[Orla]

After opening 1♣ and Partner's 1♦ response; what is my bid now?

Holding:
♠ Q 6 4
♥ A K 6 2
♦ Q J 6
♣ J 6 4


Does 1♦ deny a 4-card major in "standard" SAYC?

rla

[ralph23]

1. 1♥, for sure.

2. No, not at all. SAYC bidding is up the line "in principle" -- however depending on style, responder may skip over a ♦ suit in some circumstances.

There are different philosophies on this. In fact there is one school called Majors Always First in Answering (or similar), MAFIA, that would always skip the ♦. But it is not at all standard.

Some authorities recommend skipping over it if your hand is weak, and bidding up-the-line if your hand is strong. This too is subject to debate.

But in standard, in no way does responding 1♦ deny a major suit. So bid your ♥s.

[jtfanclub]

Orla, on Aug 15 2007, 08:29 AM, said:

Does 1♦ deny a 4-card major in "standard" SAYC?

No.

1♦ absolutely does not deny a 4 card major. 1NT by you generally denies a 4 card major- Walsh is not part of SAYC.

Of course, if you decide that 4333s like NT better and you decide to bid 1NT, I don't think your partner should come after you with an axe.

[vang]

no, 1♦ doesn't deny a 4card major. it's a matter of style what to rebid, but with 4333 I think most will rebid 1NT. with 4432, rebid your major if possible.

[PedroG]

Hi,

IMHO. and that is from a beginner, in SAYC you bid up-the-line, so you show your lowest 4card suit first...

Some play showing the major first by-passing diamonds. but think it's non-standard.

ty
Pedro

[helene_t]

You would probably have opened 1♦ with 4-4 minors and maybe with 4-5 as well, so there's not much point for responder to show a 4-card diamonds if he has a more useful message tell. It would be logical for a 1♦ response to promise 5, then, but I have never seen that suggested anywhere.

This is something that is incoherent in SAYC. Playing with a pick-up partner I would usually bypass a 4- or 5-card diamonds, but as opener I would tend to bid up-the-line just in case responder is on a different wavelength.

With this 3433-hand it would never occur to me to rebid 1♥, though, even if specifically having agreed not to play Walsh.

[BillHiggin]

MY choice would be to bid 1N (but there is some Hidious Hog blood in me).
Either 1♥ or 1N might work out better on any given day (and neither should be subject to much criticism).

1♦ definitely does not deny a major at all in SAYC.
Some partnerships agree to Walsh responses to 1♣ which means that the diamond suit is skipped in favor of a 4-card major with either less than game forcing strength or less than invitational strength (both agreements are playable) and others choose MAFIA where not bidding a major denies having one (regardless of strength). These are not "standard" SAYC agreements.

I would choose 1N because of the absolutely flat shape and the slow (no-trump oriented) values in the three card suits.

[mikeh]

I agree that in SAYC, 1♦ doesn't deny a 4 card major.. it is neutral on the question since SAYC is an up the line method responding to 1♣.

WRT to Helene's point, 1♦ is not usually played as 5+ for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is often the default bid on 3=3=3=4, when one doesn't want to bid 2♣ (wrong shape, and looks silly when partner is 4333 or 3433 or 4432) or 1N (often even std players ascribe a certain strength to 1N... or if not, use 2N as forcing, so with, say, 11 hcp and no major, fudge with 1♦.

As for the correct bid: the 'normal' bid is to continue up the line: ie bid 1♥.

However, if we allow ourselves to think a little beyond the bare bones of the method, and to invoke judgment, then there is a lot to be said for 1N.

Consider: if you bid 1♥, partner may be endplayed in the auction.... if he has no spade stopper (or 4 card holding) and lacks game values or a heart fit, what does he do? Give him xx xxx AJxxx Qxxx. What is his rebid?

And if you bid 1♥ and he makes a forward-going (forcing) call, and you feel you have to own up to your diamond support, your sequence of ♣s then ♥s then ♦s will not ound like 3=4=3=3 with a minimum and a spade stopper.

This hand screams notrump, and you should bid 1N, imo.

Now, once in a while, partner will leave you in 1 or 3N, when a 4-4 heart fit exists.

1stly, when he is shapely (4=5 in the reds or wilder) he should consider showing ♥ along the way, since (contrary to what most B/I players seem to be taught) it is not a crime to play a 4-3 major suit game when 3N fails. So you will then raise hearts.

2ndly, if he is 2=4=4=3 or 3=4=4=2, you may find that 3N makes when 4♥ fails: 9 tricks are sometimes easier than 10.

So: if you are both relative beginners and want to internalize basic bidding rules, consider 1♥, but (even then) discuss with partner, later, why and when it may be appropriate to depart from the up the line approach. If you are already comfortable, or want to become comfortable, with the idea that, on certain hands, one can and should choose another call, then bid 1N. But, don't make a habit of bypassing 1♥ merely because you are 3=4=3=3 (at least not when playing SAYC). For example, xxx AKJx xxx AJx: bid 1♥. I personally don't like the method, but in SAYC this is not a hand to override system: you have no spade stopper and you have a 'hard-value' hand, not a soft hand.

[jdonn]

I don't know what SAYC systematically calls for (I suspect 1♥), but any system that makes you bid 1♥ instead of 1NT is terrible. Anything but notrumps ASAP is the wrong description and a bad bid. This is something that beginners should learn, to always rebid 1NT with 4333 hands, but I even see experienced players messing it up.

[neilkaz]

Jlall, on Aug 15 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

I don't play walsh but like rebidding 1N with this hand.

Me too. If responder is unbalanced and GF with 4♥, he can reverse to 2♥

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Aug 15 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

WRT to Helene's point, 1♦ is not usually played as 5+ for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is often the default bid on 3=3=3=4, when one doesn't want to bid 2♣ (wrong shape, and looks silly when partner is 4333 or 3433 or 4432) or 1N (often even std players ascribe a certain strength to 1N... or if not, use 2N as forcing, so with, say, 11 hcp and no major, fudge with 1♦.

Fair enough, but why require any diamonds for a 1♦ bid, then? This SAYC-system sounds like a deformed version of Montreal Relay. 1♦ is just a waiting bid.

[ArcLight]

Jlall, on Aug 15 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

I don't play walsh but like rebidding 1N with this hand.

I thought Walsh ws "standard" among USA experts?
Justin, do you just respond up the line, or do you use a different method?

[ArcLight]

jdonn, on Aug 15 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

I don't know what SAYC systematically calls for (I suspect 1♥), but any system that makes you bid 1♥ instead of 1NT is terrible. Anything but notrumps ASAP is the wrong description and a bad bid. This is something that beginners should learn, to always rebid 1NT with 4333 hands, but I even see experienced players messing it up.

Jdonn, what are your criteria for rebidding 1NT (as opener) vs. showing a 4 card major?
Do you always bid 1NT, or are there exceptions? If so, what?

[Orla]

Been reading the responses, many thanks to you all.

Ok, here is my problem. Basically, I was responder and I should not have bid 1♦ at all!!!

(confession time) I was holding
♠ X X X
♥ X X X X
♦ K X X X X
♣X

I was justifying my lack of discipline, thinking that if partner bids a major I pass. (Hey, I have seen worse psyche bids!!!!)

Partner bid 1NT. Now, leaving my naughtiness aside, all I am asking is what is the reasoning behind hiding a 4-card major? Is not the aim of bidding, to find a major fit? What is the point of saying: "Well I was balanced so I bid NT"? Don't you have a partner who may not be "balanced"?

I agree with responding in the major if you are 4♠/♥s and 4♦s, but when I have 5♦s, I think I should bid them. If both my partner and myself are bidding up the line, we will certainly discover our major fit, if we have one.

rla

[PedroG]

Hi,

Well with 3HCP and a possible misfit I would PASS...

That would be the more specific bid I could find.

Pedro

[Orla]

PedroG, on Aug 16 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

Well with 3HCP and a possible misfit I would PASS...

I am in agreement with you, my bid was bad.

However, it still does not answer my question. Forget my 3HCP and give me another King of something. My problem remains the same:

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?

:rolleyes:rla

[ralph23]

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

I agree with responding in the major if you are 4♠/♥s and 4♦s, but when I have 5♦s, I think I should bid them. If both my partner and myself are bidding up the line, we will certainly discover our major fit, if we have one.

rla

I can tell you what Bill Root's rationale was for a ♦ skip-over. (NB- You have a bad hand (so bad that maybe you might have passed, heaven forbid! ). But let's give you a stray Queen somewhere so you have a 5 HCP count. )

It was this: If you have a weak hand, there's a good chance that you will hear from your LHO, with a ♠ overcall. You have a "one bid" hand so get your major in quickly; see if your partner matches your major. It may get competitive soon....

If you have a strong and shapely hand (e.g. 5 or 6♦, together with 4♥, and good strength, then go ahead and bid naturally, up the line. There's lower chance of an overcall, and you are strong enough to bid again anyhow....At least that was what Root taught.

There are about 47 different philosophies on this issue, so with ten bridge players, you will get 12 different opinions. Clearly, several schools of thought have merit and reasonable minds can differ. It's a good area for partnership agreement and one in which you want to be on the same wavelength as partner.

[ralph23]

Orla, on Aug 16 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

Why would opener bid NT over showing a 4-card major suit?

Let me address (maybe supplement is a better word) your question with another question.

Suppose instead your partner's hand had been:

Scoring: IMP

---

and he opened 1nt.

You had a different hand than the junk you actually held, and you responded 2♣.

What should partner bid? 2♥ or 2♦ ?

(Suppose also you and partner subscribe to the school that says "Don't use Stayman as responder with 4333 or 3433 distribution.")

[Orla]

ralph23, on Aug 17 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

Suppose instead your partner's hand had been:

and he opened 1nt.

You had a different hand than the junk you actually held, and you responded 2♣.

What should partner bid? 2♥ or 2♦ ?

(Suppose also you and partner subscribe to the school that says "Don't use Stayman as responder with 4333 or 3433 distribution.")

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). As I said before, one person may be balanced, the other not - could prove fatal in NT.

In this case, one pair opened 1NT on the above hand. They got a top. Responder bid 2♣ (Planning to pass any response). and they found the ♥ fit.

Is the consensus: "Play in NT at any price" or "Find a major fit."?

rla