[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Does responder bid a 5/6-card ♦ suit before a 4-card major, or the major first?
If yes,
Why would opener bid NT over showing a 4-card major suit?

It's totally a stylistic thing. There are advantages & disadvantages to both approaches. Officially, SAYC is supposed to be "up-the-line", rather than the Walsh bypass diamonds school, but maybe only 15% of online players have actually ever read the SAYC document?

If responder doesn't bypass diamonds to bid majors with < game invite hands, probably opener shouldn't bypass majors to bid 1nt, though some will bypass with 4333 specifically. If responder does bypass, then so should opener.

Advantages of bypassing diamonds:
- opener conceals 4 cd majors from opponents which may induce misdefence vs. a NT contract
- when opener does show 2 suits he actually has them, allowing responder to support clubs more freely. After 4th suit auctions more is known about opener's hand sooner the more balanced shapes that are excluded.

Advantages of not bypassing diamonds, or only selectively bypassing diamonds:
- gets to diamonds much more easily. If bidding major first, on many auction continuations might not be strong enough to bid diamonds, or diamonds would be artificial, or partner might assume a longer major, all problematic.
- with partners who like to raise on 3 frequently (which often improves auction when responder has 5 cd M, and often works out OK when responder has 4), can avoid bidding BAD 4 cd majors that really don't want to deal with 4-3 fits.

Bidding 1d on your hand is obviously more likely to work out better in an up-the-line style than in a bypass style. After the 1nt rebid though you could probably try 2d.

[ralph23]

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

Scoring: IMP

---

and you opened 1nt with it,

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

then, would you bid 2♥?

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

[cherdano]

ralph23, on Aug 16 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

Scoring: IMP

---

and you opened 1nt with it,

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

then, would you bid 2♥?

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

Of course I would bid 2♥, I have already shown a balanced hand, and if partner is interested in playing a 4-4 fit opposite a balanced hand I have no business lying to him.
The situation isn't comparable to rebidding 1N with a 4333 at all.

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Aug 16 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

Of course I would bid 2♥, I have already shown a balanced hand, and if partner is interested in playing a 4-4 fit opposite a balanced hand I have no business lying to him.
The situation isn't comparable to rebidding 1N with a 4333 at all.

Well, partner knows you are balanced or semi-balanced anyhow, as we all open 1nt sometimes on semi-balanced.

Partner does NOT know that you are 3433, however. He knows you MIGHT be, but doesn't know that you are.

But anyhow.....I assume likewise, if you had the values as responder, you would use Stayman if your shape was as in template "A", namely

♠xx
♥xxxx
♦xxxxx
♣xx

or even if it was more balanced, as in "B" which is

♠xxx
♥xxxx
♦xxxx
♣xx

So it's therefore desirable for the partnership to find a 4-4 ♥ fit when responder has either shape A or shape B, even if opener is 3433.

I mean, that's the point (or a point, or an aspect maybe) of Stayman.

But it's NOT desirable for the partnership to explore for a 4-4 ♥ fit in the other case, when ♣-opener's shape is 3433, even though opener knows for sure that *IF* responder-♦-bidder indeed has 4♥, he has at least shape B, and probably A or maybe even more unbalanced than A. (I don't know the odds but I'm betting B is less than 50% of all the hand patterns that responder is likely to hold when he bids 1♦ over 1♣ opening).

I'm sure (in all seriousness) those two situations seem consistent to you, but they don't to me.

If it's right to responder to look for a 4-4 fit when responder isn't flat, even though he KNOWS that opener may be flat and he's willing to live with that outcome-- then, why isn't it also right for opener, who is flat and knows it, to explore for the same 4-4 fit, when he KNOWS that, if the 4-4 fit indeed exists, responder isn't -- indeed, cannot be --flat ?

Just seems like Hi-papalorum and Lo-papahirum to me.......

Are we worried about giving up too much information to the opponents?

Or is it that in one case, opener KNOWS that one partner (namely, himself) has a flat hand, and in the other case, responder only knows that opener MIGHT have a flat hand, and that's a "risk" he's willing to take? {Surely, this can't be the reason, can it? If so, there's a simple fix for it.... }

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-16, 16:02

[Orla]

ralph23, on Aug 17 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

You are opening a can of worms here. I subscribe to searching for the 4-card major fit after an NT opening. One of my partners doesn't (ergo the can).

Well, let me pry the can open more, and ask it this way ... if YOU held

Scoring: IMP

---

and you opened 1nt with it,

and your partner (not your anti-Stayman partner but another one) bid 2♣ --

and you had the partnership agreement that you will not use Stayman with responder having a 4333 or 3433 hand --

then, would you bid 2♥?

Would anyone bid 2♦ and conceal the ♥s, because of the 3433 shape? I am wondering if the 1nt re-bidders would do that, even if they knew that responder could not have a "flat" 4333 or 3433 hand...

Arrrrrghhhhh, what a question!!!! Remember the most important thing about bridge is partnership trust.

I may exhibit errors of judgement, from time to time, but I do not consciously try to deceive my partner - opponents maybe, partner no (if I can help it). If partner asks me to tell her whether I have a 4-card major I do so.....

Once I bid NT my Partner is boss. S/he asks, I tell ...... S/he knows my hand(-ish) I do not know hers. Whatever contract we land in s/he chooses.

[cherdano]

Standard bidding isn't a science. Depending on how your auction times out, you sometimes end up in 3N despite a 4-4 fit when one of you has 4333, sometimes you don't. This is usually not a disaster either way.
Anyway, lying to stayman isn't an option, responder could be 4405 and you can never find your heart fit in standard. (If responder is unbalanced in the 1N-rebid auction, you may still hear about it and may find your heart fit.) If you want to worry about it you need to add a shape relay after the stayman reply, or a choice-of-game-despite-4-4-major-fit. Neither is available in standard, and again it's never a disaster.

[ralph23]

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

[Arrrrrghhhhh, what a question!!!! Remember the most important thing about bridge is partnership trust.

I may exhibit errors of judgement, from time to time, but I do not consciously try to deceive my partner - opponents maybe, partner no (if I can help it). If partner asks me to tell her whether I have a 4-card major I do so.....

Once I bid NT my Partner is boss. S/he asks, I tell ...... S/he knows my hand(-ish) I do not know hers. Whatever contract we land in s/he chooses.

Yea, I wouldn't lie about a 4 card major if partner uses Stayman, either. Even if I had 3433 shape.

I kind of doubt that we're going to find anybody who says they will lie in that circumstance, but I've been surprised before.

[awm]

SAYC is based on up-the-line bidding. Neither opener nor responder is expected to bypass a four-card suit in order to bid a more expensive four card suit, or to bid 1NT.

Of course, there is always room for judgment in any method.

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Aug 16 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

Depending on how your auction times out, you sometimes end up in 3N despite a 4-4 fit when one of you has 4333, sometimes you don't.

That doesn't happen, ever -- i.e. you never end up in 3nt -- when opener opens 1nt with 3433 shape and responder uses Stayman and gets a "match" from opener on the major suit (we assume that responder never will use Stayman with that dreaded flat hand).

Then, in the Stayman-using case, if there's a 4-4 fit, we always play in the major suit, even if opener does have the dreaded flat hand shape.

Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just too insignificant to worry about?

I think you are saying "It's too insignificant to worry about" ... yes ??

[awm]

The issue of bidding stayman with a 4333 hand is more complex than people necessarily consider. Several issues here:

(1) If one hand is 4333 and the other is 4432, you will often (but not always) score one trick more in the major suit fit. At MP scoring this means you want to be in the major. At IMP scoring, you should prefer 3NT because it's no big deal when notrump makes nine tricks and 4M makes ten, but you win big when both contracts make nine. This is almost exactly the opposite of some people's intuition (to bid 3NT all the time in MP going for the extra 10 points).

(2) If you frequently open 1NT with two doubletons (as many people do) this starts to become more of an issue. 4333 opposite 4225 will almost always play better in the 4-4 major suit fit, perhaps even multiple tricks better.

(3) If you're 4333 opposite 4333, you really want to play 3NT and not 4M. If you're 5332 opposite 4333, it's often better to play in 3NT despite a nine-card fit.

One easy way to fix this is to use three of the other major as a game-forcing raise. So for example 1NT-2♣-2♠-3♥ would be a game forcing spade raise, and opener can rebid 3NT with some 4333 hand (which responder can then pass) or bid anything else on the way to game in spades (since this sequence would also be used with a slam try). This use of three of the other major is fairly standard anyway (you need to have some way to try for slam once you find a major fit) and allowing it to be used also to avoid 4M with a pair of 4333 hands is only a minor extension.

[ralph23]

awm, on Aug 16 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

Of course, there is always room for judgment in any method.

I agree. But, there's really NOT room for judgment for opener to exercise, when he opens 1nt and responder bids Stayman ... is there? Isn't opener just to tell the simple truth, and NOT use any judgment?

"Oh, yea, partner, I know you bid Stayman and I did in fact have a 4 card major, but my judgment was that it was better not to reveal it because I had this dreadful flat 4333 shape, and my values were scattered, and my hand just had NoTrump written all over it and ...."

I mean, we just don't accept this kind of B.S. from opener ... do we ? Don't we send him back to Bidding School?

If THAT's true, then why do we approve of his using his judgment -- and giving the same story as above in support of his judgment -- to skip over a 4-card major on his rebid, when he knows that, IF responder has a match in the major, responder won't be flat and and probably will be semi-balanced or more?

Does that seem consistent to you? To reprimand him for using his "judgment" in responding to Stayman, and to approve of him in using his "judgment" to suppress a 4 card major?

[jdonn]

ralph23, on Aug 16 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

Does that seem consistent to you? To reprimand him for using his "judgment" in responding to Stayman, and to approve of him in using his "judgment" to suppress a 4 card major?

Yes, and you should really be able to see the difference between an opener that has already shown a balanced hand and already limited his strength range to an opener that has done neither of those things.

[awm]

It's not inconsistent. Let me try to explain why.

Take a hand like the example. There are three essential features of this hand which you'd like to communicate to partner if you can:

(1) It is balanced.
(2) It includes four hearts.
(3) It contains X high card points (okay there are two example hands with different X).

In an ideal world, you could efficiently communicate all of these to partner, which would help partner substantially in placing a contract. Of course, there are other details which might become important too (for example the number of spades if partner has spades, or the fact that you're 4333 and not 4432, or the number of keycards if partner's looking for slam).

The point is that when you open 1NT, you have already handled items (1) and (3). Partner wants to find out (2) at a cheap level -- lying to partner is counterproductive.

When you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you have not yet managed to show any of the items above. Your hand could still be balanced or unbalanced, include any number of hearts from zero to five, and while there is some lower limit on the high card points (since you opened) the range is really wide (like 11-21).

You have the choice of two bids at your second turn. If you bid 1♥, it will tell partner about (2) but partner still has no clue about (1) or (3). In fact it may be difficult to communicate these later -- say partner bids 2♠ next (4th suit GF) and now you've lost a lot of space and 2NT doesn't necessarily show a balanced hand or necessarily limit your values. Alternatively, you can rebid 1NT which solves both (1) and (3) but gives partner no clue about (2). In some follow-up auctions you will be able to show the hearts later, and in some you will not. It's the bidder's judgment, to some degree, which of (1)-(3) is most likely to be useful and which is most likely to be communicated in the later bidding.

[the hog]

Hi Orla, Long time no hear.

The reason many people bid 1NT with your pd's hand is that the bid is very descriptive. he has showm a flat hand in the given point range. This is very useful information for responder to have - more useful than "I may or may not have Ds, you don't know my strength, and all you know is that I have at least an opening bid with 4H."

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.
Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

[Orla]

The_Hog, on Aug 17 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

Hi Orla, Long time no hear.

The reason many people bid 1NT with your pd's hand is that the bid is very descriptive. he has showm a flat hand in the given point range. This is very useful information for responder to have - more useful than "I may or may not have Ds, you don't know my strength, and all you know is that I have at least an opening bid with 4H."

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.
Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

Hi Ron, yeppers been a long time - hope I remembered your name correctly. What you have just said is pretty well what my partner said yesterday. It was new to me, which is why I posted it.

You know when you learn something new, you try to make sense of it and take it on board. I have huge problems understanding this. When my partner says that it is "standard" SAYC, I can hardly believe it. And, judging from some of the responses, some do not consider it "standard".

When I came across this Walsh thingy, I hated it. When I play with a pick-up P, I often say that my responding with a minor does not deny a major.

You are all talking about describing your hand, but I feel that skipping a 4-card major in doing so, is a contradiction. What is wrong with testing the waters? Why have we been given "convenient/better" minors?

When you have a "balanced" hand your partner may not. Your partner has a totally unsuitable NT hand, yet you have chosen to take away all possibilities of finding a suit contract. What happens when you have no communication with dummy?

Given the hand yesterday - I will repost it:
♠ Q 6 4
♥ A K 6 2
♦ Q J 6
♣ J 6 4

If you were playing weak NT, you would open it 1NT. Given my crapola, I would not have left it in. I would have bid 2♣, P would have responded 2♥ and that would have been our end contract.

If P had opened 1♣ and I was disciplined(?) and passed with my 3HCP, we would have been in 1♣ down 5.

If the bidding had gone as I had hoped: 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ pass, then we would have been laughing .......

[ralph23]

awm, on Aug 16 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

It's the bidder's judgment, to some degree, which of (1)-(3) is most likely to be useful and which is most likely to be communicated in the later bidding.

OK, then please tell me -- on what basis is he to judge? There must be some criteria by which he judges.

In any case: All the following conditions are and will always be in place in these situations:

1. He (opener) has not merely a balanced hand, but a 3433 hand.
2. He has a hand not quite good enough in point count to have opened 1nt.
3. He has exactly four ♥.
4. He has scattered values.
5. Partner (responder) has bid ♦, and may or may not have 4♥ (assuming we're not playing e.g. MAFIA).
6. If partner does in fact hold 4 (or 5!!) ♥, partner will not have a flat hand and may well have a wildly shaped hand with e.g. lots of ♦, 4♥ and a singleton.

Where in the world is there any room for judgment? What is opener supposed to think about when he is exercising this judgment?

Does he judge based on how his values are scattered among the suits? In the example 1/2 of his HCP and all his QT's are in ♥.

I can't imagine any other variable to think about, and don't know how that "Value Allocation" variable is to be utilized, anyhow.

If he had the Queen of ♥ rather than another Queen, would that make the difference to him in the exercise of his judgment, and cause him to fess up to holding ♥??

Because unless there's some variable that would cause him to choose bidding ♥, when #'s 1-6 are in effect, it's not judgment; it's a rule, like Stayman. But it's not a rule .... is it?

[ralph23]

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

So, (assuming you play 15-17 NT) with the following distribution and 13 HCP and scattered values:

♠xxxx
♥xx
♦xxx
♣xxxx

you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....

Or did you mean, I think, that it shows an unbalanced hand (or maybe semi-balanced hand) when responder bids specifically 1♦ and you (opener) rebid 1♥/♠?

[ralph23]

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

If you're playing MAFIA, then you'll always bid your 4-card major instead of bidding ♦, won't you, regardless of how strong you are? (Majors Always First...)

And that approach sure seems to clean up a lot of problems! Now when responder bids 1♦, opener knows that he (responder) doesn't have 4♥.

Of course, you get other problems when you trade off ....as with anything....

[the hog]

ralph23, on Aug 17 2007, 07:45 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Many players, myself included, believe that opening 1m and rebidding in 1M shows an unbalanced hand, at least 5-4.

So, (assuming you play 15-17 NT) with the following distribution and 13 HCP and scattered values:

♠xxxx
♥xx
♦xxx
♣xxxx

you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....

Or did you mean, I think, that it shows an unbalanced hand (or maybe semi-balanced hand) when responder bids specifically 1♦ and you (opener) rebid 1♥/♠?

Yes I would certainly bid 1N holding a 4324/4234 shape. I might make an exception IF I held say AQxx xx xxx AKxx or similar. For me and for many others here to open 1C and rebid 1S shows 5+C and 4S.

Look, if you are responder say and hold Kx xxx Axxxx xxx

1C 1D
1S
wouldn't you give pref to 2C? Would you bid 1NT with this with no H stopper, and then risk wrongsiding a possible game contract? Isn't 2C in a 5-3 fit far superior to 1NT? If you always show you M, you risk playing in a poor NT contract or in a 3-3 C fit.

Quote: you would open 1♣ and then bid 1nt over partner's 1♥ response ? That would be very odd to me.....
Yes I would, as would many others who post here.

[the hog]

ralph23, on Aug 17 2007, 07:53 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Because of this philosophy, a number of players also play Walsh or Mafia or whatever and show their 4 card M in response instead of bidding 1D unless they are good enough to bid again.

If you're playing MAFIA, then you'll always bid your 4-card major instead of bidding ♦, won't you, regardless of how strong you are? (Majors Always First...)

And that approach sure seems to clean up a lot of problems! Now when responder bids 1♦, opener knows that he (responder) doesn't have 4♥.

Of course, you get other problems when you trade off ....as with anything....

With Mafia "yes", with Walsh "no". My answer was generic, covering both styles. For a good explanation of Mafia, see Matula's book, "Polish Club".