How to bid 7-5 distribution

[hoolie]

When you have 7 of a major and 5 of a minor, how do you bid it?

 

To bid 6-5, one bids the longer major first and then rebids the minor

until the picture is clear to partner. I have a reference for this bidding

sequence. But, I can't seem to find anything authoritative online, so

would prefer a quote from a book or online rather than an opinion,

since I've heard lots of differing opinions already.

 

Thanks

[helene_t]

Depending on seat, vulnerability and (especially) suit quality, a 4M, 5M or 6M opening is possible. Otherwise, open 1M and see what happens. Almost certainly someone is going to bid one of the suits you don't have.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Assuming constructive bidding:

7-5 hands get bid similar as 6-5 hands,

i.e. you start with the mayor, intending

to bid your minor twice, and if partner

does not get existed you bid your mayor.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[SoTired]

With a 7M+5m, I ignore the m. Unless partner can bid the m suit showing 4+ cards, I want to play in the M.

[gwnn]

75's are 1-suiters. Just bid your major. I don't have a book quote here. But consider, which is a better fit: 7-1 or 5-3? 7-0 or 5-2? Et cetera.

[jdeegan]

75's are 1-suiters. Just bid your major. I don't have a book quote here. But consider, which is a better fit: 7-1 or 5-3? 7-0 or 5-2? Et cetera.

:) The reason to largely ignore the 5 bagger, whatever suit it may be, is that it is usually unplayable unless partner has four card support. A 7-1 fit is almost always better than the 5-3. Why? Think about it. You are missing two complete suits, so unless you have a perfect misfit hand, the enemy owns a dink suit even if they are fairly weak in high cards. The five bagger gets tapped out, and you lose control. With the seven bagger, you can stand two additional taps.

 

This happened to me a few times before I received an oral lesson from one of the more experienced players. I have also seen this point made in print, but I can't recall where. Also, I believe (but am not sure about) that 4-1 and 5-0 trump splits are more frequent on freakishly distributed hands.

[skjaeran]

How I would bid a 7M5m really depends on which suits I hold, how strong the suits are and how the bidding develops. Sometimes I'm allowed to show the minor cheaply, and might show it before rebidding the major. Normally I'd bid the major twice before thinking of showing the minor. You'll want to play in the major most of the time.

 

If partner shows my minor suit before I've bid it myself, the picture obviously changes. Now it's quite possible to establish the major suit with ruffs, and it can be profittable to play in the minor.

[Finch]

As skaeren says, it depends hugely on how strong the hand is, how good the suits are and how the auction progresses i.e. how much room you have to keep bidding your suits.

 

You won't find much in books on the 'technical' way to bid freak hands, because you very rarely get the chance.

 

There isn't an easy way to show a 7-5, you have to decide whether to treat it as 6-5 (major, minor, minor, major) or 7-4 (major, minor, major, major). I would usually show is as a 7-4, because as others have said a 7-1 fit is usually better than a 5-3 fit, but that will depend on the suit qualities

 

There is a style of bidding which rebids the major on a weakish 6-4 before bidding the minor. If you belong to that school, then you start by showing a 6-4 then bid the major one more time to show a 7-4 (major, major, minor, major). For example,

 

x

AKJ10xxx

QJ10xx

-

 

EITHER:

 

1H - 2C (FG)

2H- 2NT

3D - 3NT

4H

 

OR:

 

1H - 2C (FG)

2D - 2NT

3H - 3NT

 

if you are fortunate enough to have this start to the auctino, you could bid 4D which sounds like a 7-5 to me. But it's a very helpful start to give you so much room.

 

p.s. just because it's in a book doesn't make it necessarily more authorative than what you see online. Some BBO posters are extremely good bidding theorists. Some books are vanity publishing and not worth the paper they are written on. You just have to work out which is which!

[P_Marlowe]

How I would bid a 7M5m really depends on which suits I hold, how strong the suits are and how the bidding develops. Sometimes I'm allowed to show the minor cheaply, and might show it before rebidding the major. Normally I'd bid the major twice before thinking of showing the minor. You'll want to play in the major most of the time.

 

If partner shows my minor suit before I've bid it myself, the picture obviously changes. Now it's quite possible to establish the major suit with ruffs, and it can be profittable to play in the minor.

Hi,

 

the pictures changes also, if partner supports your

minor, after you showed only a 4 card suit.

Because in this case we are certainly bound for 6.

in the minor.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Agree with Harald and Frances, it rerally depends on the specific hand. To say that you should always ignore the 5-card suit is just wrong.

[hoolie]

Hannie wrote: "Agree with Harald and Frances, it rerally depends on the specific

hand. To say that you should always ignore the 5-card suit is just wrong.

 

SH: That is what I thought in the moment, the 5-card suit needed emphasis.

I was reading a book by Max Hardy, "Advanced Bidding in the 21st Century" vol 2.

and his quote of an ACBL "The Bulletin" article about what hand is considered

strong enough in playing strength, although very weak in HCP, to qualify as

a "legal" 2C opener, "a reasonable chance for game in hand with little help from partner".

Hardy presented one such hand:

 

AKQT98

JT9876

4

-

 

The hand above reminded me of the hand I held, the basis of my question:

 

6

J987632

-

AKJ96

 

So I bid clubs because of the quality of the suit, lead direction, and it is hard

to get partner to raise your minor even in 6-5 situations with 4 card support. I

understand your point about dinks so I will include the auction which my reason

for thinking if partner held Txx of clubs and a singleton heart, then maybe clubs

would work for the final contract.

 

1H P 1S 2D

3C 3D Dbl. Redbl.

4C P 4H P

P Dbl 4S

 

I am the heart opener. My early 3C bid has been criticized as showing too many

values. I thought the hand should be bid like 6-5 because the hearts are relatively

weak in comparison to the clubs. Incidentally, this hand qualifies as an opener

using Marty Bergen's "Rule of Twenty" which was endorsed by Jerry Helms with

the caveat of having two quick tricks; this hand has 21, combinded suit lenght=12,

and HCP=9. This hand can often make game facing a broken partner who has

*just Ax of hearts and a doubleton club or Tx*. Clubs can split 3-3 or either the

club Q or T in opps hand can be doubleton in a 4-2 split, over 2/3 chance I think.

 

I don't remember my partner's hand exactly, he did hold the A4 of hearts, a

doubleton club, and the KQ of spades and the K98x of diamonds for his 3D double.

So this mitigates against concerns of being dinked. As you can see, we reached

the correct contract and would have scored well since we were doubled, but

partner pulled 4H*! I began to wish we were playing 3D doubled and redoubled,

both vul I think. 4H makes because although LHO has 3 hearts, 3-1 split, his

partner has Tx of clubs which drops and after playing the A of hearts, the

ruffing finesse succeeds because the doubler has Qxxx of clubs. If the hearts

had been 2-2 that line of play would still work, but fails if clubs are 3-3, I hope

this is a case of the rule of restricted choice, the T of clubs showing up then,

the chances of Q-T-x exactly versus various combinations of Tx doubleton.

 

To conclude, I think bidding 3C at my second opportunity is the most descriptive

bid I can make. I am less sure of my 4C call over the redouble, there I have

been wondering that if I bid 3H then, maybe partner wouldn't have pulled the

4H double later. OTOH, I think the 3H bid would tend to show 6-4 distribution,

and as it was when he preferred hearts to clubs with a doubleton in each suit my

6-5 style of bidding has still gotten the message of a six card heart suit across.

 

So how many like 3H rather than 4C? I suppose there will be some votes for

an early 2H rebid rather than a 3C rebid, but I find that idea without merit. :D

When I learned to play the story was bid your longest suit first and subsequent

rebids of your second suit show at best the same number of cards in the first

suit or fewer cards. My bidding always showed more hearts, 6-5 or maybe 6-6.

 

Thanks for providing such thoughtful replies,

Stephen

[hoolie]

SH wrote: "I suppose there will be some votes for an early 2H rebid rather than

a 3C rebid, but I find that idea without merit."

--------------------------------

 

I realized later that some people were thinking the 3C was a "high reverse"

showing 18-19 points and game forcing. I think that is part of Acol, but it

is not part of Standard American.

 

I think in S.A. it shows a min of 14+ points and depends upon suit quality.

 

#1

x

KQJTx

Jx

AKTxx

 

1H P 1S 2D

3C

 

Thus I think 3C is the correct/usual rebid in SA with 5 losing tricks. And the hand

under discussion has the same number of losing tricks, 5, and a good suit.

 

6

J987632

-

AKJ96

 

I have not come across the notion of "high reverses" in SA, I think it is an Acol bid.

But if someone has an online reference that high reverses are a part of SA, then

I will look at it. An argument that it "ought" to be is another topic. For instance in

some styles of 2/1 the "reverse" of bidding a 4 card major at the two level after

opening a minor just means you don't have a 12 point minimum, not really a bid

which shows a "good" hand. I suppose these discussions don't default to Sayc?

[ArtK78]

The "high reverse" in standard american bidding is a term that has largely gone out of usage in the past 10-15 years. But it was part of standard bidding before then - an uncontested auction in which opener rebids a lower suit at the three level, such as 1♥-2♦-3♣.

 

It really does not apply to competitive auctions, given the pressure caused by the competition.

 

The traditional "high reverse" never showed 18-19 HCP, but it did show a hand substantially above minimum. If the auction started 1♥-2♦, one could not rebid 3♣ with 5-5 in hearts and clubs without extra values. The high-reverse would be game forcing, and, keeping in mind that the 2♦ bid only promised 10 HCP in old-fashioned standard american, that implies that the 3♣ bid showed at least 15 HCP, probably 16 HCP.