[Flame]

A BIL friend told me that he was taught on BBO to respond to 1S with 2H even with a 4 card suit, i told him i cant believe it and maybe he didnt understand or something but he insisted and told me he asked this specific question to many of his BIL teachers and most of them said 4 cards is fine.
Is it true ? is this a way of making it easier for them to learn a system even if its not the right system ?

[helene_t]

I know one Dutch bridge teacher who begins with "all four-card suits are biddable" (four-card major system) so the "exception" that 1♠-2♥ promises five is not tought until later.

But most teachers would disagree. And in all the beginner's books that I know of, the fact that 1♠-2♥ promises five is mentioned immediately when responder's first bid is dealt with.

Some teachers tell beginners that any 2-o-1 shift promises five. This requires either a simplified Lawrence-style 2/1 or Acol-like 1x-2NT non-forcing.

FWIW, I think that if a teacher is aiming at a five-card major system, the general rule should be that only five-cards are biddable (opening, overcall, response to 1NT, response to 2♣ etc), the only exceptions being minor suit openings and uncontested one-level shifts.

[Walddk]

In theory, 2♥ could be 4 cards with 3433 (you can always correct to spades later if opener supports hearts), but I prefer to respond 2♣ with that pattern. Then 2♥ will always be 5+ over 1♠.

Roland

[luis]

It wasn't me :-)
I'm from the 2♣ wildcard school, keeping both 2♦ and 2♥ as 5+ cards. 2♣ can be either clubs or a balanced game forcing hand for me and it works just fine most of the time.

Luis

[barmar]

If you're playing a system that includes Forcing NT, you can also bid 1NT, and then raise spades to an appropriate level (or hearts, if opener rebids 2♥).

[plaur]

I have attended many free teaching sessions in BIL and I have learned that each teacher teaches his/her own bidding system. There is not one standard system, but SAYC/BBO basic is often used
When I first started in BIL I had never played a 5 card major system and knew only ACOL principles. At first it was quite confusing when different teachers had different advice/rule for the same situation, but I have learned to appreciate the differences. Experts differ! Systems differ. Individuals differ!
As for 1♠ - 2♥ I always expect 5, but I dont know that this sequence is mentioned in SAYC/BBO basic.

BIL free session are GREAT! Thank you teachers!

[ArcLight]

>A BIL friend told me that he was taught on BBO to respond to 1S with 2H even with a 4 card suit, i told him i cant believe it and maybe he didnt understand or something but he insisted and told me he asked this specific question to many of his BIL teachers and most of them said 4 cards is fine.
Is it true ? is this a way of making it easier for them to learn a system even if its not the right system ?

In Mike Lawrences notes for 2/1 he states that 2♥ in response to 1♠ shows 5♥


Thats the wonderful thing about 2/1, with a pick up pard you can never be sure what their bid means.

[sdoty]

I'm firmly in the 1♠ : 2♥ promises 5 camp, with 1M : 2minor showing 4+ (-rarely- 3 in the 3433 intance Roland mentioned).

In my experience this is definitely the dominant treatment in the US ... I can't speak to what's common in other regions.

[hoki]

Roland wrote: In theory, 2♥ could be 4 cards with 3433 (you can always correct to spades later if opener supports hearts), but I prefer to respond 2♣ with that pattern. Then 2♥ will always be 5+ over 1♠.

Doesn't that say it all? Failing a specific agreement to the contrary (for example 2♣ with only three clubs), it seems perfectly reasonable to accept that there may be times when you have to respond 2♥ on just a four-card suit. But that is, as Roland correctly points out, not a problem since you can correct any heart bid you hear from opener back to spades.

Oliver

[Flame]

hoki, on Nov 20 2005, 06:27 AM, said:

Roland wrote: In theory, 2♥ could be 4 cards with 3433 (you can always correct to spades later if opener supports hearts), but I prefer to respond 2♣ with that pattern. Then 2♥ will always be 5+ over 1♠.

Doesn't that say it all? Failing a specific agreement to the contrary (for example 2♣ with only three clubs), it seems perfectly reasonable to accept that there may be times when you have to respond 2♥ on just a four-card suit. But that is, as Roland correctly points out, not a problem since you can correct any heart bid you hear from opener back to spades.

Oliver

Glad you responded since he mentioned your name as someone who told him its ok to bid 2H with 4 cards.
First of all i think you are wrong and bridgewise its wrong to bid 2H on 4 cards and you cant always correct to spade without a price even on 3433.
I don't know you or your bridge level, but imo unless you are a top world class player, you should stick with the normal methods when you teach, first because its almost always your mistake when you think you know better, and second because the students should know what the world play, what their opponents and thier potential partners show.
With this said i have to say i think you and other BIL teachers are doing an amazing teaching job on BBO.

[han]

I would never bid 2H with 3-4-3-3 shape and I have never heard of anybody who teaches this. The fact that you can correct back to spades does not make it any better. Without any reason you give an incorrect picture of your hand.

[hoki]

Initially Flame wrote:
i told him i cant believe it and maybe he didnt understand or something but he insisted and told me he asked this specific question to many of his BIL teachers and most of them said 4 cards is fine.

Flame later wrote:
I don't know you or your bridge level, but imo unless you are a top world class player, you should stick with the normal methods when you teach, first because its almost always your mistake when you think you know better, and second because the students should know what the world play, what their opponents and thier potential partners show.

Hannie wrote:
I would never bid 2H with 3-4-3-3 shape and I have never heard of anybody who teaches this.

It worries me when people post to this thread and discuss other people rather than sticking to the issue. Here the issue is how to respond to 1♠ with a 3-4-3-3 shape, and this above post is an example of what I mean. To Hannie all I can say is “now you have”, .


Flame also wrote:
First of all i think you are wrong and bridgewise its wrong to bid 2H on 4 cards and you cant always correct to spade without a price even on 3433.

This is an opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it. The fact that even Roland talks about the theory saying this is not wrong per se surely says it all. Sorry for having to repeat myself here.

On the issue itself, I have researched two beginners’ texts which should surely serve as a reliable guideline for students of the game: Audrey Grant’s Club series and Alfred Sheinwold’s Five Weeks to Winning Bridge. The former does not cover the topic at all. The latter merely says: [A two-level response] “promises a good suit, usually of five or more cards”. The emphasis is mine. If some players prefer to use a 2♣ response to handle a 3-4-3-3 shape, that is fine and that is their specific agreement. In the meantime, let’s hear why “you can’t always correct to spades without a price”.

[Flame]

Hi Hoki
First of all i dont think this is the main issue, i think the main isssue is that you better teach the common way rather then what you think is better.
About your question, the main resson you cant correct to spade without a price is that it wont show your hand, it will still show spade support and 5 hearts, yes many times it wont matter but sometimes it will, partner will take action assuming you have 5 hearts, espeically when thiking about slams or about compiting over opponents 5m bid. You will also miss some apportunities to play 3nt since partner think you have 5Hs.
also on action such as 1S-2H-4D* splinter, its not easy to say what 4S mean now
you might have problems on many slam biddings.
and again im not saying i know why this is wrong, im saying if all the top players think 2H should be 5 cards and you didnt find a decent book that specificly say 2H is 4 cards, then you should assume the is a problem you never thought about, and teach 5 cards.

[barmar]

One thing you never mentioned in the original post is what bidding system you're using. If you have a forcing NT available, there's little reason to distort your shape like this; you can respond 1NT, and if partner rebids 2♥ you can raise him to the appropriate level, otherwise you will make a delayed raise of his ♠. Many players also have the agreement that 1Maj-3NT shows a 4333 hand with 13-15 HCP; usually the 4 will be in a minor, but you can also do it with 4 of the other major and forget about finding a 4-4 fit there (this will often be right if most of your values are in the 3-card minors).

If we're assuming SAYC, I'm having a hard time finding a definitive answer. The ACBL Yellow Card booklet has a section titled "Responses and Later Bidding After a 1♥ or a 1♠ Opening", but it doesn't really cover the 1♠ case in as much detail as the 1♥ case, and it's not clear how much is analogous. It says that 1♥-2min shows at least 4 cards in the minor, but that's because you also have 1♥-1♠ available, so there's never any need to bid this way with a 3-card minor. But is this meant to suggest that any 1Maj-2<lower suit> bid only promises 4?

One more thing. SAYC doesn't require 4-card support for a limit raise. So if you have 11 HCP and 3433 shape, you can bid 3♠.

[han]

Barmar, also in SAYC 1S-2H shows 5.

This is true even if the document doesn't mention it. Not because I say it but because everybody [who has given this a lot of thought] plays it that way.