[PedroG]

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

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 .......

Hi Orla,

Sorry, I'm a new player and can be saying a lot of mistakes, but if u have 3pts and your partner 13, what are opp's doing ? Passing with such good hands... Why I never get opp's like that, mines usually are bidding all over the place ever shorther than 24pts.

Pedro

[Orla]

The_Hog, on Aug 17 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

For me and for many others here to open 1C and rebid 1S shows 5+C and 4S.

This is what I do not understand. This is exactly what my partner said when she explained why she skipped the ♥♥♥♥s. Telling me that: "in "standard SAYC": Opening 1♣ and then bidding ♥/♠ would show 5 clubs and 4 hearts/spades".

This is the first time I heard that. If it is "standard SAYC", what "standard" system uses the "convenient/better" minor, when they play 5-card majors and therefore cannot open ♥/♠ with 4?

Looks to me like, what you are saying:
"In this system, Opener can never show his/her 4-card major suit."

I think that, in future, I will make an expressed agreement with my partners that when I respond to 1♣ with 1♦ I am not denying a 4-card major and, should partner have one, bidding it should take precedence before an NT bid.

It is all a question of partnership agreement.

rla

[Orla]

PedroG, on Aug 17 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

Hi Orla,

Sorry, I'm a new player and can be saying a lot of mistakes, but if u have 3pts and your partner 13, what are opp's doing ? Passing with such good hands... Why I never get opp's like that, mines usually are bidding all over the place ever shorther than 24pts.

Pedro

hahaha, Pedro. The problem is/was, I guess I should not have bid. Then Opps will find their game or partscore.
RHO had:
♠ A J T 5
♥ Q J 7 5
♦ 7
♣ K Q 8 2
Now he could have doubled for the majors, but I think many will not double with 4 cards in the bid suit - what does he do if his partner responds 2♦?

LHO had:
♠ K 8 3
♥ 10
♦ A 8 4 2
♣ A T 9 7 5
Had I passed, I guess he might have balanced or left the 1♣ in. 1♣ was played twice - down 5.

Not easy finding a contract. Some whaccky bidding, too. Some examples?
1♣ - X - P - *1♦
1♥ - **1NT - P - 3NT
(they made +2)
* (this is the problem I mentioned above)
** (I think 1NT, after the double, should imply 16+HCP)

Next one-
North opens 1♥ (Acol? - but then why not weakNT?) West bids 2♣ East bids 3NT.
(they made +2)

Now here is a good one!!!!
North opens
1♣ - X - P - P(for penalties - good pass)
1♥ - P - P - *2♦
P - **2♠ - P - 3♣
P - 3NT
(they made +2)
*(this is why I say E should not double, because W thinks E has support in the unbid suits)
**(what is this promising? 5 spades and 16++++ pts????)

Etc etc etc

Does make me think that my 1♦ may have been the least worst teehee

[PedroG]

Ty for posting op's hands...

like I said new player and mistakes made all the time at the table, so beware with any of my comments

RHO hand

Well I don't like the X not because I have 4 in the clubs but because I could not handle the diamond response if it would come and ofc being long in the opp's suit is minus not a plus (even if he can have only 3 of them). If I had to bid something I would overcall, even with only four cards, but perhaps PASS would be my choice this shape is wrong for anything else.

So I would suspect that 1♣ would be what would happen to me at the table, even if it goes down 5.


Pedro

[Gerben42]

In Polish ♣ majors always first is forced upon the player because 1♦ is not available as natural bid. However on 7♦ 4♠ I would respond 1♦ anyway

Just don't decide to deny a 4-card major with 7♦ 4♠ and then try to show ♠- it led to a good result but also lots of confusion.

[Wackojack]

[quote name='Orla' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:15 AM'][quote name='PedroG' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:12 PM']Hi Orla,
Does make me think that my 1[di] may have been the least worst teehee[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree. Just be happy that you keep the opps out of their game in no-trumps or spades or possibly even the making club slam. On balance I think a response of 1 [di] is better than 1[he], regardless whether you play Walsh with check-back or up-the-line. The disadvantage of responding 1[he], as I see it , is if partner has something like 15HCP and 3-1-4-5 distribution. Then you would probably languish in a 5-1 club contract. Of course even here you opps may have a 22 point heart game.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I favour the 1NT rebid, which policy perhaps argues in favour of showing the hearts as responder. But if you have agreed to play standard SAYC and have not discussed these priorities then however much it galls you would expect a 1H rebid on that hand, which would go some way to justifying a 1D response. (Personally I prefer a weak 1N opener on this hand, which might elicit a Stayman response and pass any rebid, but that option is not available in SAYC. I also think that a 1NT rebid on 15-17 which bypasses a major has fewer dangers than the same sequence where the 1NT rebid is weak, but therein lies thread drift.)

You are more likely to have a (playable) Diamond fit on this hand than one in Hearts. And you would rather partner led Diamonds than Hearts. Even if you have a primary Heart fit you are unlikely to outbid the opponents so the mere fact that Hearts is a major suit and Diamonds a minor does not figure much in the decision.

All you are trying to do is to find a partscore that minimises your expected minus. To that end I would say that a (natural) 1D response (as we are playing standard SAYC) rates to gain most (or lose least). Not that it will always work.

Passing 1C may be better yet, although in this case, while you might regret missing the red suit fit, 1NT does not rate to be much worse than 1C. If your methods require you to rebid 1NT on this hand, or respond 1H, then this would improve the odds for passing the 1C. Playing some sort of transfer walsh where 1D shows Hearts and a 1H rebid shows 3 card support may give you good chances of a playable partscore.