Opening 5=1=6=1 in SAYC

[SimonFa]

I know this sort of discussion has come up before but I can't find a specific thread.

 

Unusually for UK we play 2/1 SAYC but don't have a great deal of time for discussions so we do get the odd disagreement at the fringes and don't have anyone to ask. Anyway last night we had a disagreement on this hand:

 

♠ KJxxx

♥ Kx

♦ AQJT9x

♣

 

♠ T

♥ AJxx

♦ 8xxx

♣ AQTx

 

(hands may not be exactly right except for partner's Diamonds as I didn't write them down)

 

RvR, MPs, partner deals

 

1S (2C) X (p)

3D* (p) 3NT AP

 

* partner tanks, thinking about 6D

 

At the end of the hand I mentioned that partner should have bid his diamonds first because I would never believe they were longer than his spades. Partner is adamant that in SAYC he has to show his 5-card major first.

 

I said I would look in to it and I can't find anything in the SAYC booklet of my book Standard Bidding with SAYC. However, as it happens I am rereading Mike Lawrence's Judgement at Bridge and he goes to town on the theme of bidding your longer minor first, so maybe that's where I got it from.

 

So, my question: is their a "standard" opening of partner's hand in SAYC or is it a GBK thing?

 

As always, thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[sailoranch]

My understanding is that you should only open the higher ranking five-card suit with a minimum. Your example hand is much stronger than that.

 

I think it's widely accepted that you should open 1♣ with five spades and six clubs. As far as the other hand shapes go, there are different agreements. BWS, for example, opens the higher ranking suit only when your two suits are adjacent in rank (majors, reds, or minors).

[Codo]

If memory serves me right, most people on BBF opens their 5 card major as often as possible.

 

If you don't want to do that, you may think about bidding something like 1 ♦ 1 ♥/NT 3 ♠ as 65 without significant extras.

In the actual hand, had you been better placed after 1 ♦ (2♣) ? Quite an ugly situation for south.

[gwnn]

If memory serves me right, most people on BBF opens their 5 card major as often as possible.

It serves you quite wrong, Fluffy likes this style but that's about it :)

[Codo]

But Fluffy is married with the most beautiful girl in the world, he should know what really counts....

[Mbodell]

we play 2/1 SAYC

...

 

So, my question: is their a "standard" opening of partner's hand in SAYC or is it a GBK thing?

 

2/1 SAYC doesn't exist. There's SAYC, there's standard american, and there's 2/1.

 

I would definitely open the hand 1♦ playing any of the three above. I would open 1♠ playing a strong club system with a nebulous diamond. I think in the US you'd find people would open the longer minor over the major around 2:1. And on the example hand where the diamond suit is so good, you'd probably get more like 3:1 or even 4:1 in support of opening 1♦ in standard or 2/1 systems.

[PhilKing]

If partner's mind is closed to the arguments for 1♦, and quotes bogus sources as gospel, it doesn't really sound as if he is a discussion sort of guy.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Agree... that the hand is worth a 1D open and reverse into ♠.... hopefully bidding ♠ twice to show the 5/6 shape .

 

But now we have a new problem with the 2C interference... Responder can't make an ordinary Neg-DBL ( doesn't have BOTH Majors ) or a NT bid - - w/ stiff ♠ - - or does the ♠ stiff matter ? :

 

1D - ( 2C ) - ?? ... what to do... what to do... what to do ?

[PhilKing]

But now we have a new problem with the 2C interference... Responder can't make an ordinary Neg-DBL ( doesn't have BOTH Majors ) or a NT bid - - w/ stiff ♠ - - or does the ♠ stiff matter ? :

 

1D - ( 2C ) - ?? ... what to do... what to do... what to do ?

 

Double promising both majors went out of fashion in the early 70s. The weaker responder is, the more shape suitable it is advisable to be, but it's a sliding scale - not a straight-jacket.

 

I would open 1♦ even without the ♥K.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Double promising both majors went out of fashion in the early 70s.

I didn't realize it was that long ago.

 

1D - ( 2C ) - X - ( p )

4S - ( p ) - ?? [ 5D ? Is Responder going to sit for this ? ]

 

Can Responder really make a Neg-DBL with this hand ?

[phil_20686]

I would open 1D with a strong hand and 1S with a weak hand. To open a minor on these hands you basically have to be happy to bid spades over hearts. I also don't like opening a club with x5x6 when you open 1c with all balanced hands. Obviously if you are quite strong it doesnt matter.

 

With this intermediate hand, either style is acceptable, but I would prefer 1d.

 

I also so not like the 3N bid. It seems that the hand has lots of slam potential. If partner has as little as AKxxx x AKxxx xx 6d is a very good spot. I would have bid 4d. 3d should show a pretty reasonably hand.

[PhilKing]

I didn't realize it was that long ago.

 

1D - ( 2C ) - X - ( p )

4S - ( p ) - ?? [ 5D ? Is Responder going to sit for this ? ]

 

Can Responder really make a Neg-DBL with this hand ?

 

Yep, just double and remove spade jumps to NT or diamonds, depending on level.

 

I hesitate to use the word "flexible" ... I'll go with "willowy".

[Phil]

I would need a dead minimum opener and very good spades to open it 1♠.

[aguahombre]

I would need a dead minimum opener and very good spades to open it 1♠.

Agree. But we need some really tight agreements in order to survive in the proper partscore should the response be 1NT with certain hands (3-3-1-6, or 2-3-2-6) for instance. After:

 

1D-1N

2S-2N* (Leben)

 

Have we guaranteed 5 spades?

Can we now bid 3D as a minimum reverse with no tolerance for clubs?

 

We know our answers to the above and and others -- thus, would be O.K. opening 1D.

 

True, we might need very tight agreements after opening 1S ---whether dead minimum or not. But, with this hand we are better placed opening 1D because of the extra offensive strength and ways to stay out of silly club partials or hopeless games in spades or NT.

[Phil]

Agree. But we need some really tight agreements in order to survive in the proper partscore should the response be 1NT with certain hands (3-3-1-6, or 2-3-2-6) for instance. After:

 

1D-1N

2S-2N* (Leben)

 

Have we guaranteed 5 spades?

Can we now bid 3D as a minimum reverse with no tolerance for clubs?

 

We know our answers to the above and and others -- thus, would be O.K. opening 1D.

 

True, we might need very tight agreements after opening 1S ---whether dead minimum or not. But, with this hand we are better placed opening 1D because of the extra offensive strength and ways to stay out of silly club partials or hopeless games in spades or NT.

 

With a hand like AQxxx xx AKxxxx v I am fine reversing and rebidding my spades twice. With something lighter like Qxxxx xx AKJxxx v I wouldn't reverse after 1N and just rebid 2♦. If I did open a 5-6 1♠, I would just treat the hand as a 5-5, and not get too excited about what subsequent auctions mean.

 

Usually when we have this kind of shape, the auction is going to get very competitive, and I wouldn't be too worried about continuations after 1♦ - p - 1N - p when I have a 10 count.

[the hog]

Systemically I would open this 1S. However as this in the SAYC forum, I believe 1D is correct.

If I had opened it 1S I would bid 4D over 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

You start with your longest suit.

Only if you dont have the strength to make a reverse bid, you open with

your shorter.

With 65 peoble dont need a lot, to have reverse strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Quantumcat]

Agree. But we need some really tight agreements in order to survive in the proper partscore should the response be 1NT with certain hands (3-3-1-6, or 2-3-2-6) for instance. After:

 

1D-1N

2S-2N* (Leben)

 

Have we guaranteed 5 spades?

Can we now bid 3D as a minimum reverse with no tolerance for clubs?

 

We know our answers to the above and and others -- thus, would be O.K. opening 1D.

 

True, we might need very tight agreements after opening 1S ---whether dead minimum or not. But, with this hand we are better placed opening 1D because of the extra offensive strength and ways to stay out of silly club partials or hopeless games in spades or NT.

You can solve the lebensohl problem (not knowing what partner is going to bid) by playing transfers over reverses. Now you know what partner is going to do and can take appropriate action - completing the transfer if you don't mind if pard signs off and staying out of their way if they are stronger, and bidding something else if you are strong enough for game even if pard wants to sign off. And pard knows now you have extra values if he actually had a gameforce, rather than you just had good shape and not being certain about your values as would happen if you didn't bid 3♣ over 2NT Lebensohl.

[SimonFa]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. Hopefully partner won't get so dogmatic now he's see some of these responses.

 

Simon

[CSGibson]

Remove the diamond Q or the heart K, and I don't mind a 1♠ opener - but this hand just has too much playing potential to open 1♠ planning to rebid 2♦, and if you are planning on rebidding 3♦, then why the hell don't you reverse?

 

My rule of thumb is similar to those spoken by others - if I have a lighter opening hand, then I open my 5 card major/higher ranking major, figuring that if the auction gets competitive, at least I have mentioned 5 cards in the highest ranking denomination - it can make some of partner's competitive decisions a bit easier in auctions where the opponents are also active. But if I have a hand that I think will have play for slam opposite a simple raise from partner, then I reverse. Here AQx of spades and the Q of hearts is enough to make slam worth thinking about.

[MinorKid]

I know this sort of discussion has come up before but I can't find a specific thread.

 

Unusually for UK we play 2/1 SAYC but don't have a great deal of time for discussions so we do get the odd disagreement at the fringes and don't have anyone to ask. Anyway last night we had a disagreement on this hand:

 

♠ KJxxx

♥ Kx

♦ AQJT9x

♣

 

♠ T

♥ AJxx

♦ 8xxx

♣ AQTx

 

(hands may not be exactly right except for partner's Diamonds as I didn't write them down)

 

RvR, MPs, partner deals

 

1S (2C) X (p)

3D* (p) 3NT AP

 

* partner tanks, thinking about 6D

 

At the end of the hand I mentioned that partner should have bid his diamonds first because I would never believe they were longer than his spades. Partner is adamant that in SAYC he has to show his 5-card major first.

 

I said I would look in to it and I can't find anything in the SAYC booklet of my book Standard Bidding with SAYC. However, as it happens I am rereading Mike Lawrence's Judgement at Bridge and he goes to town on the theme of bidding your longer minor first, so maybe that's where I got it from.

 

So, my question: is their a "standard" opening of partner's hand in SAYC or is it a GBK thing?

 

As always, thanks in advance,

 

Simon

 

I am a novice here. I think it is okay for north to open 1♠.

 

How about bidding 4♦ over 3NT ?

 

MinorKid

[Quantumcat]

I am a novice here. I think it is okay for north to open 1♠.

 

How about bidding 4♦ over 3NT ?

 

MinorKid

It's not okay for north to open 1♠ and bid 4♦, because you should try to tell the truth about relative suit lengths whenever you can. Bidding a higher ranked suit then a lower ranked suit always shows either equal length, or more of the higher suit than the lower one.

 

The only reason people are saying it is okay to open 1♠ (after weakening the hand), is because they don't expect a chance to show any of their diamonds, and they'd rather show five cards with their opening than three. Even if they do get the opportunity to show their diamonds, they'll only ever be able to show four, and if they get really lucky, maybe five. But they'll definitely never be able to show the sixth.

[Siegmund]

The majority of my partners would always open 1S with five, even with a longer minor.

 

It is, however, a style thing, and one where different regions and cliques have different styles. It DOES make some difference to the rest of your bidding, whether you open 1S on 5-6 or not: if you open 1D, and rebid spades, and then rebid spades again when the opps bid 4H, playing the "longest suit first" style that shows 5-6 but playing "5 spades always opens 1S", the diamonds-spades-and-spades-again sequence tends to be 4-6 or 4-7, chunky spades, offering partner the choice of a 4-3 major fit or going back to the long minor.

[mikestar13]

The style I play is 1 major on minimums, 1 minor on better hands. It should be noted that it doesn't matter much which minor is held, but I'm more nervous on an iffy hand with 5 hearts than with 5 spades. With spades, rebidding 4♠ over the enemy's 4♥ will often be a winner, but 5♥ over their 4♠ is rather less likely to produce lasting happiness.

[bluecalm]

Dunno about sayc but I like opening 1m with 6m-5M.

One problem is though that if we do that then:

1D - 1S

3H;

1D - 1N

3H

 

and similar ought to show 6-5 and ~12-14(15) hcp but those are also useful as shortness showing so you need to pack strong one suited hands somewhere else and then have some way to bid stoppers or shortnesses. All this discussion is kinda pointless in sayc which doesn't have any way to bid 16-21 single suited hands anyway but in some civilized system those are problems to solve.