[jules101]

Pard opens 1C (4+ cards) and in a non-competitive auction you have a weakish hand with 5♦ and 4 of a major (say up to 10 hcp max).


Do you recommend:

1) bidding you major first, or
2) your longer minor suit first, so 1♦, or
3) does it depend on suit quality/something else, etc!


eg what do you bid here?

1♣ [P] ?? ♠J7xx ♥x ♦JT987 ♣KQx

And what if your majors were reversed?

1♣ [P] ?? ♠x ♥J7xx ♦JT987 ♣KQx

[Zelandakh]

Standard in Acol is to respond in the 4 card major rather than a longer minor with less than invitational strength, Jules.

[brian_m]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-03, 10:48, said:

Standard in Acol is to respond in the 4 card major rather than a longer minor with less than invitational strength, Jules.

When did that become standard? Granted it was a (very) long time ago that I learned to play Acol, but I've never heard of bypassing a biddable 5 card diamond suit to bid a 4 card major when playing Acol (2/1 is a different matter).

FWIW, Jules, I'd respond 1D on both of your example hands.

[mck4711]

Bidding 4-card-major has priority if you have less than invitational strength, even if ♦ is longer. I would bid ♦ only if the suit has an excellent quality. In both examples I answer with 1♠, respectively 1♥.

Imagine what happens if the bidding goes:

1♣ - p - 1♦ - 1M
p - 2M - ???

You are stuck. For bidding your major on the 2-level you are just too weak.

[ahydra]

mck4711, on 2011-October-04, 15:06, said:

Bidding 4-card-major has priority if you have less than invitational strength, even if ♦ is longer. I would bid ♦ only if the suit has an excellent quality. In both examples I answer with 1♠, respectively 1♥.

Imagine what happens if the bidding goes:

1♣ - p - 1♦ - 1M
p - 2M - ???

You are stuck. For bidding your major on the 2-level you are just too weak.

You could make a takeout X? Still a little nasty if the opps have spades and you have hearts though.

I'd think I'd respond in diamonds because if it went 1C-1S-2C then 2D is showing at least 10 points, forcing to 2NT (the way I play it at least - with less than 10 your only choices are pass or 2S, or preference when opener's bid two suits). Compare 1C-1D which allows partner to bid hearts. I'd hardly blame a partner for preferring a major to a minor in this situation though - but because of the "new suit at 2 level is forcing to 2NT" rule, one should definitely respond with hearts when holding 5S4H.

ahydra

[brian_m]

mck4711, on 2011-October-04, 15:06, said:

Bidding 4-card-major has priority if you have less than invitational strength, even if ♦ is longer. I would bid ♦ only if the suit has an excellent quality. In both examples I answer with 1♠, respectively 1♥.

Imagine what happens if the bidding goes:

1♣ - p - 1♦ - 1M
p - 2M - ???

You are stuck. For bidding your major on the 2-level you are just too weak.

Well, admittedly it's 15 years since I've played bridge in the UK, and more than 35 since I first learned to play Acol, but it was always suits up the line as far as I knew the system. In the sequence you give, I don't want to bid a 4CM at the 2 level after I've responded 1D, because partner will have made a negative double if holding four cards in the other major, so I know whether we have a 4-4 major fit or not. Of course, if you handicap yourself by playing penalty doubles at the one level, then things may be a little more difficult, but the 1D response is in no way to blame for that.

[Zelandakh]

brian_m, on 2011-October-04, 16:44, said:

Well, admittedly it's 15 years since I've played bridge in the UK, and more than 35 since I first learned to play Acol, but it was always suits up the line as far as I knew the system.

In modern English Acol you open the major if 4432 with a major and a minor and 15+hcp. This means that if you open a minor and rebid a major you are guaranteeing an unbalanced hand. There are alterantive versions of Acol, for example the very popular Swiss variant, where this is not the case. The EBU have a system description for "Standard English" on their web pages which might be of assistance here.

[1eyedjack]

IMP v MP scoring may be relevant.

If the combined values are sufficient for game (regardless of whether responder has a priori game try values opposite any opener), then with sensible continuations a major suit fit should be located whatever the initial response. The issue therefore revolves around the relative tension between safety contrasted with higher scoring partscores. This would tend to argue more strongly in favour of responding the major in MP events. In IMP events the score for going down in a contract is independent of suit denomination, and is expensive in comparison with an alternative making partscore. Responding your longer suit is more likely to result in your playing in a making contract, notwithstanding the risk of missing a fit in the second suit.

You might also wish to take into account the adequacy of your tolerance for the suit opened (and consequent preparedness for opener to rebid that suit). If you have a 3-4-5-1 shape and it goes 1C-1H-2C then you may not be too happy to find that you have a 5-4 Diamond fit. If you have 1-4-5-3 and it goes 1C-1H-2C then you might not be so concerned.

[brian_m]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-05, 00:41, said:

In modern English Acol you open the major if 4432 with a major and a minor and 15+hcp. This means that if you open a minor and rebid a major you are guaranteeing an unbalanced hand. There are alterantive versions of Acol, for example the very popular Swiss variant, where this is not the case. The EBU have a system description for "Standard English" on their web pages which might be of assistance here.

I did say I could be a bit out of date! AFAIR, what to open with (e.g.) a 16 HCP 2434 shape used to be almost a religious war amongst Acol players.

I'll admit to never having heard of a "Swiss variant" of Acol. Maybe I'll change my profile to read "1970s Acol".

[bd71]

jules101, on 2011-October-03, 07:57, said:

Pard opens 1C (4+ cards) and in a non-competitive auction you have a weakish hand with 5♦ and 4 of a major (say up to 10 hcp max).


Do you recommend:

1) bidding you major first, or
2) your longer minor suit first, so 1♦, or
3) does it depend on suit quality/something else, etc!


eg what do you bid here?

1♣ [P] ?? ♠J7xx ♥x ♦JT987 ♣KQx

And what if your majors were reversed?

1♣ [P] ?? ♠x ♥J7xx ♦JT987 ♣KQx

Your original question has been hijacked a bit here...hopefully this can return things to the OP.

Whether to bid the 4-card major or ♦ is typically defined by your agreed system, so my recommendation is to follow your system (and if you don't know what is says, figure it out and then follow it) so that partner knows what to expect.

For the two general systems I'm familiar with:

Standard American: Typical approach would be to bid 4+ ♦ holdings first and worry about 4-card ♠ later. However, I believe a lot of partnerships playing SA will still come to a "non-standard" agreement to prefer 4-card majors over 5+ ♦.

2/1: With less than game-forcing strength, standard approach is to prefer the 4-card major over any 4+ ♦ holding. With game-forcing strength, bid 5+ ♦ holdings before a 4-card major.

On your third proposed option, I would always leave room to deviate from the system based on your judgement. However, on your examples, if I'm playing 2/1 it's going to take much more than a jack-high 5-card diamond suit for me to bid ♦ before my major.

[mck4711]

Do you recommend:

1) bidding you major first, or
2) your longer minor suit first, so 1♦, or
3) does it depend on suit quality/something else, etc!

ad 1/2:
there are actually 2 "schools of thought":
the "standard"-approach - regardless of your strength - is to start with your longer ♦, even with 4 cards in ♦ you would bid them normally up the line, meaning first ♦.
nevertheless bidding has become more aggressive; facing this development it is IMO quite common today to bid your 4-card-major first - if you have a weak hand. if you are strong enough, at least invitational strength, then you want to explore the best possible contract (partscore, game, slam, which suit).

it can happen that sometimes you miss a good ♦-contract, yes, but the world isnt perfect, is it?

as reference:
in modern textbooks both versions are mentioned, SAYC: standard-approach, but it is mentioned that is quite common to bid with weak hands 4-card-major first; Europe, eg ForumD: 4-card-major first with weak hands

ad 3:
i personally would bid with weak hands 1♦ first if i have an excellent suit, meaning there is a huge disparity between the suits, eg: xxxx - x - AKJxx - xxx

that much regarding the theory, at the end of the day it depends on the system you agreed on with your partner.

[ArtK78]

bd71, on 2011-October-05, 09:03, said:

Your original question has been hijacked a bit here...hopefully this can return things to the OP.

Whether to bid the 4-card major or ♦ is typically defined by your agreed system, so my recommendation is to follow your system (and if you don't know what is says, figure it out and then follow it) so that partner knows what to expect.

For the two general systems I'm familiar with:

Standard American: Typical approach would be to bid 4+ ♦ holdings first and worry about 4-card ♠ later. However, I believe a lot of partnerships playing SA will still come to a "non-standard" agreement to prefer 4-card majors over 5+ ♦.

2/1: With less than game-forcing strength, standard approach is to prefer the 4-card major over any 4+ ♦ holding. With game-forcing strength, bid 5+ ♦ holdings before a 4-card major.

On your third proposed option, I would always leave room to deviate from the system based on your judgement. However, on your examples, if I'm playing 2/1 it's going to take much more than a jack-high 5-card diamond suit for me to bid ♦ before my major.

I believe that the standard agreement in both Standard American and 2/1 is the same - bid the 4 card major first with less than game forcing strength. But there are plenty of partnerships that bid "up-the-line" and would bid diamonds first in all cases.

[bd71]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-06, 08:06, said:

I believe that the standard agreement in both Standard American and 2/1 is the same - bid the 4 card major first with less than game forcing strength. But there are plenty of partnerships that bid "up-the-line" and would bid diamonds first in all cases.

SAYC bids diamonds first "up the line", even with a 4-card major.

See page 5 of ACBL booklet...

http://www.acbl.org/...lsSupplies.html

(Edited to correct URL error)

[ArtK78]

bd71, on 2011-October-09, 00:04, said:

SAYC bids diamonds first "up the line", even with a 4-card major.

See page 5 of ACBL booklet...

http://www.acbl.org/...lsSupplies.html

(Edited to correct URL error)

That is no doubt correct, but I did say Standard American and 2/1, not SAYC.