Partner opens, you have a GF hand with 4cM and longer minor

[daveharty]

Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject. The hand that brought this up was something like: K9xx Kx AQ532 Ax, after partner had opened 1H.

[kenrexford]

Anything but 2♦ is sick, IMO. Just plain sick. I mean, maybe there could be a reason to not bid 2♦ provided by someone for some hand that does not feature...

 

Extra Strength

Heart tolerance, and

Stoppers in all suits...

 

But, the possession of all three means that there cannot be a problem no matter what partner does. Conversely, 1♠ as a response is begging for trouble.

[Finch]

Read a book on basic bidding.

[BunnyGo]

Read a book on basic bidding.

 

-1.

[Phil]

Wrong forum. By a mile.

[OleBerg]

Wrong forum. By a mile.

 

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

[MrAce]

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

 

 

Wait till Rainer replies to this :lol:

[Stephen Tu]

There are some MAFIA & some canape based systems where 1s is the correct first bid, you have methods to show longer minor + GF later.

 

But in a standard naturalish system as played by 99.5+% of players, anything but 2d is nuts.

[mtvesuvius]

Wait till Rainer replies to this :lol:

OK now that made my day

[Phil]

Not really. Now OP is certain what is right. In the B/I forum somebody might have advocated 1♠.

 

Who cares what is posted by BIs in a BI thread?

 

Edit: not trying to be harsh but I think the BIs read things here to hear what good players think about hands and not their peers perhaps.

[the hog]

This is not in the wrong forum at all. Some top players play MAFIA responses, and playing these you would bid 1S and later show longer Ds. MAFIA has advantages and disadvantages. The major advantage comes when you don't bid your M first, as that categorically denies holding one. Later Major responses are artificial. As most games are in #NT or 4M, there is login in bidding the Major first. Just because someone does not play your style, does not mean that other styles do not have validity.

Yes, of course, the vast majority of bridge players, but certainly not all, (and I am including world class players here), would bid 2D. 99% of them would do so because that is what they have been taught.

[daveharty]

Read a book on basic bidding.

 

Thanks so much for this helpful reply.

 

There is a reason that I posted it in this forum, rather than in the B/I forum; namely, I am interested in why the forum Experts would universally start with 2D, since I assume that would be the case. Except for The Hog, nobody here has really taken the time to answer beyond scoffing at the original question.

[daveharty]

Anything but 2♦ is sick, IMO.

The question wasn't meant to be about this particular hand, it was just the hand that got me thinking about it. What if you hold, for example, AKJx xx Jxxxx Ax? Or AKQx x xxxxx QJx? Just wondering if people think there is a line, and if so, where it is. Agree that 2D is correct with the given hand.

[kenrexford]

Strangely, this has turned into a discussion of theory, so here goes.

 

If you start with 1♠, you will be well-placed if partner raises to some level of spades. Presumably, tht will be 2♠, in which case the auction is perfectly controlled. Against this, when you start with 2♦, you will establish a game force, but then spade auctions will suffer somewhat. If partner rebids 2♠, you have to raise to 3♠ to establish the fit, but Opener has been unable to describe his strength yet. If Opener rebids, instead, 2♥, you have some ambiguity here. if you introduce spades first, you end up still at the three-level when you have a fit, but you also strain getting hearts back in focus. So, when you have a spade fit, it seems that a 1♠ call is superior.

 

The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy.

 

The other problem is when hearts will be the focus. If partner, after 1♠, rebids 2♥, you don't have a clear route to establish a heart fit and GF values with space to unwind things. After 2♦, you could set hearts easily in the GF, except for that lurking spade problem.

 

Therefore, there is something to be said for bidding spades first whenever you are on a bare minimal GF, I think. But, this hand is so powerful that (1) you do not expect that you will gain by having partner be able to show strength with a jumping spade raise (or it won't matter), (2) while the most likely slam will be in a 4-4 spade fit if there is one (because that strain requires the fewest combined HCP's on average), opposite a minimal GF, the converse here is that you are strong enough for a diamond slam to be realistically in focus, (3) you have the strength to handle an auction getting somewhat out of control, as you can in that case venture into the four-level, and (4) when all breaks down, you at least have notrump viability.

 

Thus, whereas I view 1♠ as sick with this holding, a lighter hand of maybe one King less, with the same pattern, might merit a 1♠-first approach.

[helene_t]

If you play standard methods you have to bid 2♦ since otherwise you won't be able to show a strong hand with longer diamonds than spades.

 

A style in which you start with 1♠ and subsequently have ways to show that the diamonds are longer could possibly be more efficient as long as opps don't interfere. But I think we could be badly placed after

1♥-(p)-1♠-(3♣)

p-(4♣)-?

 

After a 2♦ response it is a little easier as we have established a GF and promised a 5-card diamonds (presumably).

[the hog]

"The problem with that approach is that you make getting diamonds in focus miserably difficult. Sure -- if partner has a 4-fit in diamonds, you will have some better luck. But, it still seems hopelessly strained. Starting with 2♦ GF makes any diamond exploration for slam really nice and easy."

 

I disagree with this comment. Yes you do have to assign a bid to show the long D hand that is used for something else in a standard version of 2/1, but it is nowhere near the problem you make it out to be. After all Balicki and Zmudsinski do not seem to have the problems you describe, do they? Ken, one of my points that you have ignored is that a major advantage of MAFIA responses occurs when responder fails to bid a Major. Now you know 100% he does not have one and any subsequent Major bid carries different meanings.

 

I suggest Ken, that you and David look at the following site:

http://taigabridge.com/articles/mafia1.htm

 

Dave, you also might have a look at http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/Matula_text.txt to see how PC players treat MAFIA and the continuations thereto.

 

By the way, I am not suggesting that this method is superior to standard responses; all I am saying is that there are other alternatives which some very good bidding theorists, eg Matula, Izddebski and others think are superior and that perhaps some posters should not be so dismissive about methods which they don't play and appear not to understand.

 

Perhaps Frances might benefit from reading this as well, especially as the op was made in THIS forum and not in a 2/1 or Sayc forum.

[the hog]

If you play standard methods you have to bid 2♦ since otherwise you won't be able to show a strong hand with longer diamonds than spades.

 

A style in which you start with 1♠ and subsequently have ways to show that the diamonds are longer could possibly be more efficient as long as opps don't interfere. But I think we could be badly placed after

1♥-(p)-1♠-(3♣)

p-(4♣)-?

 

After a 2♦ response it is a little easier as we have established a GF and promised a 5-card diamonds (presumably).

 

Helene, in your posted sequence a MAFIA player can bid 4D to categorically show 4S and long Ds. I actually think you are worse off in this sequence for not having bid S.

[OleBerg]

Thanks so much for this helpful reply.

 

There is a reason that I posted it in this forum, rather than in the B/I forum; namely, I am interested in why the forum Experts would universally start with 2D, since I assume that would be the case. Except for The Hog, nobody here has really taken the time to answer beyond scoffing at the original question.

 

Not really. Frances' advice is very helpfull, it is just delivered in a scoffing fashion. You cannot expect the forum to write an entire book for you. Especially not, when such a book already excists.

[straube]

If I'm promised an uncontested auction and if my continuations are carefully prepared and probably requiring that opener is a limited hand (like 10-15), then it makes a great deal more sense to respond 1S to 1H. Responder will be able to ascertain opener's shape or show his own shape after a 1N rebid. 1S saves a tremendous amount of room.

 

Since obviously the auction can be contested and we're probably not excluding limited openers, I'd vote strongly for a 2D response. It's expensive in terms of space, but it does create a GF and will establish the relative lengths of 2 suits.

[daveharty]

OleBerg, I'm not sure why you think I am "expecting the forum to write an entire book" for me. I posted a question about one specific bidding scenario where I expected that there might be either disagreement or consensus, and a couple of the responses have indicated that this is not an open-and-shut case.

 

Hog, thanks for the links.

[655321]

OleBerg, I'm not sure why you think I am "expecting the forum to write an entire book" for me. I posted a question about one specific bidding scenario where I expected that there might be either disagreement or consensus, and a couple of the responses have indicated that this is not an open-and-shut case.

 

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

[the hog]

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

 

Another poster who has difficulty with literacy. Had he wished to ask about standard methods, he would have posted in the 2/1 - Sayc forum. He was interested in whether everybody would bid 2D and the answer is clearly "no". rofl that you think top Polish players are on the fringe

[daveharty]

Of course you could also play 1♠ relay or 1NT relay or 2♣ artificial GF in response to 1♥, but (like MAFIA responses) that would not be relevant as an answer to a 'Curious about whether there is consensus on this subject' question either. In standard methods, responding in your longest suit with a strong hand is very much the consensus. Yet you reject the many correct answers and accept the fringe responses instead. Did you mean to ask a different question?

 

How am I "rejecting" the many correct answers? I am fully cognizant, even more so than when I made the original post, that 2D is the "standard" bid with the hand given. As I tried to explain--perhaps I was unclear--I was curious about situations where the 4cM is much stronger than the longer minor, or where responder has a minimal GF, etc. If the answer is STILL a universal "bid the minor first", then I have learned something and filled a weird little gap in my bidding knowledge. But as the Hog pointed out, I didn't post to the 2/1 or SAYC forum, because I am interested in other treatments too, and posters to this forum have often shown a willingness to depart from "standard" practice when they feel it is superior. I'm not trying to justify my own bidding in hindsight; I'm quite capable of admitting when I have made a bidding blunder. I meant to ask the question I asked: Is there consensus on this subject? In standard methods, the answer seems to be "yes", which is a valuable part of the answer I was hoping for.

[hrothgar]

Hi Dave

 

I don't have any strong objections to advancing 1♠ rather than 2♦ provided that I think that I'll be well positioned for likely auction continuations.

On this hand, I'm not... therefore, I'd bid 2♦ opposition a random partner.

 

Consider the following (likely) auction

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♣

 

what's my rebid?

 

2♦ establishes a game force, however, partner will expect me to have a 5 card spade suit

2NT isn't forcing

3NT gets us to game, but it suppresses the diamond suit (the standout feature of my hand)

 

Let's change the hands slightly so that I hold

 

♠ KQT9

♥ KJ

♦ JT987

♣Kx

 

I can see an argument to bid 1♠ - even playing standard methods - planning to suppress the Diamond suit and

 

bid 3N after a 2♣ rebid

bid 4♥ a 2♥ rebid

[daveharty]

I don't have any strong objections to advancing 1♠ rather than 2♦ provided that I think that I'll be well positioned for likely auction continuations.

On this hand, I'm not... therefore, I'd bid 2♦ opposition a random partner.

 

Yeah. In hindsight I shouldn't have even included the hand that got me thinking about it.