Bidding up the line or bid a minor

[pirate22]

irrespective of one sys ---sayc/2/1/acol/precision/blue/mosquito/

 

As responder one holds a 4 card major and 5 minor values 6-11/13/14+

 

if good one shld have no problem bid the minor and then bid 4 card major,problem arises when in 6/7/8 range either good quality clubs and bad 4 card major,pard opens 1D ????????? if one bids 2cl it bypasses the ht suit,also if one bids 1n/t,

same applies if pard opens 1cl-the ht suit is bypassed if not bid

ok if values in hts n/p-pard will never know one has 5 cl be it weak.

 

another point changeing responders hand to 3/4/4/2 shape with 6++++++++

and pard opens 1cl you respond 1 d (bidding up the line) partners first thghts are my pard has no 4 card major,my regular pards are aware of my thoughts and,act accordingly------this applies mainly to pick up---------- main/relaxed

 

any input out there regards

[Stephen Tu]

The normal approach in naturalish systems is to bid the 4 cd major with less than a game force, bid the longer minor first with GF strength. Possible exceptions with extreme shape, like 4-7, where with a weak hand you might choose to conceal the major in order to be sure to be able to show the minor.

 

With a weak hand, you often only get to show one feature, because if you show both your suits you'll tend to get too high. The emphasis is on showing the major since they are higher scoring, make it easier to outbid the opps, and game in the major requires fewer tricks.

 

With a 4-5/4-6, if you respond 1M to 1d, partner will often do something like bid 1nt, and you won't be able to bid 2♣ to play if you are using it artificially. Some people have methods to sign off in 3♣ if 4-6. Not being able to get out 2♣ isn't completely horrible though, because

- sometimes NT scores equal/higher

- sometimes they misdefend NT and let it make

- if you try to stop in 2♣, the opps balance and they make or push you higher anyway.

 

It's relatively rare that 1nt goes down, 2♣ makes, AND the opps would have acquiesced to 2♣.

 

another point changeing responders hand to 3/4/4/2 shape with 6++++++++

and pard opens 1cl you respond 1 d (bidding up the line) partners first thghts are my pard has no 4 card major

 

That's a stylistic thing. "SAYC" specifies up-the-line bidding, but unfortunately a very large % of online players never really study the document. A lot of them are used to playing other styles where you usually bypass diamonds in favor of bidding the major, which has various pluses and minuses.

[NickRW]

As discussed, showing a 4 card major over 1♦ in preference to clubs is pretty much universal. One can argue, perhaps, about the strength required for a 2♣ response and just how forcing a responder's reverse into 2M is, but the general principle of mostly showing the major first is - well - I can't remember a serious discussion ever disagreeing with this!

 

Over 1♣ a simple solution for showing the majors first and using the bidding space efficiently is to use Transfer Walsh responses - there are various schemes of how to handle the rebids, see http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/twalsh.html and http://thebeercard.blogspot.com/2008/09/transfer-walsh.html

 

Nick

[hotShot]

I usually try to implement a major/NT/minor game or partscore policy.

Combined with bidding up the line, this leads to the agreement, that responder only bids 1♦ over 1♣, if he has a 4 card major too. Without a 4-card major (partner will usually not have 5M after a 1♣ opening, so there is no major fit between us) responder bids 1NT directly, even holding 4 cards in ♦ or ♣. Off cause the 1NT bid is therefor nonforcing. Over responders preemptive 1 NT the unpassed opponent does not have an easy 1M overcall or an easy t/o to the majors any more.

[skjaeran]

As discussed, showing a 4 card major over 1♦ in preference to clubs is pretty much universal. One can argue, perhaps, about the strength required for a 2♣ response and just how forcing a responder's reverse into 2M is, but the general principle of mostly showing the major first is - well - I can't remember a serious discussion ever disagreeing with this!

Huh? I'd say that responding 2♣ with 5+ clubs, a 4-card major and GF strength is pretty much universal (not completely). Which is something different than what you seem to be saying.

 

And that responding 1M with less than GF strength is (close to) absolutely universal.

[the hog]

As discussed, showing a 4 card major over 1♦ in preference to clubs is pretty much universal.  One can argue, perhaps, about the strength required for a 2♣ response and just how forcing a responder's reverse into 2M is, but the general principle of mostly showing the major first is - well - I can't remember a serious discussion ever disagreeing with this!

Huh? I'd say that responding 2♣ with 5+ clubs, a 4-card major and GF strength is pretty much universal (not completely). Which is something different than what you seem to be saying.

 

And that responding 1M with less than GF strength is (close to) absolutely universal.

Unless you are playing a MAFIA style, I have to agree with Harald.

[NickRW]

Huh? I'd say that responding 2♣ with 5+ clubs, a 4-card major and GF strength is pretty much universal (not completely). Which is something different than what you seem to be saying.

 

And that responding 1M with less than GF strength is (close to) absolutely universal.

Yes. I didn't explain myself in copious detail :(

 

Nick

[pirate22]

Good input so far must digest replies and see if "mafia" bidding applies

will input further later regards

[ArtK78]

I play a light opening style (open all 10 HCP hands, 1NT is 10-12) non vul in 1st and 2nd seat.

 

Opposite a non vul 1st or 2nd seat opening, my partner and I bid up the line so that we do not miss ANY fit. We will bid a 5 card diamond suit before a 4 card major with any responding hand.

 

We do not follow this approach when vul.

[skjaeran]

Huh? I'd say that responding 2♣ with 5+ clubs, a 4-card major and GF strength is pretty much universal (not completely). Which is something different than what you seem to be saying.

 

And that responding 1M with less than GF strength is (close to) absolutely  universal.

Yes. I didn't explain myself in copious detail :blink:

 

Nick

That's what I thought. :(

[mikeh]

Good input so far must digest replies and see if "mafia" bidding applies

will input further later  regards

don't bother... it doesn't apply unless you and partner have specifically adopted it...

 

Your issue is simply a question of style. There is no absolute wrong or right.

 

I personally strongly believe that up the line bidding with weak responding hands is a poor style, but some very good players would disagree.

 

I also believe that up the line with moderate... invitational...responding hands is also poor... and even more good players would disagree with this than with the first point.

 

It is more important that you learn WHY different players have different ideas, and that you and your partner adopt the same idea, than it is that you adopt any particular approach.

 

Note that even my description of, in essence, three schools of thought is an oversimplification.

 

For the 'bypass diamonds unless strong' approach, google or otherwise search for 'walsh'... while walsh has a number of treatments, the one it is best known for is its attitude to up the line responding at the 1-level.

 

As for responding to 1♦ with a 4 card major and long clubs......it is virtually universal to respond the major with less than gf, and clubs with gf. You will see a lot of BAD players, online or in real life, respond the major.. but that is because they don't know how to bid.

[kenrexford]

Here's the thing. A lot of people discuss what to bid as if bidding is a series of single incidents out of context with anything else that may happen in the future, and often out of context with what has happened in the past. The pros and cons of an approach are much more complicated than this. Which way to do what depends on how well prepared you will be for your next call, for example. Your next call ideally will be that which makes the most use of what you bid earlier. Plus, your call will also be affected and will affect partner's options. So, for that reason, a method that describes your hand best might be inferior to a call that is a tad less effective in describing your hand if the former causes more problems for partner in finding a bid whereas the latter makes partner's life easier.

 

Take a simple example. If I have 3145 pattern, I tend to open 1♣. The reason that I open 1♣ is complicated. I think about a few odd things. For example, I don't like opening 1♦ with a prepared 2♣ response because this causes havoc with the idea that partner should often courtesy correct to 2♦. I open 1♣, instead, because I have a plan that is easier to work, namley rebidding 1♠ after a "troubling" and predicted 1♥ response. That call (1♠) is easy for partner to handle. Sure, this decision means that I show clubs and spades as if they are my two longest suits, whereas my true longest suits are clubs and diamonds. So, my own description is not ideal, in a sense. 1♦...2♣ better shows the nature of my hand. But, I sacrifice a tad in my description because I am better prepared and because partner will be better able to handle the auction.

 

When deciding whether to play a Walsh structure or not, it seems limiting to focus on simply some concept of describing your hand with a first call. Rather, the questions include how Walsh or no Walsh makes our subsequent auction flow and how partner's life will be affected by a Walsh or no-Walsh approach.

[awm]

There are substantial advantages to bidding your suits in length order. This helps partner to gauge your degree of fit and select the best strain. The vast majority of strong partnerships will bid in length order when holding a game forcing hand, in order to best select the right game or slam contract.

 

With this said, there are sometimes reasons to prefer bidding a shorter major before a longer minor. The typical situation occurs when responder holds a poor hand, and does not expect to be able to make enough calls to fully describe his shape while still keeping the auction at a low enough level. If we probably don't have a game unless a big major-suit fit materializes, we may as well take one try at finding this major suit fit and then get out as cheaply as we can.

 

So over 1♦, it is typical to bid 1M holding longer clubs when too weak to force game. This is because 2♣ shows a better hand, and prevents us from getting out of the auction in 1NT (or 2♦ really) when we don't have a game.

 

Over 1♣, things are less clear because 1♦ is the cheapest call and does not show more values than 1M. In this particular auction the choice of calls with 5+♦/4M is a partnership choice. Bidding the major has the potential to conceal information from the opponents and end the auction more quickly, as well as making it more difficult to miss a major suit fit if opponents intervene after the response. However, it will also make it harder for opener to pick the best strain when he has a big hand (i.e. there is a game or slam) and it becomes difficult to resolve responder's shape. There are also cases where you can stop lower by bidding up the line (by not forcing opener to reverse).

[barmar]

The title of this thread is confusing, because "up the line" generally refers to responding to 1♣, not 1♦, the question being whether you bid 1♦ before bidding a 1Major.

 

When responding to 1♦, you usually need to have extra values to bid 2♣ whether or not you have a 4-card major. How much extra you need depends on your system.

[pirate22]

"Walsh" is coming to the fore as the originator of the subject,i want to narrow the field even more----dealing with resposes firstly when holding5/6/7 points,1 agree if pard opens 1d and u are 3/4/1/5 and the above range agree bid 1 ht my/our hand is worth one bid unless pard now goes ballistic.

 

But in asnswer to opening with a 3/1/4/5 hand a suggestion is open 1cl and if pard bids 1 ht then bid 1 spade and supress the diamond suit,

ill throw this into the pot if my club suit be it 5 cards and not containing 2 honours

in other words not a rebiddable suit i open 1 diamond and if pard bids 1 ht then agree 1 spade is ok and await developements ,but if the club suit rebiddable open 1cl pard 1 ht now i rebid 2 cl and await developements supressing the diamond suit, have also now known pards to open 1 cl- 1ht then bid 2 diamonds (Pure reverse)may the lord help us:) regards

[mikeh]

"Walsh" is coming to the fore as the originator of the subject,i want to narrow the field even more----dealing with resposes firstly when holding5/6/7 points,1 agree  if pard opens 1d and u are 3/4/1/5 and the above range agree bid 1 ht my/our hand is worth one bid unless pard now goes ballistic.

 

But in asnswer to opening with a 3/1/4/5 hand a suggestion is open 1cl and if pard bids 1 ht  then bid 1 spade and supress the diamond suit,

ill throw this into the pot if my club suit be it 5 cards and not containing 2 honours

in other words not a rebiddable suit i open 1 diamond and if pard bids 1 ht then agree 1 spade is ok and await developements ,but if the club suit rebiddable open 1cl pard 1 ht now i rebid 2 cl and await developements supressing the diamond suit,      have also now known pards to open 1 cl- 1ht then bid 2 diamonds (Pure reverse)may the lord help us:) regards

I am confused.

 

Are you suggesting that with 3=1=4=5, and if one opens 1♣ and has partner bid 1♥, you should rebid 1♠?

 

I confess that I have actually done this once (or maybe even twice) in a weak club matchpoint game when I had 3 good spades and wasn't afraid to play in a 3=4 spade fit if partner insisted on the suit. But it definitely is NOT normal :)

 

So I think your question really is: do we open 1♣, and risk missing the diamond fit when responder bids 1M rather than 1♦, because he has a weak(ish) hand? Or do we open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣?

 

This is another basic issue that divides the expert bridge community.

 

There are those, including some truly great players, who readily open 1♦ with 4=5 in the minors, and a hand on which they do not want to rebid 1N after an inconvenient 1M response. There are those, also including some really great players (and, coincidentally, me as well) who almost never open 1♦ with 4=5.

 

Now, it is easier to open 1♣ with 4=5 is one's philosophy allows a 1N rebid with a stiff in partner's suit, and the appropriate strength.... or if one frequently raises partner's major with 3 card support. Thus, with, say, Axx x KJxx AJxxx, open 1♣ and rebid 1N over 1♥ and 2♠ over 1♠.

 

However, in most of my partnerships I play a weak 1N, and that (for systemic reasons I won't go into here) constrains my raise to needing 4 card support, and we don't open or rebid 1N with a noticeable stiff (we rarely do it with a stiff A or K, and I can't remember doing it with a lesser stiff). So I can't claim these advantages in my style. Bear in mind that 3 card raises are entirely normal in most standard methods, and a strong contignent of expert players advocate rebidding 1N with a stiff in partner's major.

 

No, I open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ on poor suits. I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ if my suits looked like AKJx Jxxxx, but I wouldn't like it... while many players would be delighted.

 

There is no right or wrong. There is agreement as to style. I happen to consider the 1♦ on 4=5 school to be woefully misguided, but, then, I happen to think that way about almost anyone who disagrees with me on bridge theory B) :P :D :rolleyes:

 

As with any of these issues, it is useful, for an advancing player, to try to learn WHY the proponents of differing approaches thinks that theirs is the best... and then to discuss which method you and your current partner will use. Any agreement, even if not optimum, will usually be better than no agreement.

[barmar]

I agree with everything Mike said in his last post (including his distaste for opening 1♦ with 4=5 minors). Although I might rebid 1NT with as low as a stiff J in partner's major.

[pirate22]

some replies have merit and reading 3 of them and combining them,a hand came up i was kibbing,plyd by top players-a point raised by kenrexford,when responding,make a responsive bid that best describes your hand to partners opening.

So i now include 1 major or 1n/t bid 2minor if strong enough 9+ points

 

so N/S vuln---E/W non vuln

south holds A--QJ3--KJ9873--1083---and opened 1d or does it fit criteria 2d!weak (6-11) how ever lets roll with the following.

 

1d--pass--1sp--2h

P P 3cl?--P

3d end bad result

 

responders hand Q543--107--x--AQ7642

 

best result is 3cl 2hts makes but opener (1d) was not sure 3cl was competitive or forward going, or weak with the 4/2/1/6 on hearing pards opening 1 d best reply is 1n/t ,and await developements--i think the 2 ht bid will be made, pass pass now 3cl, now must be weak and competitive, the 1n.t response is the best descriptive bid available, any seconders??? if opener uses 2d!as opener same bidding takes place pass pass 2hts pass pass now 3cl same result regards

[hotShot]

The question is, where these top player an established partnership?

I would guess not.

North could reopen with dbl or 3♣. One of these must be strong and forcing while the other is competitive. An established partnership would know.

[shevek]

Hands with 4cM & 5+ diamonds can be awkward over 1♣. I like opener to raise on 3 so I'm not keen to respond 1♥ on 4 small if there's an alternative.

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=skxxhkxxdxxcaqxxx&e=sxxxhxxxxdakxxxcx]266|100|Rather reach 1NT than 2♥

[/hv]

 

Of course, your style may be to rebid 1NT as West.

 

On the other hand, responding 1♦ risks playing 1NT when we have a 4-4 heart fit.

For me, texture is the deciding factor.