responding to 1D with 5c 4M

[AceOfHeart]

Just a quick question with 10+ ponits do you bid the major or clubs?

[inquiry]

In general the major. If the hand gets stong enough (much more than 10), I might bid ♣ first, but the hand has to be slam interest in general.

 

General rule: MAFIA which stands for Majors Always First In Auction.

[Free]

Yes, the Major first. If you have a GF hand, you can reverse (bid 2♣ first).

[bglover]

Depends on the strength of the hand... If I have GF points I start with 2c followed by whatever # of spades i need to bid. If i have 10 ish (up to bad 12) I start with 1 spade.

 

A lot of this has to with general hand quality, the number of Diamonds, etc. If I am holding a stiff dimond, i downgrade, if I'm holding 3 to an honor I upgrade. Obviously, being able to rebid or raise diamonds has a great deal to do with how I evaluate this hand.

 

I don't think even Bergen would agree with MAFIA on really good hands (13+) although he might. Best to bid out your pattern accurately with game forcing strength rather than risk bidding the wrong slam or game (because partner will NEVER believe you have more clubs than spades if you always start with 1 spade here).

 

Now, if the sequence goes 1d 2c 2h 2s partner MUST RAISE spades with 4, even though 2s may be FSF. I had this come up in a mentoring session a few weeks ago. One of the mentees said "why should I raise, it is just 4sf." Well, sometimes it really is SPADES for goodness sake.

 

If you constantly misrepresent hand pattern with good hands you are gonna have a peck of trouble in the long run.

[AceOfHeart]

Thanks!

[the hog]

I don't think even Bergen would agree with MAFIA on really good hands (13+)

 

Personally I think MAFIA is right on ALL hands regardless of strength. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot systemically bid out your hand pattern. Polish Club is based on this philosophy....now if only I could convince my partner.

[bglover]

If your system includes a way to check whethter the minor is longer than the major then I say "fine that works for me too."

 

However, if you are playing straight SAYC or 2/1 GF with no gadget to check out pattern here, I think you are taking grave chances bidding that way. Now, I know you play a number of non=natural systems so I imagine you probably do have such a methodology. But, if you do not, then bid your pattern our accurately; pattern is at least as important as strength in information conveyance and to lie about it for no reason on hands you do not need to (GF strength) merely muddles the auction.

[bglover]

An addendum to all of this.

 

About once every month or so someone with "intermediate" or "advanced" on their profile comes to me and asks me to please help them with their bidding. I always say yes to these people as I am glad to help (often they are complete strangers who have kibbed me, sometimes they are friends).

 

The first thing I do when we go to the bidding room is to set up constrained hands set to both sides getting any 11+ hands. The reason I do this is that this setting is the one most likely to reveal my mentee's knowledge on basic advanced bidding structures. It will quickly reveal if they correctly know how to bid out patterns, use 4sf, NMF, etc.

 

In all the times I have done this (perhaps a dozen people or more) I have encountered one who actually was equipped to handle this most basic of hand patterns (opening hand sitting opposite opening hand, reaching right strain and level).

 

Now, clearly the most common problem I encounter is the lack of knowledge on 4sf, NMF, and other artificial sequences meant to show exactly five of a major by responder ( everyone wants to rebid their 5 card major it seems).

 

But the second most common problem I encounter is this one under discussion. When the bidding goes 1d 1s > whatever and we end up playing 4s instead of 5 or 6 clubs (very frequent) it is always due to this same thing: They were taught to ALWAYS bid a 4 card major before a 5 card minor. I try to break them of this habit fast as I can, not always successfully.

 

I run perhaps 500 hands per month this way in the bidding room. For most people, we can never get past this problem, yet it constantly shows up. Mentees will see us constantly get to the wrong strain/wrong level bidding this way and yet continue to do it even after they see it... They always FEAR we will miss our 4=4 major fit. So, we miss our correct strain instead. It is a struggle to convince them that although it is sometimes correct to bid your 4 card major before your 5 card minor, it is often NOT correct, even though they see the fruits of this each time we go to the bidding room.

 

Very frustrating.

[luke warm]

I don't think even Bergen would agree with MAFIA on really good hands (13+)

 

Personally I think MAFIA is right on ALL hands regardless of strength. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot systemically bid out your hand pattern. Polish Club is based on this philosophy....now if only I could convince my partner.

bergen played the walsh style, so with game force strength he'd bid the longer suit first.. with 12+ and 4/5 in spades clubs, clubs first then reverse into spades.. opener would know the pattern right off, 4/5+

 

with <12 playing points, the major was always first... i prefer this way myself, especially playing 2/1.. sets gf right off, responder is never in any danger of not bidding the spades

[luis]

An addendum to all of this.

 

About once every month or so someone with "intermediate" or "advanced" on their profile comes to me and asks me to please help them with their bidding. I always say yes to these people as I am glad to help (often they are complete strangers who have kibbed me, sometimes they are friends).

 

The first thing I do when we go to the bidding room is to set up constrained hands set to both sides getting any 11+ hands. The reason I do this is that this setting is the one most likely to reveal my mentee's knowledge on basic advanced bidding structures. It will quickly reveal if they correctly know how to bid out patterns, use 4sf, NMF, etc.

 

In all the times I have done this (perhaps a dozen people or more) I have encountered one who actually was equipped to handle this most basic of hand patterns (opening hand sitting opposite opening hand, reaching right strain and level).

 

Now, clearly the most common problem I encounter is the lack of knowledge on 4sf, NMF, and other artificial sequences meant to show exactly five of a major by responder ( everyone wants to rebid their 5 card major it seems).

 

But the second most common problem I encounter is this one under discussion. When the bidding goes 1d 1s > whatever and we end up playing 4s instead of 5 or 6 clubs (very frequent) it is always due to this same thing: They were taught to ALWAYS bid a 4 card major before a 5 card minor. I try to break them of this habit fast as I can, not always successfully.

 

I run perhaps 500 hands per month this way in the bidding room. For most people, we can never get past this problem, yet it constantly shows up. Mentees will see us constantly get to the wrong strain/wrong level bidding this way and yet continue to do it even after they see it... They always FEAR we will miss our 4=4 major fit. So, we miss our correct strain instead. It is a struggle to convince them that although it is sometimes correct to bid your 4 card major before your 5 card minor, it is often NOT correct, even though they see the fruits of this each time we go to the bidding room.

 

Very frustrating.

So this is a pandemia bglover :-)

I thought it was an endemic problem here, students bid 1m-1M even when they have AKxxx of clubs and Txxx in the major. This inmediately leads to a painful bidding sequence and when nobody knows what's going on anymore they blast into some usually horrible contract.

 

I kibitzed once a guy who held xx,Jxxx,AKx, KQJxx his pd opened 1d and he bid 1h. When I asked why he said "teacherd told be to always bid the major first".

Shouldn't we revocate the teaching license of those guys? :-)

[Free]

I think some students take words too serious! If a teacher says "always" he means in the most cases, where you have a non-gameforcing hand. If you say "always bid 1M with a 5 card Major" you dont mean to teach people to bid 1♠ with xxxxx-xxx-xxx-xx and 0HCP...

[bglover]

What I usually do when I encounter this is send people to Fred's lessons on basic bidding and tell them "learn everything there 1st then return to me".

 

Fred's lessons cover this quite nicely and logically. What amazes me (and apparently Luis) is that SO MANY people bid this way. It creates unresolvable problems in bidding when you lie about pattern. Even stressing to people that rule about "length before strength" doesn't seem to get them past this.

 

I have one current mentee who is a friend who I finally told "if you fail to bid length before strength once more I will stop helping" as a desperate measure to emphasize just how bad this habit is. Didn't work (although I didn't hold to my threat either).

 

When I start these sessions I tell my mentees "for the time being you NEVER rebid a 5 card suit" (I plan to cover the exceptions to this rule once I think they have mastered the basic stuff). Even with that proviso they still do it.

 

Admittedly, I don't want to work with novices... I'm not really well-equipped to handle ABC stuff at this stage... I long ago stopped following "the rules" and, like most experienced players, follow what I believe to be correct based on the things I am looking at in a particular hand. At one time or another I've broken every rule in the book because I thought some hand warranted it.

 

Last month, a couple of hard-working novices asked me to help them and I gladly sat in. One was taught to use Walsh responses to 1 club (i.e., rebid 1n with 4 spades if partner responds 1 heart) while the other was taught to bid 1spade after 1 heart. They asked me which was "correct" since 2 people had taught them to play walsh-style and another had told them "bid your spades". My answer to them was this: I wouldn't presume to tell you which way to play this sequence as both have merits. However, both of you need to agree how to bid these hands and stick to it. That's all that really matters.

[Free]

Look at this distribution:

 

[hv=n=sxxxxhxxxxdxxxcxx&s=sxxxxhxxdxxcxxxxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

opener has a minimal hand, an you have only about 10HCP.

 

If the bidding goes:

1♦ - 2♣

?

Opener will bid 2NT and you play 2NT.

 

If the bidding goes:

1♦ - 1♠

?

Opener will bid 2♠, and you'll be playing the right contract.

 

And how many hands are suitable for 5m and not for 3NT?? Not thàt many imo.

[inquiry]

This topic is getting good and dividing into camps (as usual). In my reply I stated that I generally bid the major first, unless my hand is much better that 10+ and I have some slam interest. Luis drew up just such a hand above, where he gave responder a strong ♣ suit, a nice fit for opener suit (AKx) and a weak ♥ suit. I too would gladly bid 2♣ with this hand. A true MAFIA-advocate, like Ron, would respond 1♥. I just find the more natural 2♣ bid as game force, easier to handle overall. The stregnth is already shown.

 

I had the pleasure of kibitzing luis yesteray when a related hand came up. This one, instead of being 4-5 in major minor he was 5-5. Here is the hand, with Luis as south and it his turn to bid.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj942hq9dakqj5c7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥-pass-??[/hv]

Luis stunned the viewing audience by not responding 1♠, but rather responding in his stronger suit, 2♦. I think there was about 25 kibitizers, including bglover and myself and a couple of "gold stars". The disussion by the kibitizers of the bidding on this hand lasted not only during this hand, but thoughout the next hand, and into the bidding on the second hand following this one. At least one of the gold star kibitizers thougth 2♦ was a horrible horrible bid and that luis's next bid was just noise (some discussion that luis's second bid was typical 4sf, but I totally disagree with that assessment. (BTW, for those who don't know, Luis is also a gold star).

 

Luis auction was efficient and got to the top spot....

1♥-2♦

3♣-3♠

3NT-4NT

6NT-Pass

 

It is clear from the comments most of the viewers thought the natural and forcing 2♦ was an abomination. I thought it was great. When ♠ are subsequently bid the slam interest nature of the hand quickly becomes to clear. Luis's auction keeps 6♦, 6♥, 6♠ and 6NT all in the picture. I for one liked luis's approach.

 

Ben

[bglover]

While I agree that many hands that can play 5 m going down might make 3nt instead, you are begging the issue of how many times you miss 6 m and bail in 3nt instead because of incorrect pattern bidding.

 

One of my "stevisms" is that good bidders bid minor suit slams and bad bidders bid 3n. I have had my share of "bad boards" not playing 3n because there was the possibility slam was on and after a keycard sequence or something discovered that only the 5 level was safe. I gladly live with these as a tradeoff to locating the minor suit slams that others often don't even try to locate. (This is only a MP problem as in imps the loss is very small.)

 

The only way to ACCURATELY reach minor suit slams is to ACCURATELY bid out your pattern. This is true for a lot more than just minor slams of course but it makes the point nicely. There is no reason to NOT bid your pattern accurately when you know you have a combined value big enough to make game somewhere. By doing this you located those important double fits and find your best spots. That is what bidding is designed to do. No need to obviate that just to sign off in NT.

[Free]

I also like Luis' bid, and it was my first thought when I saw the hand (honest). You can show your strength on a much lower bid, the ♦s are better, you can ask with 4sf about honours in ♠s,...

[bglover]

As ben pointed out, I was kibbing that hand as well and wasn't enamored with Luis' 2d bid and here is why:

 

They were not playing 2/1 GF but SAYC' one spade was not a passable bid in this sequence. Luis still had avaiable a jump in dimonds after any bid by partner if he didn't get a spade raise. So, when Luis eventually bid 3s on this hand partner had no way to know he actually had 5 of them. It appeared to be a generally forcing bid and thats all. True, his diamonds were better than his spades, but this sequence risked missing 6 spades if that was, in fact the best contract.

[inquiry]

Well, I totally disagree with the Steveism on this hand. Luis was never at risk of missing 6♠ had that been the best contract.

 

I will defer to luis to fully explain his auction (should he desire)... after all, it was his, but the description of 3♠ as noise and/or 4SF is wrong. This bid, followed by a higher bid (in this case 4NT) promises 5♠ I think (although i might in general think 6-5 instead of 5-5.. .not all bids are perfect). That is when Luis rebids 4NT, he is not showing some weak 4 card ♠ suit with his 3♠ bid. He is showing a juicy hand, with strong slam interest with good ♠ and good ♦. He could have also bid 4♠ instead of 4NT, again showing strong slam interest and the two suited nature of his hand. Both these bids would work out just fine. And remember the rule I used earlier about when to bid the minor rather than the major... with more than 10+ and with slam interest, this applies in spades (hehehe) when you bypass a five card major to bid a minor. Hence the strong slam interest implication of a 4♠ or 4NT rebid... and if you wanted to force to slam rather than invite, you could bid 5♠ over 3NT.

 

But again, difference in bidding theory and philosophy is what makes bridge such a great game to discuss (as well as to play).

 

Ben

[bglover]

Do not agree... 3s in sequence given is just a generally forcing bid looking for slam. That is why I didn't like the sequence given that 1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d gave a more accurate description of his hand pattern.

 

Three spades in the given sequence can be looking for a stopper for no trump, could be a slam try in clubs, could be a lot of things. It was a far-from-clear sequence in my estimation when compared to the one I laid out above. Do not get me wrong, I know Luis is a great player and I enjoy whenever he is kind enough to give me a game, I just didn't like this sequence given they were playing SAYC.

[inquiry]

Do not agree... 3s in sequence given is just a generally forcing bid looking for slam. Three spades in the given sequence can be looking for a stopper for no trump, could be a slam try in clubs, could be a lot of things.

Yes, Steve, 3♠ when made does not describe a 5-5 or 5-6 hand, and could in fact be looking for ♠ stopper or hidding (temporirly) ♣ fit and slam interest. But examine the auction...

 

if looking for 3NT what does Luis bid over 3NT?

You got it pass.

 

If having ♣ and slam interest, what does he bid over 3NT?

You got it 4♣ is bid.

 

What if he is himself and balanced or semibalanced with a ♠ stopper and slam interest?

He bids 4♦ over 3NT or he jumps to 4NT over 3♣ quantatitive.

 

No, when luis defends his auction, he will no doubt tell you that his 3♠ bid followed by 4NT showed pretty much this hand. After partners 3♣ I might have bid 5NT or 5♠ over 3NT as I am fairly sure I want to be in slam, but with potential misfit maybe the strong invite of 4NT is actually better.

 

Ben

[luis]

Well, I totally disagree with the Steveism on this hand. Luis was never at risk of missing 6♠ had that been the best contract.

 

I will defer to luis to fully explain his auction (should he desire)... after all, it was his, but the description of 3♠ as noise and/or 4SF is wrong. This bid, followed by a higher bid (in this case 4NT) promises 5♠ I think (although i might in general think 6-5 instead of 5-5.. .not all bids are perfect). That is when Luis rebids 4NT, he is not showing some weak 4 card ♠ suit with his 3♠ bid. He is showing a juicy hand, with strong slam interest with good ♠ and good ♦. He could have also bid 4♠ instead of 4NT, again showing strong slam interest and the two suited nature of his hand. Both these bids would work out just fine. And remember the rule I used earlier about when to bid the minor rather than the major... with more than 10+ and with slam interest, this applies in spades (hehehe) when you bypass a five card major to bid a minor. Hence the strong slam interest implication of a 4♠ or 4NT rebid... and if you wanted to force to slam rather than invite, you could bid 5♠ over 3NT.

 

But again, difference in bidding theory and philosophy is what makes bridge such a great game to discuss (as well as to play).

 

Ben

Actually I don't have a lot to comment about this hand, I will let you know what I was thinking so you can comment and discuss with me if you want. I'm always open to discussion it's what makes this game so nice, there're options.

 

This is a transcript of my mind during that hand:

 

Having AKQJx in a suit and KJxxx in the other I think it's a sin to bid the weaker suit first. After all 6d and even 7d may have a play opposite a doubleton while in spades I need not only support but also honors.

That was my first thought when I got that hand. I also considered what problems can arise with 2d. While the auction can develop in many different ways and I was planning on showing diamonds and spades, maybe distorting the hand as a 6-5 which I think is a pretty good distortion with AKQJx and KJxxx since the diamond Jack is as useful as a sixth trump making the suit solid. I was also thinking that I didn't want pd to correct 6d to 6s if he has xxx in spades (or Axx) and a doubleton in diamonds or other holdings if I bid spades first pd will likely correct 6d to 6s and I think that 6d makes more often than 6s with random 1h hands in pd hand.

And I was also thinking that a grand slam was probable and that I need to tell pd I held the hQ a solid diamond suit and values in spades.

I decided that all these factors asked for a 2d bid.

[bglover]

OK, let me take this one step further (again playing SAYC here):

 

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d...

 

Four diamonds here tells partner I am 5-5 and he has an entirely accurate picture of both my hand and my point count for this given hand. Partner CANNOT pass 4d here... 3d was a 100 percent game force and 4d is a 100% slam try... but he is now well placed to either initiate cue bidding or place the contract because he has an entirely accurate picture of both my pattern and my strength.

 

If you agree that 3 spades is just a generally forcing bid in the sequence given (as you did) then you must agree the above paints a CLEARER picture of my strength/pattenr than the original sequence.

 

Now, in the original sequence given, Luis could have rebid 4s over 3n to show his shape a little better, but now it appears he is 6-5 instead of 5-5. In the sequence I gave the jump to 3d could be made on 4 cards certainly and the 4 diamond rebid clarifies it is 5. Again, I think my sequence is just clearer.

[inquiry]

Let's muddy up your clear picture a little bit.... instead of your nice, and neat

 

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d..., imagine a messy...

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-3♦

3♠-4♦

 

Hello, now what is 4♦? what would 4♣ be instead of 4♦? Can you ever get out of ♠ if partner has ♠Axx and doubleton small ♦. I think luis's auction, treating his hand as 6-5 and his explaination of as to why (see above) are right on target. Dislike his auction if you prefer, but I think it was spot on correct. And note, luis and I seldom agree on auctions.... Check the record on this site. But when he is right (which means when I would bid the same way :D ), I give him full credit. And this time, he was right as rain.

 

Ben

[luis]

OK, let me take this one step further (again playing SAYC here):

 

1h 1s (1n or 2c) 3d 3n... 4d...

 

Four diamonds here tells partner I am 5-5 and he has an entirely accurate picture of both my hand and my point count for this given hand. Partner CANNOT pass 4d here... 3d was a 100 percent game force and 4d is a 100% slam try... but he is now well placed to either initiate cue bidding or place the contract because he has an entirely accurate picture of both my pattern and my strength.

 

If you agree that 3 spades is just a generally forcing bid in the sequence given (as you did) then you must agree the above paints a CLEARER picture of my strength/pattenr than the original sequence.

 

Now, in the original sequence given, Luis could have rebid 4s over 3n to show his shape a little better, but now it appears he is 6-5 instead of 5-5. In the sequence I gave the jump to 3d could be made on 4 cards certainly and the 4 diamond rebid clarifies it is 5. Again, I think my sequence is just clearer.

As I posted I think that the problem with your idea bg is that pd will think that pd will just bid 4s and now you have a huge problem. If you bid 4N you will be in trouble when pd has the two aces and denies the sQ because you now need the heart JACK for a grand slam.

 

I think your sequence shows 5-5 in spades and diamonds or 6-5 with 6 spades and 5 diamonds. It's not clear if you have a powerful hand since with 6-5 you may be just removing 3NT as a contract that you don't want to play. So first of all pd has to decide if he is being asked to pick a game between 4s and 5d or if he is asked to cuebid and if so what suit is the trump suit? Sometimes you have to think not only in your hand but in what pd will do with your description unless your pd is a genius. I accept that for some partnerships this can be a road to success but I have a lot of reservations about this auction in average.

 

My bidding can be right or wrong but I think that 4N shows 6-5 with 6 diamonds and 5 spades and a powerful hand (otherwise I can just bid 4s over 3N). Had he bid anything different over 4N my next bid was going to be 6h. And I was very happy with that. Please understand that I'm not saying that my way to bid the hand is the right one or that is better than your idea just that I was very very happy with the way I described the hand.

 

For the record when I bid 3s I told ben "I think this is either a 5-5 or 6-5 slamish hand or just asking for stopper for 3N" When pd bid 3N and I bid 4N I thought it was clear it was the 5-5 or 6-5 slamish hand because as Ben said if I was looking for 3N then I pass 3N :-)

[bglover]

He he I'm a broken record here I know but...

 

The sequence you gave never promised anything like 5 spades here... that was and is my only point. You had a sequence available that would show both strength and pattern assuming partner couldn't raise spades after you start with 1 spade.

 

I fully realize your diamonds were much better than your spades and realized it at the time AND knew why you chose that bid instead of 1 spade. You also know you had enough values for a probable slam once partner opened the bidding. Therefore, no reason NOT to bid out your pattern accurately, as I have advocated throughout this thread. You weren't going to let the bidding die below six probably, so why not inform partner you were 5-5 in the suits?

 

Four no trump in no way promised a 5 card spade suit but showed significant extras in the given sequence (which, of course, you had). Thats fine. As I said, you know ur driving to slam, so that was your start.

 

However, give partner 3 5 1 4 pattern for his bidding and you may well have missed your best spot. That is my only real point here.