Some questions that have arisen

[cherdano]

Standard bidding isn't a science. Depending on how your auction times out, you sometimes end up in 3N despite a 4-4 fit when one of you has 4333, sometimes you don't. This is usually not a disaster either way.

Anyway, lying to stayman isn't an option, responder could be 4405 and you can never find your heart fit in standard. (If responder is unbalanced in the 1N-rebid auction, you may still hear about it and may find your heart fit.) If you want to worry about it you need to add a shape relay after the stayman reply, or a choice-of-game-despite-4-4-major-fit. Neither is available in standard, and again it's never a disaster.

[ralph23]

[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.

Yea, I wouldn't lie about a 4 card major if partner uses Stayman, either. Even if I had 3433 shape.

 

I kind of doubt that we're going to find anybody who says they will lie in that circumstance, but I've been surprised before.

[awm]

SAYC is based on up-the-line bidding. Neither opener nor responder is expected to bypass a four-card suit in order to bid a more expensive four card suit, or to bid 1NT.

 

Of course, there is always room for judgment in any method.

[ralph23]

Depending on how your auction times out, you sometimes end up in 3N despite a 4-4 fit when one of you has 4333, sometimes you don't.

That doesn't happen, ever -- i.e. you never end up in 3nt -- when opener opens 1nt with 3433 shape and responder uses Stayman and gets a "match" from opener on the major suit (we assume that responder never will use Stayman with that dreaded flat hand).

 

Then, in the Stayman-using case, if there's a 4-4 fit, we always play in the major suit, even if opener does have the dreaded flat hand shape.

 

Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just too insignificant to worry about?

 

I think you are saying "It's too insignificant to worry about" ... yes ??

[awm]

The issue of bidding stayman with a 4333 hand is more complex than people necessarily consider. Several issues here:

 

(1) If one hand is 4333 and the other is 4432, you will often (but not always) score one trick more in the major suit fit. At MP scoring this means you want to be in the major. At IMP scoring, you should prefer 3NT because it's no big deal when notrump makes nine tricks and 4M makes ten, but you win big when both contracts make nine. This is almost exactly the opposite of some people's intuition (to bid 3NT all the time in MP going for the extra 10 points).

 

(2) If you frequently open 1NT with two doubletons (as many people do) this starts to become more of an issue. 4333 opposite 4225 will almost always play better in the 4-4 major suit fit, perhaps even multiple tricks better.

 

(3) If you're 4333 opposite 4333, you really want to play 3NT and not 4M. If you're 5332 opposite 4333, it's often better to play in 3NT despite a nine-card fit.

 

One easy way to fix this is to use three of the other major as a game-forcing raise. So for example 1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ would be a game forcing spade raise, and opener can rebid 3NT with some 4333 hand (which responder can then pass) or bid anything else on the way to game in spades (since this sequence would also be used with a slam try). This use of three of the other major is fairly standard anyway (you need to have some way to try for slam once you find a major fit) and allowing it to be used also to avoid 4M with a pair of 4333 hands is only a minor extension.

[ralph23]

Of course, there is always room for judgment in any method.

I agree. But, there's really NOT room for judgment for opener to exercise, when he opens 1nt and responder bids Stayman ... is there? Isn't opener just to tell the simple truth, and NOT use any judgment?

 

"Oh, yea, partner, I know you bid Stayman and I did in fact have a 4 card major, but my judgment was that it was better not to reveal it because I had this dreadful flat 4333 shape, and my values were scattered, and my hand just had NoTrump written all over it and ...."

 

I mean, we just don't accept this kind of B.S. from opener ... do we ? Don't we send him back to Bidding School?

 

If THAT's true, then why do we approve of his using his judgment -- and giving the same story as above in support of his judgment -- to skip over a 4-card major on his rebid, when he knows that, IF responder has a match in the major, responder won't be flat and and probably will be semi-balanced or more?

 

Does that seem consistent to you? To reprimand him for using his "judgment" in responding to Stayman, and to approve of him in using his "judgment" to suppress a 4 card major?

[jdonn]

Does that seem consistent to you? To reprimand him for using his "judgment" in responding to Stayman, and to approve of him in using his "judgment" to suppress a 4 card major?

Yes, and you should really be able to see the difference between an opener that has already shown a balanced hand and already limited his strength range to an opener that has done neither of those things.

[awm]

It's not inconsistent. Let me try to explain why.

 

Take a hand like the example. There are three essential features of this hand which you'd like to communicate to partner if you can:

 

(1) It is balanced.

(2) It includes four hearts.

(3) It contains X high card points (okay there are two example hands with different X).

 

In an ideal world, you could efficiently communicate all of these to partner, which would help partner substantially in placing a contract. Of course, there are other details which might become important too (for example the number of spades if partner has spades, or the fact that you're 4333 and not 4432, or the number of keycards if partner's looking for slam).

 

The point is that when you open 1NT, you have already handled items (1) and (3). Partner wants to find out (2) at a cheap level -- lying to partner is counterproductive.

 

When you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you have not yet managed to show any of the items above. Your hand could still be balanced or unbalanced, include any number of hearts from zero to five, and while there is some lower limit on the high card points (since you opened) the range is really wide (like 11-21).

 

You have the choice of two bids at your second turn. If you bid 1♥, it will tell partner about (2) but partner still has no clue about (1) or (3). In fact it may be difficult to communicate these later -- say partner bids 2♠ next (4th suit GF) and now you've lost a lot of space and 2NT doesn't necessarily show a balanced hand or necessarily limit your values. Alternatively, you can rebid 1NT which solves both (1) and (3) but gives partner no clue about (2). In some follow-up auctions you will be able to show the hearts later, and in some you will not. It's the bidder's judgment, to some degree, which of (1)-(3) is most likely to be useful and which is most likely to be communicated in the later bidding.

[the hog]

Hi Orla, Long time no hear.

 

The reason many people bid 1NT with your pd's hand is that the bid is very descriptive. he has showm a flat hand in the given point range. This is very useful information for responder to have - more useful than "I may or may not have Ds, you don't know my strength, and all you know is that I have at least an opening bid with 4H."

 

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

[Orla]

Hi Orla, Long time no hear.

 

The reason many people bid 1NT with your pd's hand is that the bid is very descriptive. he has showm a flat hand in the given point range. This is very useful information for responder to have - more useful than "I may or may not have Ds, you don't know my strength, and all you know is that I have at least an opening bid with 4H."

 

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

Hi Ron, yeppers been a long time - hope I remembered your name correctly. What you have just said is pretty well what my partner said yesterday. It was new to me, which is why I posted it.

 

You know when you learn something new, you try to make sense of it and take it on board. I have huge problems understanding this. When my partner says that it is "standard" SAYC, I can hardly believe it. And, judging from some of the responses, some do not consider it "standard".

 

When I came across this Walsh thingy, I hated it. When I play with a pick-up P, I often say that my responding with a minor does not deny a major.

 

You are all talking about describing your hand, but I feel that skipping a 4-card major in doing so, is a contradiction. What is wrong with testing the waters? Why have we been given "convenient/better" minors?

 

When you have a "balanced" hand your partner may not. Your partner has a totally unsuitable NT hand, yet you have chosen to take away all possibilities of finding a suit contract. What happens when you have no communication with dummy?

 

Given the hand yesterday - I will repost it:

♠ Q 6 4

♥ A K 6 2

♦ Q J 6

♣ J 6 4

 

If you were playing weak NT, you would open it 1NT. Given my crapola, I would not have left it in. I would have bid 2♣, P would have responded 2♥ and that would have been our end contract.

 

If P had opened 1♣ and I was disciplined(?) and passed with my 3HCP, we would have been in 1♣ down 5.

 

If the bidding had gone as I had hoped: 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ pass, then we would have been laughing .......

[ralph23]

It's the bidder's judgment, to some degree, which of (1)-(3) is most likely to be useful and which is most likely to be communicated in the later bidding.

OK, then please tell me -- on what basis is he to judge? There must be some criteria by which he judges.

 

In any case: All the following conditions are and will always be in place in these situations:

 

1. He (opener) has not merely a balanced hand, but a 3433 hand.

2. He has a hand not quite good enough in point count to have opened 1nt.

3. He has exactly four ♥.

4. He has scattered values.

5. Partner (responder) has bid ♦, and may or may not have 4♥ (assuming we're not playing e.g. MAFIA).

6. If partner does in fact hold 4 (or 5!!) ♥, partner will not have a flat hand and may well have a wildly shaped hand with e.g. lots of ♦, 4♥ and a singleton.

 

Where in the world is there any room for judgment? What is opener supposed to think about when he is exercising this judgment?

 

Does he judge based on how his values are scattered among the suits? In the example 1/2 of his HCP and all his QT's are in ♥.

 

I can't imagine any other variable to think about, and don't know how that "Value Allocation" variable is to be utilized, anyhow.

 

If he had the Queen of ♥ rather than another Queen, would that make the difference to him in the exercise of his judgment, and cause him to fess up to holding ♥??

 

Because unless there's some variable that would cause him to choose bidding ♥, when #'s 1-6 are in effect, it's not judgment; it's a rule, like Stayman. But it's not a rule .... is it?

[ralph23]

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

So, (assuming you play 15-17 NT) with the following distribution and 13 HCP and scattered values:

 

♠xxxx

♥xx

♦xxx

♣xxxx

 

you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....

 

Or did you mean, I think, that it shows an unbalanced hand (or maybe semi-balanced hand) when responder bids specifically 1♦ and you (opener) rebid 1♥/♠?

[ralph23]

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

If you're playing MAFIA, then you'll always bid your 4-card major instead of bidding ♦, won't you, regardless of how strong you are? (Majors Always First...)

 

And that approach sure seems to clean up a lot of problems! Now when responder bids 1♦, opener knows that he (responder) doesn't have 4♥.

 

Of course, you get other problems when you trade off ....as with anything....

[the hog]

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

So, (assuming you play 15-17 NT) with the following distribution and 13 HCP and scattered values:

 

♠xxxx

♥xx

♦xxx

♣xxxx

 

you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....

 

Or did you mean, I think, that it shows an unbalanced hand (or maybe semi-balanced hand) when responder bids specifically 1♦ and you (opener) rebid 1♥/♠?

Yes I would certainly bid 1N holding a 4324/4234 shape. I might make an exception IF I held say AQxx xx xxx AKxx or similar. For me and for many others here to open 1C and rebid 1S shows 5+C and 4S.

 

Look, if you are responder say and hold Kx xxx Axxxx xxx

 

1C 1D

1S

wouldn't you give pref to 2C? Would you bid 1NT with this with no H stopper, and then risk wrongsiding a possible game contract? Isn't 2C in a 5-3 fit far superior to 1NT? If you always show you M, you risk playing in a poor NT contract or in a 3-3 C fit.

 

Quote: you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....

Yes I would, as would many others who post here.

[the hog]

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

If you're playing MAFIA, then you'll always bid your 4-card major instead of bidding ♦, won't you, regardless of how strong you are? (Majors Always First...)

 

And that approach sure seems to clean up a lot of problems! Now when responder bids 1♦, opener knows that he (responder) doesn't have 4♥.

 

Of course, you get other problems when you trade off ....as with anything....

With Mafia "yes", with Walsh "no". My answer was generic, covering both styles. For a good explanation of Mafia, see Matula's book, "Polish Club".

[PedroG]

If P had opened 1♣ and I was disciplined(?) and passed with my 3HCP, we would have been in 1♣ down 5.

 

If the bidding had gone as I had hoped: 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ pass, then we would have been laughing .......

Hi Orla,

 

Sorry, I'm a new player and can be saying a lot of mistakes, but if u have 3pts and your partner 13, what are opp's doing ? Passing with such good hands... Why I never get opp's like that, mines usually are bidding all over the place ever shorther than 24pts.

 

Pedro

[Orla]

For me and for many others here to open 1C and rebid 1S shows 5+C and 4S.

 

This is what I do not understand. This is exactly what my partner said when she explained why she skipped the ♥♥♥♥s. Telling me that: "in "standard SAYC": Opening 1♣ and then bidding ♥/♠ would show 5 clubs and 4 hearts/spades".

 

This is the first time I heard that. If it is "standard SAYC", what "standard" system uses the "convenient/better" minor, when they play 5-card majors and therefore cannot open ♥/♠ with 4?

 

Looks to me like, what you are saying:

"In this system, Opener can never show his/her 4-card major suit."

 

I think that, in future, I will make an expressed agreement with my partners that when I respond to 1♣ with 1♦ I am not denying a 4-card major and, should partner have one, bidding it should take precedence before an NT bid.

 

It is all a question of partnership agreement.

 

:P rla

[Orla]

Hi Orla,

 

Sorry, I'm a new player and can be saying a lot of mistakes, but if u have 3pts and your partner 13, what are opp's doing ? Passing with such good hands... Why I never get opp's like that, mines usually are bidding all over the place ever shorther than 24pts.

 

Pedro

hahaha, Pedro. The problem is/was, I guess I should not have bid. Then Opps will find their game or partscore.

RHO had:

♠ A J T 5

♥ Q J 7 5

♦ 7

♣ K Q 8 2

Now he could have doubled for the majors, but I think many will not double with 4 cards in the bid suit - what does he do if his partner responds 2♦?

 

LHO had:

♠ K 8 3

♥ 10

♦ A 8 4 2

♣ A T 9 7 5

Had I passed, I guess he might have balanced or left the 1♣ in. 1♣ was played twice - down 5.

 

Not easy finding a contract. Some whaccky bidding, too. Some examples?

1♣ - X - P - *1♦

1♥ - **1NT - P - 3NT

(they made +2)

* (this is the problem I mentioned above)

** (I think 1NT, after the double, should imply 16+HCP)

 

Next one-

North opens 1♥ (Acol? - but then why not weakNT?) West bids 2♣ East bids 3NT.

(they made +2)

 

Now here is a good one!!!!

North opens

1♣ - X - P - P(for penalties - good pass)

1♥ - P - P - *2♦

P - **2♠ - P - 3♣

P - 3NT

(they made +2)

*(this is why I say E should not double, because W thinks E has support in the unbid suits)

**(what is this promising? 5 spades and 16++++ pts????)

 

Etc etc etc

 

Does make me think that my 1♦ may have been the least worst :P teehee

[PedroG]

Ty for posting op's hands...

 

like I said new player and mistakes made all the time at the table, so beware with any of my comments :)

 

RHO hand :)

 

Well I don't like the X not because I have 4 in the clubs but because I could not handle the diamond response if it would come :) and ofc being long in the opp's suit is minus not a plus (even if he can have only 3 of them). If I had to bid something I would overcall, even with only four cards, but perhaps PASS would be my choice this shape is wrong for anything else.

 

So I would suspect that 1♣ would be what would happen to me at the table, even if it goes down 5.

 

:P

Pedro

[Gerben42]

In Polish ♣ majors always first is forced upon the player because 1♦ is not available as natural bid. However on 7♦ 4♠ I would respond 1♦ anyway :P

 

Just don't decide to deny a 4-card major with 7♦ 4♠ and then try to show ♠- it led to a good result but also lots of confusion.

[Wackojack]

Hi Orla,

Does make me think that my 1♦ may have been the least worst :P teehee

 

Yes I agree. Just be happy that you keep the opps out of their game in no-trumps or spades or possibly even the making club slam. On balance I think a response of 1 ♦ is better than 1♥, regardless whether you play Walsh with check-back or up-the-line. The disadvantage of responding 1♥, as I see it , is if partner has something like 15HCP and 3-1-4-5 distribution. Then you would probably languish in a 5-1 club contract. Of course even here you opps may have a 22 point heart game.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I favour the 1NT rebid, which policy perhaps argues in favour of showing the hearts as responder. But if you have agreed to play standard SAYC and have not discussed these priorities then however much it galls you would expect a 1H rebid on that hand, which would go some way to justifying a 1D response. (Personally I prefer a weak 1N opener on this hand, which might elicit a Stayman response and pass any rebid, but that option is not available in SAYC. I also think that a 1NT rebid on 15-17 which bypasses a major has fewer dangers than the same sequence where the 1NT rebid is weak, but therein lies thread drift.)

 

You are more likely to have a (playable) Diamond fit on this hand than one in Hearts. And you would rather partner led Diamonds than Hearts. Even if you have a primary Heart fit you are unlikely to outbid the opponents so the mere fact that Hearts is a major suit and Diamonds a minor does not figure much in the decision.

 

All you are trying to do is to find a partscore that minimises your expected minus. To that end I would say that a (natural) 1D response (as we are playing standard SAYC) rates to gain most (or lose least). Not that it will always work.

 

Passing 1C may be better yet, although in this case, while you might regret missing the red suit fit, 1NT does not rate to be much worse than 1C. If your methods require you to rebid 1NT on this hand, or respond 1H, then this would improve the odds for passing the 1C. Playing some sort of transfer walsh where 1D shows Hearts and a 1H rebid shows 3 card support may give you good chances of a playable partscore.