutely flat shape and the slow (no-trump oriented) values in the three card suits.

[mikeh]

I agree that in SAYC, 1♦ doesn't deny a 4 card major.. it is neutral on the question since SAYC is an up the line method responding to 1♣.

 

WRT to Helene's point, 1♦ is not usually played as 5+ for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is often the default bid on 3=3=3=4, when one doesn't want to bid 2♣ (wrong shape, and looks silly when partner is 4333 or 3433 or 4432) or 1N (often even std players ascribe a certain strength to 1N... or if not, use 2N as forcing, so with, say, 11 hcp and no major, fudge with 1♦.

 

As for the correct bid: the 'normal' bid is to continue up the line: ie bid 1♥.

 

However, if we allow ourselves to think a little beyond the bare bones of the method, and to invoke judgment, then there is a lot to be said for 1N.

 

Consider: if you bid 1♥, partner may be endplayed in the auction.... if he has no spade stopper (or 4 card holding) and lacks game values or a heart fit, what does he do? Give him xx xxx AJxxx Qxxx. What is his rebid?

 

And if you bid 1♥ and he makes a forward-going (forcing) call, and you feel you have to own up to your diamond support, your sequence of ♣s then ♥s then ♦s will not ound like 3=4=3=3 with a minimum and a spade stopper.

 

This hand screams notrump, and you should bid 1N, imo.

 

Now, once in a while, partner will leave you in 1 or 3N, when a 4-4 heart fit exists.

 

1stly, when he is shapely (4=5 in the reds or wilder) he should consider showing ♥ along the way, since (contrary to what most B/I players seem to be taught) it is not a crime to play a 4-3 major suit game when 3N fails. So you will then raise hearts.

 

2ndly, if he is 2=4=4=3 or 3=4=4=2, you may find that 3N makes when 4♥ fails: 9 tricks are sometimes easier than 10.

 

So: if you are both relative beginners and want to internalize basic bidding rules, consider 1♥, but (even then) discuss with partner, later, why and when it may be appropriate to depart from the up the line approach. If you are already comfortable, or want to become comfortable, with the idea that, on certain hands, one can and should choose another call, then bid 1N. But, don't make a habit of bypassing 1♥ merely because you are 3=4=3=3 (at least not when playing SAYC). For example, xxx AKJx xxx AJx: bid 1♥. I personally don't like the method, but in SAYC this is not a hand to override system: you have no spade stopper and you have a 'hard-value' hand, not a soft hand.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't play walsh but like rebidding 1N with this hand.

[jdonn]

I don't know what SAYC systematically calls for (I suspect 1♥), but any system that makes you bid 1♥ instead of 1NT is terrible. Anything but notrumps ASAP is the wrong description and a bad bid. This is something that beginners should learn, to always rebid 1NT with 4333 hands, but I even see experienced players messing it up.

[neilkaz]

I don't play walsh but like rebidding 1N with this hand.

Me too. If responder is unbalanced and GF with 4♥, he can reverse to 2♥

[helene_t]

WRT to Helene's point, 1♦ is not usually played as 5+ for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is often the default bid on 3=3=3=4, when one doesn't want to bid 2♣ (wrong shape, and looks silly when partner is 4333 or 3433 or 4432) or 1N (often even std players ascribe a certain strength to 1N... or if not, use 2N as forcing, so with, say, 11 hcp and no major, fudge with 1♦.

Fair enough, but why require any diamonds for a 1♦ bid, then? This SAYC-system sounds like a deformed version of Montreal Relay. 1♦ is just a waiting bid.

[ArcLight]

I don't play walsh but like rebidding 1N with this hand.

I thought Walsh ws "standard" among USA experts?

Justin, do you just respond up the line, or do you use a different method?

[ArcLight]

I don't know what SAYC systematically calls for (I suspect 1♥), but any system that makes you bid 1♥ instead of 1NT is terrible. Anything but notrumps ASAP is the wrong description and a bad bid. This is something that beginners should learn, to always rebid 1NT with 4333 hands, but I even see experienced players messing it up.

Jdonn, what are your criteria for rebidding 1NT (as opener) vs. showing a 4 card major?

Do you always bid 1NT, or are there exceptions? If so, what?

[Orla]

Been reading the responses, many thanks to you all.

 

Ok, here is my problem. Basically, I was responder and I should not have bid 1♦ at all!!!

 

(confession time) I was holding

♠ X X X

♥ X X X X

♦ K X X X X

♣X

 

I was justifying my lack of discipline, thinking that if partner bids a major I pass. (Hey, I have seen worse psyche bids!!!!)

 

Partner bid 1NT. Now, leaving my naughtiness aside, all I am asking is what is the reasoning behind hiding a 4-card major? Is not the aim of bidding, to find a major fit? What is the point of saying: "Well I was balanced so I bid NT"? Don't you have a partner who may not be "balanced"?

 

I agree with responding in the major if you are 4♠/♥s and 4♦s, but when I have 5♦s, I think I should bid them. If both my partner and myself are bidding up the line, we will certainly discover our major fit, if we have one.

 

:angry: rla

[PedroG]

Hi,

 

Well with 3HCP and a possible misfit I would PASS...

 

That would be the more specific bid I could find.

 

Pedro

[Orla]

 

Well with 3HCP and a possible misfit I would PASS...

 

I am in agreement with you, my bid was bad.

 

However, it still does not answer my question. Forget my 3HCP and give me another King of something. My problem remains the same:

 

Does responder bid a 5/6-card ♦ suit before a 4-card major, or the major first?

If yes,

Why would opener bid NT over showing a 4-card major suit?

 

:rolleyes:rla

[ralph23]

I agree with responding in the major if you are 4♠/♥s and 4♦s, but when I have 5♦s, I think I should bid them. If both my partner and myself are bidding up the line, we will certainly discover our major fit, if we have one.

 

:angry: rla

I can tell you what Bill Root's rationale was for a ♦ skip-over. (NB- You have a bad hand (so bad that maybe you might have passed, heaven forbid! :lol: ). But let's give you a stray Queen somewhere so you have a 5 HCP count. )

 

It was this: If you have a weak hand, there's a good chance that you will hear from your LHO, with a ♠ overcall. You have a "one bid" hand so get your major in quickly; see if your partner matches your major. It may get competitive soon....

 

If you have a strong and shapely hand (e.g. 5 or 6♦, together with 4♥, and good strength, then go ahead and bid naturally, up the line. There's lower chance of an overcall, and you are strong enough to bid again anyhow....At least that was what Root taught.

 

There are about 47 different philosophies on this issue, so with ten bridge players, you will get 12 different opinions. Clearly, several schools of thought have merit and reasonable minds can differ. It's a good area for partnership agreement and one in which you want to be on the same wavelength as partner.

[ralph23]

Why would opener bid NT over showing a 4-card major suit?

Let me address (maybe supplement is a better word) your question with another question.

 

Suppose instead your partner's hand had been:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sk84hak73dqj3ck75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

and he opened 1nt.

 

You had a different hand than the junk you actually held, and you responded 2♣.

 

What should partner bid? 2♥ or 2♦ ?

 

(Suppose also you and partner subscribe to the school that says "Don't use Stayman as responder with 4333 or 3433 distribution.")

[Orla]

Suppose instead your partner's hand had been:

 

and he opened 1nt.

 

You had a different hand than the junk you actually held, and you responded 2♣.

 

What should partner bid? 2♥ or 2♦ ?

 

(Suppose also you and partner subscribe to the school that says "Don't use Stayman as responder with 4333 or 3433 distribution.")

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can). As I said before, one person may be balanced, the other not - could prove fatal in NT.

 

In this case, one pair opened 1NT on the above hand. They got a top. Responder bid 2♣ (Planning to pass any response). and they found the ♥ fit.

 

Is the consensus: "Play in NT at any price" or "Find a major fit."?

 

:angry: rla

[Stephen Tu]

Does responder bid a 5/6-card ♦ suit before a 4-card major, or the major first?

If yes,

Why would opener bid NT over showing a 4-card major suit?

 

It's totally a stylistic thing. There are advantages & disadvantages to both approaches. Officially, SAYC is supposed to be "up-the-line", rather than the Walsh bypass diamonds school, but maybe only 15% of online players have actually ever read the SAYC document?

 

If responder doesn't bypass diamonds to bid majors with < game invite hands, probably opener shouldn't bypass majors to bid 1nt, though some will bypass with 4333 specifically. If responder does bypass, then so should opener.

 

Advantages of bypassing diamonds:

- opener conceals 4 cd majors from opponents which may induce misdefence vs. a NT contract

- when opener does show 2 suits he actually has them, allowing responder to support clubs more freely. After 4th suit auctions more is known about opener's hand sooner the more balanced shapes that are excluded.

 

Advantages of not bypassing diamonds, or only selectively bypassing diamonds:

- gets to diamonds much more easily. If bidding major first, on many auction continuations might not be strong enough to bid diamonds, or diamonds would be artificial, or partner might assume a longer major, all problematic.

- with partners who like to raise on 3 frequently (which often improves auction when responder has 5 cd M, and often works out OK when responder has 4), can avoid bidding BAD 4 cd majors that really don't want to deal with 4-3 fits.

 

Bidding 1d on your hand is obviously more likely to work out better in an up-the-line style than in a bypass style. After the 1nt rebid though you could probably try 2d.

[ralph23]

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sk84hak73dqj3ck75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

and you opened 1nt with it,

 

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

 

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

 

then, would you bid 2♥?

 

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

[cherdano]

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sk84hak73dqj3ck75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

and you opened 1nt with it,

 

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

 

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

 

then, would you bid 2♥?

 

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

Of course I would bid 2♥, I have already shown a balanced hand, and if partner is interested in playing a 4-4 fit opposite a balanced hand I have no business lying to him.

The situation isn't comparable to rebidding 1N with a 4333 at all.

[ralph23]

Of course I would bid 2♥, I have already shown a balanced hand, and if partner is interested in playing a 4-4 fit opposite a balanced hand I have no business lying to him.

The situation isn't comparable to rebidding 1N with a 4333 at all.

Well, partner knows you are balanced or semi-balanced anyhow, as we all open 1nt sometimes on semi-balanced.

 

Partner does NOT know that you are 3433, however. He knows you MIGHT be, but doesn't know that you are.

 

But anyhow.....I assume likewise, if you had the values as responder, you would use Stayman if your shape was as in template "A", namely

 

♠xx

♥xxxx

♦xxxxx

♣xx

 

or even if it was more balanced, as in "B" which is

 

♠xxx

♥xxxx

♦xxxx

♣xx

 

So it's therefore desirable for the partnership to find a 4-4 ♥ fit when responder has either shape A or shape B, even if opener is 3433.

 

I mean, that's the point (or a point, or an aspect maybe) of Stayman.

 

But it's NOT desirable for the partnership to explore for a 4-4 ♥ fit in the other case, when ♣-opener's shape is 3433, even though opener knows for sure that *IF* responder-♦-bidder indeed has 4♥, he has at least shape B, and probably A or maybe even more unbalanced than A. (I don't know the odds but I'm betting B is less than 50% of all the hand patterns that responder is likely to hold when he bids 1♦ over 1♣ opening).

 

I'm sure (in all seriousness) those two situations seem consistent to you, but they don't to me.

 

If it's right to responder to look for a 4-4 fit when responder isn't flat, even though he KNOWS that opener may be flat and he's willing to live with that outcome-- then, why isn't it also right for opener, who is flat and knows it, to explore for the same 4-4 fit, when he KNOWS that, if the 4-4 fit indeed exists, responder isn't -- indeed, cannot be --flat ?

 

Just seems like Hi-papalorum and Lo-papahirum to me.......

 

Are we worried about giving up too much information to the opponents?

 

Or is it that in one case, opener KNOWS that one partner (namely, himself) has a flat hand, and in the other case, responder only knows that opener MIGHT have a flat hand, and that's a "risk" he's willing to take? {Surely, this can't be the reason, can it? If so, there's a simple fix for it.... B) }

Edited August 16, 2007 by ralph23

[Orla]

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sk84hak73dqj3ck75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

and you opened 1nt with it,

 

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

 

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

 

then, would you bid 2♥?

 

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

 

Arrrrrghhhhh, what a question!!!! Remember the most important thing about bridge is partnership trust.

 

I may exhibit errors of judgement, from time to time, but I do not consciously try to deceive my partner - opponents maybe, partner no (if I can help it). If partner asks me to tell her whether I have a 4-card major I do so.....

 

Once I bid NT my Partner is boss. S/he asks, I tell ...... S/he knows my hand(-ish) I do not know hers. Whatever contract we land in s/he chooses.