A new one for me.

[Orla]

I was corrected on my bid tonight and I was wondering what would be understood by it.

 

I was holding:

♠K Q 4 2

♥A

♦T 6 5 3

♣Q 8 5 2

 

Partner (dealer) opens 1♣ I bid 1♦ and LHO bids 2♥. Partner passes and RHO bids 3♥.

 

I then bid 3 ♠.

 

I was subsequently told that I should double 3♥, that bidding spades shows a stronger hand.

 

I know we have a fit in at least one suit as I am 4 4 4 1.

 

So, how much stronger do I need to be to bid 3♠?

[mike777]

I bid one spade over one club

 

 

See Walsh, many hate it. :P

[the hog]

While I agree with Mike, there are a number of ways to treat this hand. For me, your bidding shows 5+D and 4S in a gf hand. You do not have this.

It is very likely that pd has a weak NT type hand. Yes pd was right - you should double. Whether you should raise 4m to 5? Well I would, but it may well be wrong and is a slight overbid. 3S from pd I would definitely raise to 4 though.

[han]

I would bid 1S no matter what style I play. Really, responding 1D is asking for trouble and I don't know what the point is.

[1eyedjack]

Having chosen 1D I prefer double now. Although unlikely, it leaves open the opportunity of partner to convert it to penalties if his hand is suitable, and it reinforces your club tolerance where 3S may not. Also I would regard 3S as GF, and you seem borderline for that.

 

I might have responded 1S, but the way that the auction has developed I am not unhappy to have responded 1D. After the double I expect partner to make the right decision.

 

If you are going to play Walsh it comes with some baggage, that may not be attractive to an inexperienced player. Playing a basic, simple system, you might want to respond 1D rather than 1S if you have a misfit in Clubs and partner may have Diamond support. The auction 1C-1S-1N/2C may lose the Diamond fit. However when you have 4 card Club support at the outset then it is unlikely that Diamonds will be a significantly superior spot than Clubs, so the incentive to show the Diamonds diminishes. That is probably what makes a 1S response attractive with this hand, even when not playing Walsh.

 

One potential benefit (albeit not a compelling one) to responding 1D in favour of 1S is if you respond 1S initially and subsequently double for takeout, partner may be concerned about a possibility of your possessing a fifth Spade.

[Orla]

Interesting replies, many thanks I will try to take them on board.

 

However, whatever happened to the "bidding up the line", that I have read in so many books? I have found that, if I am weak, I will bid a 4-card major rather than 1♦. However, if I am strong(-ish) I will bid up the line. . I kind of think, if we find ourselves in NT, maybe we will get a lead in the unbid suit.

 

Ron says:"For me, your bidding shows 5+D and 4S in a gf hand".

 

If, for example, (in general) you bid 1♠ first and partner is holding a minimum 2 2 4 5 hand, how would you find the diamond fit? Would you now just have to hand it over to the opponents? If I now bid 2♦ for me, that, would be showing 5 spades and 4 diamonds.

 

It irks me when people say: "bidding ♦s denies a major" (I don't play Walsh!!!). Instead, for me, your bidding NT AFTER my 1♦ is "DENYING THE MAJOR" :lol: .

 

One of the very very very first things I learned, from my mentor at Yahoo, was: "Bid your hand". This has stuck with me. And skipping ♦s to bid a major either denies ♦s or shows 5 4.

 

Am I wrong?

[the hog]

Orla, I don't mind you bidding 1D. I know you cut your teeth on Acol and that is the acol style. (I would bid 1S but as I said that is another story). You should still X at this stage after your 1D bid and the opps 3H.

[Orla]

Ok, Ron.

What I would like to know, though, is:

 

- What am I promising when I bid 3♠ - in shape and strength?

- What am I promising when I double?

 

Could you, or anyone, explain why one should bid the major over the minor?

 

(Btw, I learned 5-card majors first, but I think you are right: The "up the line" came more with the Acol.)

 

:lol: rla

[hotShot]

As often in bridge matters this is a question of agreements and style.

 

Simply bidding "up the line" (are you playing Acol?), if done minor over minor, leaves the 1M and 2M bids to opps, this is putting you in a bad position in competitive auctions.

 

In my regular partnership our style is to prefer NT to minor contracts. So if partner opens 1♣ I will usually rebid 1NT, if I don't have a 4cM. So my 1♦ bid promises a 4cM.

If opps bid a major over my 1♦ bid, partner can usually expect me to have the other major, if opps have a fit. As a side effect this method makes it difficult for opps to bid their major at the 1-level or the "weak jump" to the 2-level.

 

Of cause Walsh and other treatments suggested here will work too.

[1eyedjack]

If, for example, (in general) you bid 1♠ first and partner is holding a minimum 2 2 4 5 hand, how would you find the diamond fit?

My point was that the surety of a Club fit that must be at least as good as your diamond fit (should you have one of those) renders investigation of the Diamond fit rather futile. That remains the case whether as responder you are weak or strong. If opener is 2-2-4-5 you have the safety fall-back of a 9 card club fit. That said I am not unhappy with responding 1D if that is your style.

[han]

Can the up the line bidders explain to me the advantage of bidding 10xxx of diamonds? I have no problem with generally bidding up the line, but I don't see why you would do it on this hand.

[1eyedjack]

Can the up the line bidders explain to me the advantage of bidding 10xxx of diamonds? I have no problem with generally bidding up the line, but I don't see why you would do it on this hand.

Perhaps the 1D response is pretty non-committal about the Diamonds, but the benefit comes on other hands when you choose to respond 1S on what must then be from a narrower population of hand shapes. I am only playing devil's advocate here because I would have responded 1S, but it seems to me that those who argue against 1D on grounds of suit quality would have no qualms about opening a prepared minor, perhaps on as poor as Txx or even a doubleton Club, in the interests of adding more definition to the alternative 1M openers.

[han]

If a direct 1S bid showed better or longer spades then your comparison with prepared minor openings was valid but it isn't.

 

The truth is, after partner opens 1C we have absolutely no interest in playing diamonds, clubs will always be at least as good. Since we also have no high cards in diamonds I don't see how it can help us to bid 1D in a constructive auction (imagine for example partner short in diamonds, will we find 5C instead of 3NT?). 1S seems clearly better in competitive auctions.

[hotShot]

Can the up the line bidders explain to me the advantage of bidding 10xxx of diamonds? I have no problem with generally bidding up the line, but I don't see why you would do it on this hand.

Bidding up the line has a clear logic in suit length.

 

If you don't bid the cheapest suit of equal length, the bid suit is longer.

So 1♠ now and n♦ later would show 5-4.

Additionally in case of an uncontested auction and a no fit in a major you can still stop in 1NT.

 

So 1♦ might be a "systemic bid" to avoid a missdescription of your shape.

 

Off cause this should not keep you from using judgment, off cause you can decide to conceal your ♦ length to avoid a missdescription.

[Tola18]

I would bid 1S no matter what style I play. Really, responding 1D is asking for trouble and I don't know what the point is.

I was taught in an article a useful rule of thumb about these situations

partner opens 1C, and me 44 in D and a M:

 

Usually you answer with the major-suit.

Two normal exceptions:

 

1: you are weak, and diamonds are considerably stronger then the major. (If opps get the play, your partner will have help with lead).

 

2. You are slamish: a variant of slow approach...

 

 

 

This is in the the swedish Modern System, a four cards major system, something between modern Sayc and modern Acol.

[the hog]

Ok, Ron.

What I would like to know, though, is:

 

- What am I promising when I bid 3♠ - in shape and strength?

- What am I promising when I double?

 

Could you, or anyone, explain why one should bid the major over the minor?

 

(Btw, I learned 5-card majors first, but I think you are right: The "up the line" came more with the Acol.)

 

:blink: rla

3S for me shows 4S, 5+D and a gf

X for m shows either a hand willing to compete, or a hand on which you will bid again but lacking the shape above.

EG

 

KQxx

x

AQJxx

xxx

This would be a minimum 3S bid

[han]

Can the up the line bidders explain to me the advantage of bidding 10xxx of diamonds? I have no problem with generally bidding up the line, but I don't see why you would do it on this hand.

Bidding up the line has a clear logic in suit length.

 

If you don't bid the cheapest suit of equal length, the bid suit is longer.

So 1♠ now and n♦ later would show 5-4.

Additionally in case of an uncontested auction and a no fit in a major you can still stop in 1NT.

 

So 1♦ might be a "systemic bid" to avoid a missdescription of your shape.

 

Off cause this should not keep you from using judgment, off cause you can decide to conceal your ♦ length to avoid a missdescription.

This makes no sense because you won't bid diamonds later because you are not interested in playing in diamonds because partner opened clubs and your clubs are better than your diamonds.