Length or strength

[alphred]

My partner opens 1D. Next hand passes. I have 4 spades, 5 Clubs and 12 HCP, HC evenly distributed. In which suit do I respond?

[hrothgar]

My partner opens 1D. Next hand passes. I have 4 spades, 5 Clubs and 12 HCP, HC evenly distributed. In which suit do I respond?

 

This is more a question of philosophy and specific agreement than anything else.

 

I personally prefer to respond 1!S because it uses the least bidding space and permits a cheap 1NT rebid by partner.

There are far better players than I who would prefer 2!C, especially if playing a style where this establishes an immediate GF

[etha]

I think it depends if you think your hand is a game force or not, and if 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ is a game force or not. If you have a game force it seems responding 2♣ is fine.

 

If you don't have a gf and the auction above is a game force you have to bid 1♠ or you lose the spades.

[Tramticket]

My partner opens 1D. Next hand passes. I have 4 spades, 5 Clubs and 12 HCP, HC evenly distributed. In which suit do I respond?

 

Hi Alphred, I recommend that when you post this type of question, you also explain which basic system you play.

 

If you play 2-over-1 game forcing, then a balanced 12-count is likely to be insufficient to make a game-forcing bid (unless your openings are unusually sound!).

 

On the other hand, if you play (say) Acol, you should normally respond in your longer suit unless (a) you don't have the values for a two-level response (say 10+ for modern Acol players) or (b) you are very minimum for a two-level response and are only worth one bid - in which case it is often better to show the major.

 

Other natural systems, such as SAYC, would have similar criteria.

[hrothgar]

I think it depends if you think your hand is a game force or not, and if 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ is a game force or not. If you have a game force it seems responding 2♣ is fine.

 

If you don't have a gf and the auction above is a game force you have to bid 1♠ or you lose the spades.

 

Even if 2!C doesn't establish a game force, 2!C by responder is certainly forcing

Not sure how spades get lost

[Cyberyeti]

Even if 2!C doesn't establish a game force, 2!C by responder is certainly forcing

Not sure how spades get lost

 

Spades get lost if you don't have enough to bid 2♠ if opener rebids 2♦ (you have a 9/10 count in acol, 2♦ is NF unlike the systems where 2♣ promises another bid).

 

If you play 1♦-2♣-2♦-2♥ as a bourke style relay inv+ as we do there is no issue, but this is not a beginner's subject, although I'd recommend them to anybody better than that. (essentially 2♥ is a bit like 3rd suit forcing)

[HardVector]

This is actually a system question. If you play 2c as game forcing, and you determine that your hand can't force to game, you must bid 1s. If a 2/1 bid is not game forcing, then 2c is preferable because the more information your partner has, the better their decisions will be, and partner knowing you have 5 clubs is going to help them. You need to discuss what bids after 2c mean, however, so you don't lose the potential spade fit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you can afford it, length goes before strength.

"Afford it" means, you have the strength to show the length correct,

in the given scenario this means, that you are willing to play game

or at least 2NT facing a min opener.

If you dont want to play 2NT or higher facing a min. opener, than you

cant show the correct length, hence you would go with 1S.

 

If you are 5422 you may not want to introduce clubs, but you are still

interested in a spade fit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gszes]

This is not a one size fits all question (though many partnerships successfully have meta agreements about always bidding the 4 card major OR the 5 card club suit first). Just as not all 12 counts should be considered game forcing. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered each hand and normally one chooses the safest path to get the answers needed.

 

Game or no game

Major suit fit or no

Is NT reasonable

Which hand should be declarer (right siding)

 

Kxxx xx xx AKQxx I would consider this to be a GF 2c bid and also a hand that has almost zero reason to want to declare. I would start with 2c as this would appear to give partner the best chance to declare the hand in whatever our final contract may be. AQxx AQ xx xxxxx and suddenly this hand wants to declare and should try a 1s bid vs emphasizing the umm err club suit. Most bidding sequences are far less clear and over time you will develop judgement (which wont always be right sigh) on the best course of action.

 

 

Kxxx Kx Kx Kxxxx I would not consider this GF but ideal to declare

[miamijd]

This depends on (A) how strong or light your openers are; (B) what exactly your hand is; and © how aggressive you like to be; and (D) what system you play.

 

If you play halfway solid openers, then 12 HCP with 54 is generally going to be worth a game force. I would bid 2C.

 

If you play somewhat light openers, then it's going to depend on how aggressive you are, your hand, and your system. Personally, I would just start with a GF-2c bid and hope something good happened. Hey, haven't you ever made 3NT on 23-24 before? This works for Meckwell consistently, so why not for me, too? :)

 

If you are more conservative, then why are you playing light openers? Seriously, though, if you don't want to GF routinely, then some 5c4s 12 HCP hands will still be worth a GF; then you start with 2C. Others won't, and then it depends on what your system is. If 2C over 1D is a GF, you have to bid 1S. If 2C over 1D is GF unless you rebid 3C, then you likewise have to bid 1S, because if you bid 2C, what do you do when partner rebids 2D (which he will do will all hands with 5+ diamonds in most systems). If you can bid 2C and rebid 2S without creating a GF, then you can start with 2C.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[kenberg]

I'm not sure this will be all that different from what has already been said. If you start with 2C and then next, assuming partner now bids 2 of some red suit, you next bid 2S you will have pretty much shown important shape features. You have also shown a strong hand but just how strong depends on your agreements. It could be that once you bid 2C your are in a game force, at the other extreme it could be that, after 2C and then 2S, a 2NT bid by your partner would be passable. Creating a game force with a 12 count and no reason to believe you have a fit is a bit pushy but that depends on what your pard thinks an opening bid is.

 

The basic idea is that starting with 1S is right if you are worried about getting too high, starting with 2C is better if you feel comfortable about forcing to game or if you have some clear understanding of how to get out short of game if things don't go as you hope.

[fluff]

2/1 applies only after opening bid of 1M.

[hrothgar]

2/1 applies only after opening bid of 1M.

 

This is a provocative and very very wrong statement

 

There are certainly individuals who play that a 2/1 of 1M establishes a game force but 1D - 2C does not. However, ther are many others who play that 1D - 2C DOES establish a GF.

 

Please don't confuse matters of agreement with absolute truth...

[fluff]

This is a provocative and very very wrong statement

 

There are certainly individuals who play that a 2/1 of 1M establishes a game force but 1D - 2C does not. However, ther are many others who play that 1D - 2C DOES establish a GF.

 

Please don't confuse matters of agreement with absolute truth...

 

 

Hi So what do you do with :

 

x xx Kxx KQJxxxx

 

1nt ? :)

[hrothgar]

Hi So what do you do with :

 

x xx Kxx KQJxxxx

 

1nt ? :)

 

3!C

 

However, it doesn't really matter what I think.

 

There are all sorts of resources out there that clearly state that 1D - 2C is a GF For example, it took me less that a minute to find

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/435

[billyjef]

Interesting that it appears none of the responders mention that for some, 2♣ denies 4♠ (2/1 GF context...but assume they'd think the same if not). I despise this agreement but I know several top players (some in the Barry Crane top 500 at least) who make that assumption and frown upon any agreement other than.

 

Certainly, good to know what our partnership agreement and style is.

 

A more "provocative" exploration, if this is grist for NB Forum, what about when you are 4/4 in the black suits similar situation, or even a bit stronger playing 2/1 GF...could even push it to points concentrated in the two suits...

 

Such situations, for me, I don't find any sort of absolute and/or inherent right or wrong when not formally discussed but agreed to play some generic system, at least not until the post mortem B-).

[billyjef]

Hi So what do you do with :

 

x xx Kxx KQJxxxx

 

1nt ? :)

 

If not playing invitational jump shifts, then yeah, 1NT. 1NT in this context is more of a courtesy bid, saying I have to bid partner, I don't have a 4-card major (thus I have the minors) and I'm not strong enough to make a 2/1 GF bid. It doesn't say I have a notrump hand per se. Just the same if you were playing SAYC holding x xxx Qxx KQxxxx.

[rmnka447]

Hi So what do you do with :

 

x xx Kxx KQJxxxx

 

1nt ? :)

 

Those playing 2 ♣ as a GF will often choose to use a jump shift to 3 ♣ as showing 9-11 with long ♣ rather than as a WJS. It is, of course, a treatment that requires partnership agreement.

[mikeh]

Interesting that it appears none of the responders mention that for some, 2♣ denies 4♠ (2/1 GF context...but assume they'd think the same if not). I despise this agreement but I know several top players (some in the Barry Crane top 500 at least) who make that assumption and frown upon any agreement other than.

 

Certainly, good to know what our partnership agreement and style is.

 

A more "provocative" exploration, if this is grist for NB Forum, what about when you are 4/4 in the black suits similar situation, or even a bit stronger playing 2/1 GF...could even push it to points concentrated in the two suits...

 

Such situations, for me, I don't find any sort of absolute and/or inherent right or wrong when not formally discussed but agreed to play some generic system, at least not until the post mortem B-).

I have to laugh.

 

I am not saying that there are not players in the Barry Crane top 500 who have that agreement. However, being in the top 500 is mostly about attendance, not ability. It was that way 20+ years ago when I occasionally made it into that group (tho I seem to remember it being the top 300 at the time) and it is ever more so with the proliferation of bracketed KOs.

 

The few times I've been to tournaments in the last 10 years, it is always the same players over and over.

 

As for what the vast majority of experts play, especially those who play a 2/1 method, in my experience virtually everyone plays that one would bid 2C over 1D with the values for game and longer clubs than spades.

 

This makes so much sense that it is, in my view, fundamentally unplayable to do otherwise, at least at imps, and in events where the competition is good.

 

When 5C is rarely in contemplation at mps(because one would prefer a 4-3 major suit game and even more strongly prefer 3N), one can perhaps survive the inevitable issues that arise from distorting shape in a gf auction. But at imps it is foolhardy to play a risky 3N rather than a safe 5C, and silly to play a risky 6N than a cold 6C, as two obvious examples.

 

Respond 1S and have partner bid anything...except possibly 2C...and just try to show 5 clubs and only 4S.

 

You'll have to go through all kinds of systemic kludges and I guarantee you that they will be imperfect.

 

Meanwhile, respond 2C.

 

You will almost always have the ability to show the spades later. 1D 2C 2D 2S....bingo

 

1D 2C 2N 3S....assuming that 2N does not deny a 4 card major. In reality good pairs spend time on the auction 1D 2C. What is the default bid? How many diamonds does 2D show? Is 2M by opener some extra values or not? Can 2N contain a major or not? What sort of hand raises to 3C?

 

All of those questions, and others, are susceptible to some pretty straightforward and coherent answers, and what one decides is irrelevant to the OP question: does one bid 2C or 1S. However, the thread has veered close to thread jacking with the absurd suggestion that it is remotely popular amongst good players to play that a 2C response denies a 4 card major. There may be some players who win a few points each year who feel that way, but I doubt that any strong pair does, at least in a method that approximates a modern 2/1 method, and is played at imps.

 

The same is true for the statement that 2/1 gf applies only after a 1M opening. As Richard says, there are players who allow for that, and indeed there are still pairs who say that 1M 2C 2M 3C is not game-forcing. The trend over the past 30+ years, in NA, has been to strengthen the gf aspect, presumably because of the very useful benefits that accrue from establishing the gf as soon as possible.

 

While mps is a popular form of the game, and some like Larry Cohen think that mps doesn't get the respect it is due, most experts prefer imps, as a purer form of the game. Whether it is or not is debatable but certainly the most prestigious events every year are imps, with the exception of the BAM Reisinger. I think this is part of the reason that 2/1 became popular. Imps rewards games and slams far more than does mps, where partscore hands are as important as the higher level contracts. So 2/1, which is brilliant for game and slam bidding (compared to SA or Acol, as two examples) came to dominate the non-big club systems.

 

Anyway, back to the OP. Simply saying 4=5 blacks, 12 hcp, doesn't help much. The hand may be worth a slight overbid of 2C or a slight underbid of 1S, probably losing clubs altogether, which won't usually be terrible. One needs to see the actual hand, and one needs to know the methods one plays, and the partnership style.

 

One also needs the form of scoring. If the decision is very close, I'd probably opt for 1S at mps and 2C at imps. To me, 2C is gf, but even if it is not, it is standard to play that 1D 2C 2D 2S, as one example, is gf. The only non gf rebid is usually 3C, although one can make a case, especially at mps, for 2N to be non-forcing, if 2C was not gf.

[billyjef]

I have to laugh.

 

I am not saying that there are not players in the Barry Crane top 500 who have that agreement. However, being in the top 500 is mostly about attendance, not ability. It was that way 20+ years ago when I occasionally made it into that group (tho I seem to remember it being the top 300 at the time) and it is ever more so with the proliferation of bracketed KOs.

 

Wow, didn't expect to strike such a nerve. I agree with you regarding the treatment and despise the treatment as said. Their teaching is that is what fourth suit game forcing is for. Again, not defending them, just saying for some it is an agreement. I respect you, you perspective, experience and qualifications but I think you might be disparaging the ACBL's Barry Crane list a little harshly, IMO.

[mikeh]

Wow, didn't expect to strike such a nerve. I agree with you regarding the treatment and despise the treatment as said. Their teaching is that is what fourth suit game forcing is for. Again, not defending them, just saying for some it is an agreement. I respect you, you perspective, experience and qualifications but I think you might be disparaging the ACBL's Barry Crane list a little harshly, IMO.

Hey, writing and pressing send can result in appearing to be more sensitive that I am in fact :rolleyes:

 

However, I am always amused by the notion that there is any correlation between skill and masterpoint winnings. I've played against clients who would struggle to break average in a club game, if playing with their peers, but who win scores of points, even 100 or more, at Regionals, where they show up with 4 pros and play half the matches. Most clients are unlike the Nickells or the Diamonds of the bridge world B-).

 

I also have friends who, in retirement, play a LOT of bridge. They routinely finish quite high in the top 500, but they'd be the first to tell you that it is an attendance reward.

 

In fact, if one is playing mostly regionals, the reality appears to be that the level of competition is way lower than it used to be. Many of the best players are dead or retired from the game. Events are smaller, and the number of touring pro teams, at least in the Pacific NW events, has been dropping for years. Meanwhile the award scale results in vast numbers of masterpoints being awarded for doing reasonably well in an event in which there were very few good players.

 

Sit in on a discussion amongst really good players, in which they discuss prospective teammates or assess the competition in a serious event, and one is extremely unlikely to ever hear any discussion about how many masterpoints someone has or where they finished in the Barry Crane. I'm playing in our GNT District Final in April. I don't even know approximately how many masterpoints two of my teammates have (lots more than me is about it...I am sure they are both Grand LMs) and the only reason I know my partner's approximate total is that he will almost surely become a Grand Life Master this year.

 

As for me, my problem is that I bring down my team's average mp holdings, and seeding points. Heck, last month at a nearby Sectional the Director selling entries offered me an entry in Flight C of the Pairs :). My partner (who has 2 NABC wins, 4 Canadian Team wins and about 9800 mps), was very amused. He often finishes in the top 500, so I suspect he would have been offered at least B flight.

[hrothgar]

 

However, the thread has veered close to thread jacking with the absurd suggestion that it is remotely popular amongst good players to play that a 2C response denies a 4 card major. There may be some players who win a few points each year who feel that way, but I doubt that any strong pair does, at least in a method that approximates a modern 2/1 method, and is played at imps.

 

 

Last I knew, MAFIA (Majors First Always In Answering) was still pretty popular in Poland...

[mikeh]

Last I knew, MAFIA (Majors First Always In Answering) was still pretty popular in Poland...

Is this in the context of Polish Club? Or a NA type of 2/1? The only Poles I played, as in Poles living in Poland (I know a couple of ex-Poles, who play 2/1 over here) seemed to play Polish Club: a method with all kinds of differences from 2/1, not that I know most of them.

[sfi]

Is this in the context of Polish Club? Or a NA type of 2/1? The only Poles I played, as in Poles living in Poland (I know a couple of ex-Poles, who play 2/1 over here) seemed to play Polish Club: a method with all kinds of differences from 2/1, not that I know most of them.

 

It doesn't make much of a difference for this debate. 1D is natural, while 1C is semi-natural with clear actions for the artificial strong hands. And you can comfortably play 2/1 with Polish Club, since they are both 5-card major systems with strong NT.

[hrothgar]

This is in the context of Polish Club, however, that shouldn't matter much for the auctions

 

1♦ - 1M versus

1♦ - 2♣

 

MAFIA also applies following a 1C opening, however, these are a bit more idiosyncratic