Continued from another thread.

[mike777]

I did not want to distract from Han's other thread so starting a new one here.

 

Kxx..xx....Axxx...AQxx

 

I thought there were so many issues on this simple every day hand that many forum readers may wish to discuss further. In your favorite 2/1-strong nt partnership how do you handle the following issues?

 

1) Your opening bid? 1c or 1d and why?

2) Assume 1D was forced on you what do you plan to rebid over the following and why:

1D=(1h)=x!=p

?

 

 

X! assume neg double shows 4 spades, not five.

[pclayton]

1♣ in one partnership, 1♦ in another, 1N in a 3rd B)

 

In response to a negative double, I think 1♠ is obvious.

[han]

No strong preference for 1D vs 1C, I think 1S is obvious after the negative double.

[Gerben42]

I thought there were so many issues on this simple every day hand that many forum readers may wish to discuss further. In your favorite 2/1-strong nt partnership how do you handle the following issues?

 

I have a strong preference for opening 1♦ here. I prefer to open 1♦ whenever possible because it is more likely to be real than the 1♣ bid. In general systems are made up in a way that higher bids are more descriptive, so when you can make the higher bid, do so.

 

I now rebid 1♠ and fee lucky to have such a rebid. On the converse hand:

 

xx

Kxx

Axxx

AQxx

 

You open 1♦, LHO overcalls 1♠, partner doubles: you are really glad you opened 1♦ since you can now bid 2♣.

[awm]

I actually like 2♣ here. Some reasons:

 

(1) If double showed four-plus spades, I would certainly bid 1♠. Given that spades is only a seven-card fit, it is not that likely for spades to be our best game (sure it's possible, but often 3NT is better for example).

 

(2) If opponents bid more hearts (say LHO bids 2♥ over me) then we want to compete if we have a big minor suit fit. If partner has say 4315 shape I'd be a lot happier in 3♣ than 2♠, whereas if partner has 4333 shape I don't really want to compete the hand further (even 2♠ maybe bad).

 

(3) If we belong in 3NT, we belong in 3NT from partner's side.

 

There are hands where I would bid 1♠ on a three card suit. But these are normally hands where I don't have a cheap four-card unbid suit available to bid. I'll admit that my preferences here are effected somewhat by my style with regard to negative doubles -- I tend not to double 1♥ here when holding long, strong hearts and less than invitational values (prefer 1NT or pass on hands such as ♠Qxxx ♥KJTx ♦Qxx ♣xx).

[jdonn]

I prefer 1♣ on this hand by a lot.

 

Specific to this hand: The clubs are better so our slam bidding and competitive evaluation are likely to be better.

General concern: Systems are usually much better over 1♣ than over 1♦, where both the 1NT and 2♣ responses are weakness of many systems.

 

All that being said, I might open 1♦ with the majors reversed. 1♣ (2/3♠) X would be painful in that case.

[han]

I actually like 2♣ here. Some reasons:

 

(1) If double showed four-plus spades, I would certainly bid 1♠. Given that spades is only a seven-card fit, it is not that likely for spades to be our best game (sure it's possible, but often 3NT is better for example).

OK, why is this an argument for 2♣ over 1♠?

 

(2) If opponents bid more hearts (say LHO bids 2♥ over me) then we want to compete if we have a big minor suit fit. If partner has say 4315 shape I'd be a lot happier in 3♣ than 2♠, whereas if partner has 4333 shape I don't really want to compete the hand further (even 2♠ maybe bad).

 

Yes ok, if partner has 5 clubs then it is likely better to mention clubs. But on some other hands partner may overcompete thinking that we have an unbalanced hand with at least 5-4 in the minors.

 

I don't understand your comment about the 4333 hand. Do you expect partner to compete with that hand?

 

(3) If we belong in 3NT, we belong in 3NT from partner's side.

 

I agree. What does it have to do with 1♠ vs 2♣?

[ArtK78]

The primary rationale for 2♣ over 1♠ is that we know that we have a seven-card fit in spades and no more. In the partnerships that I play in, the negative double on this auction promises no more than 4 spades (quite frankly, I would prefer that it showed less than 4 spades, but that discussion is for another thread). 1♠ or 2♠ may be a fine contract at matchpoints, but if partner has a game or slam going hand spades may not be the place to play the hand. Partner will expect that you have 4 spades for your 1♠ bid.

 

I would bid 2♣. If the opponents compete to 2♥, I can bid 2♠.

[awm]

My point is just that it makes sense to name a suit which:

 

(1) Is a likely strain for the best partial for our side.

(2) Tells partner as much as possible about my hand.

 

I think that 2♣ accomplishes these things much better than 1♠. It tells partner about eight of my cards instead of seven (and the seven might be read by partner as eight). I think that a 4-4 or 5-4 minor fit is more likely to be the best partial for our side than a 4-3 major fit. If partner has, say, 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-1-5 shape and I bid 1♠, after which 1♥ bidder bids 2♥, what is partner supposed to do? It seems like his options are pass (quite possibly under-competing the hand) or 2♠ (quite possibly the wrong spot). If I start with 2♣ and LHO bids 2♥, I can even bid 2♠ to offer partner the choice of strains. And partner will never sell with five-card support for clubs anyway.

 

It is true that 2♣ might get us too high if partner has some pattern like 4333 or 44(32). But my style is to rarely make negative doubles with these shapes and minimum values. Yes, I'm sure you can construct hands where the hearts are lousy and I would double rather than bid 1NT, but they're not common.

 

The notrump siding issue is more a response to people who automatically bid 1NT with (32)44 shapes regardless of the holding in hearts.

[han]

I disagree with 2 of your comments Adam. First, if you respond 1S on these hands then partner won't expect you to have 4 spades. This is not an unusual hand type.

 

Secondly, the "shows more cards" argument really doesn't make much sense to me. If you systemically rebid 2C on balanced hands then 2C becomes a less accurate description. So when you have the honest unbalanced hand with minors then partner won't know.

 

The same argument could be given for when partner makes a 1S response to your 1D opening. Again 2C would show "8 of your cards" but I am sure that you would never consider bidding 2C with this hand type.

 

A second advantage of bidding 1S with this hand (besides that 2C remains an honest unbalanced hand) is that you can still play 1NT. Contrary to what dburn would like us to believe, that is still a possible best contract for us. Of course I don't have to mention that 1S might also be quite comfortable.

 

A third advantage of 1S is that we are on the right track to find a Moysian spade game when that happens to be right. And is that really so unlikely when we have honor-third in spades and two small hearts?

[dburn]

If we belong in game in a 4-3 spade fit, we can still find this after a 2♣ rebid. Moreover, we will know what we are doing - if we rebid 1♠, partner may well bid game in what he fondly hopes is a 4-4 spade fit, only to be disappointed.

 

But I don't mind all that much rebidding 1♠ as opposed to 2♣. What I do mind is rebidding 1NT as opposed to 2♣. In both cases we are committing what seems to me the unnecessary error of showing something we don't have when we could instead show something we do have. This may hurt us not only when partner has a good hand (because he has to waste time checking to see whether we really have the fourth spade we promised, or the heart stop we promised), but when partner has an ordinary hand and West bids 2♥.

 

For example, with:

 

♠AJxx ♥xxx ♦KJx ♣Kxx

 

after 1♦ (1♥) Dbl (Pass) 1NT (2♥) ?

 

North has an obvious 2NT bid, but he can't bid that if South might not have a heart stop. Similarly, if South rebid 1♠ North has an obvious 3♠ bid, but he can't bid that if South might only have three spades. The fact that South might show something he doesn't have in effect prevents North from showing what he does have.

 

"Bridge", as Kit Woolsey once remarked, "is an easy game. First you bid your longest suit, then you bid your second-longest suit".

[Walddk]

"Bridge", as Kit Woolsey once remarked, "is an easy game. First you bid your longest suit, then you bid your second-longest suit".

Indeed he did, but he did not say "First you bid your longest suit, then you bid your second suit at the 2-level even if it has the same length as the first."

 

1♦ followed by 2♣ shows that you have an unbalanced hand. You don't, it is balanced. It is even the most balanced pattern of them all in terms of frequency; a hand you get roughly 21% of the time. With a big gap to the second most common.

 

Roland

[dburn]

Indeed it is, which is why the odds are quite high that partner is also 4-4-3-2. Unless his second suit is hearts (in which case he might have bid 1NT himself and not doubled), you will have an eight-card minor-suit fit. Instead of playing in it, you want to play in a seven-card spade fit. Why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 1D, matter of partnership agreement

#2 1NT

In my partnersship the neg X 1S shows

a bad to mediocrite 4 card suit, and

I have a heart stopper and am balanced,

additional I show my point range, what

do I need more to make the bid?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

Indeed it is, which is why the odds are quite high that partner is also 4-4-3-2. Unless his second suit is hearts (in which case he might have bid 1NT himself and not doubled), you will have an eight-card minor-suit fit. Instead of playing in it, you want to play in a seven-card spade fit. Why?

1) Even if I bid 1♠ (I never said I would), we do not necessarily have to play there.

 

2) Even if we do, I have no qualms with playing in a 4-3 fit. I don't know why so many are scared of 4-3 fits. They often play very well, also at a high level.

 

3) Since we agree that this is a balanced hand, why do you want to show it as unbalanced? I mean, all weak notrumpers open 1NT. They do because ...

 

1) It is balanced.

2) It has 13 high card points.

 

Roland

[foo]

I did not want to distract from Han's other thread so starting a new one here.

 

Kxx..xx....Axxx...AQxx

 

I thought there were so many issues on this simple every day hand that many forum readers may wish to discuss further.  In your favorite 2/1-strong nt partnership how do you handle the following issues?

 

1) Your opening bid? 1c or 1d and why?

2) Assume 1D was forced on you what do you plan to rebid over the following and why:

1D=(1h)=x!=p

?

 

 

X! assume neg double shows 4 spades, not five.

The best solution I've seen discussed here or anywhere else is to have the agreement that

 

1m-(1H)-X-pa;1S shows 3 ♠'s and

1m-(1H)-X-pa;2S shows 4 ♠'s

 

With that is in place, this and similar hand types with 3+S become much easier to deal with. This allows you can open your better minor on any hand with 3+S since you can rebid 1N in an uncontested auction or use the above agreement in a contested auction.

(...and what do you do in similar situations where They overcall 1S asks a little voice?)

 

That does still leave hands such as =2344 w/o a ♥ stop as potential problems.

For those it looks like you have to choose

a= open 1D and make a prepared rebid of 2C after 1m-(1H)-X-pa;?? or

b= be prepared to rebid 1N w/o a ♥ stop in the contested auction.

[the hog]

1♣ in one partnership, 1♦ in another, 1N in a 3rd :P

 

In response to a negative double, I think 1♠ is obvious.

It is only obvious if you are playing a style that 1S = a 5 carder, else of course you will be playing in a 3-3 fit. Many players have eschewed this style.

[jtfanclub]

It is only obvious if you are playing a style that 1S = a 5 carder, else of course you will be playing in a 3-3 fit. Many players have eschewed this style.

Now partner's doubling on 3 spades?

 

This is why I hate SAYC. You ask a simple question about a common hand and get half a dozen answers, all of which contradict each other.

 

Kxx xxx Axxx AQx is clearly 1 spade.

Kxx x Axxxx AQxx is clearly 2 clubs

 

Me, I say Kxx..xx..Axxx..AQxx is closer to the first hand than the second, but geez, I don't know. I think it's sad that there's no consensus.

[the hog]

It is only obvious if you are playing a style that 1S = a 5 carder, else of course you will be playing in a 3-3 fit. Many players have eschewed this style.

Now partner's doubling on 3 spades?

 

This is why I hate SAYC. You ask a simple question about a common hand and get half a dozen answers, all of which contradict each other.

 

Kxx xxx Axxx AQx is clearly 1 spade.

Kxx x Axxxx AQxx is clearly 2 clubs

 

Me, I say Kxx..xx..Axxx..AQxx is closer to the first hand than the second, but geez, I don't know. I think it's sad that there's no consensus.

I didn't say that. What I said was that many players will bid 1S on a 4 card suit regardless of whether next hand bids 1H or not. (eg 1C (H) 1S). The double shows both minors, enabling you to play in a 4-4 minor suit fit. I for one do that and have done in all partnerships. Why change your system just because opponents intervene?

[cherdano]

JT, The_Hog wasn't talking about SAYC.

[the hog]

JT, The_Hog wasn't talking about SAYC.

Just a question: in Sayc, is it part of the system set in stone that 1x (1H) 1S = 5 and a double = 4 cards? I would have thought this is a conventional add on, and not part of the actual system. I may be wrong of course.

[mike777]

ty all for some very thoughtful responses.

 

Opening these 4-4 minor hands or 4d and 5club hands seem full of potential problems. What is or is not standard practice seems to be up in the air.

 

The comments as far as responding to a neg double as either one spade or 2 spades and what is or is not standard expert are excellent.

 

Hopefully these issue will come up again here in the forums.