[kenberg]

Another thing that I have never played is a big club system. Of course then a 1C bid is forcing. It also shows a strong hand, and usually the big club pairs have a number of agreements as to how to develop the auction after the 1C opening. If I am told that I have to respond 1D with the sample hand, then I want to play precision. At least then I get something for my money.

As has been mentioned, the 4-4-3-2 hands are not all that frequent, although certainly they arise. In all my partnerships, such hands are opened 1D. There is rarely a problem with sorting out the number of diamonds. Example: 1D-1M-1NT. Partner has 4+ diamonds since he obviously is not 4-4 in the majors. Example: 1D-? when I don't hold a major. If I am balanced I bid some number of NT. I don't care if partner has only three diamonds. If I am unbalanced I raise diamonds or bid clubs, or if I have clubs but lack the strength for 2C I bid NT. I guess sometime or another the auction has developed so that I had to worry about partner's three or four diamonds, but I think it was five or six years ago.

Opening 1C on a two card suit seems to make sense only if it is forcing but then? He bids 1C forcing, I bid 1D forcing, I don't know if he has clubs, he doesn't know if I have diamonds, I don't know if he has a 12 count or an 18 count. I assume that if I had six diamonds and a ten count I would also bid 1D so he knows nothing really of my hand either. I might have the example trash. Playing precision, if I have ten points and diamonds it is safe to show that, presumably with 2D. But here? This doesn't sound like a winning system to me.


Anyway, with this hand I pass. As Helene notes it's a gamble, whether 1C promises three or not. True. But bidding a spade is suicide. Worse yet, I'll be the declarer. At the very least, I want to be playing Wolfe sign-offs if I bid 1S with this. Not usually the case playing pick-up. I can't say I am thrilled by the thought of bidding 2S as a weak jumps shift here either.

[kenberg]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

foo, on May 30 2007, 08:44 AM, said:

The "short club" in SA or 2/1 causes more problems than it solves unless you play a fairly sophisticated structure based on it.
.........
This is an example of one of the hidden costs of playing the "short club".

kenberg, on May 30 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

One of the things I have never understood is why players want to open a 4-4-3-2 hand with 1C. It causes problems and solves little.

Statements like these are usually based on a lack of appreciation for subsequent changes to other auctions and the inferences implied. They are totally false, and are strictly the opinions of the posters quoted. I used to feel the same way as they do until a player much better than myself showed me why I was mistaken. There is no additional "sophisticated" structure required.

Problems like the original one are nothing more than an indication of the lack of discipline on responders part to pass 1C. There is absolutely no reason to respond on garbage such as this. This is a direct result of partner being an "beginner/intermediate" player who thinks he must "rescue" his partner, and has no bearing on the 1C opening itself. In most cases, they simply do not have the experience/discipline required to pass and risk partner playing a 2-1 fit, all the while knowing that if 1C gets doubled for penalty back to them they can run then. And they also don't appreciate is that by holding a stiff, it actually reduces that likelihood that partner only holds a 2 card suit.

Your issue really shouldn't be with the system. Your issue is with your partner who cannot follow the system and pass as he is supposed to.

Huh? Totally false? It's totally true that I never understood why players want to open 1C on 4-4-3-2 and moreover it has a lot to do with appreciating the changes in the subsequent auction.

[keylime]

Chuck,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, to the maximum extent. It has nothing to do with systemic choices; it has everything to do with biting the bullet and passing.

Pass is not an evil word.

[bid_em_up]

kenberg, on May 30 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

As has been mentioned, the 4-4-3-2 hands are not all that frequent, although certainly they arise. In all my partnerships, such hands are opened 1D. There is rarely a problem  with sorting out the number of diamonds. Example: 1D-1M-1NT. Partner has 4+ diamonds since he obviously is not 4-4 in the majors.

So, what you are saying is that in the auction 1D-1S-1N, opener has to have 4 diamonds. Why can't opener be 3-4-3-3? (Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.) So you do not know partner holds 4 diamonds. I am, of course, assuming you open your better minor when 3-3, you may also always open 1C instead. If you always open 1C when 3-3, then yes, opener will have at least 4 diamonds.

Quote

Opening 1C on a two card suit seems to make sense only if it is forcing but then?

In terms of an SAYC or 2/1 context, it is only forcing if responder actually has some reason to bid. Partner is not supposed to be bidding on garbage under the misguided conception of "rescuing" opener, simply because he MIGHT have a doubleton club. I think we can agree that the given hand should pass originally, unless playing some sort of big club system where 1D is a known artificial response indicating a bad hand.

Quote

He bids 1C forcing, I bid 1D forcing, I don't know if he has clubs, he doesn't know if I have diamonds.

You will on his next call. If he is 4♦-4♣ or 4♦-5♣, he will ALWAYS raise to 2♦. If he rebids a major, he can still be 4-4-3-2 (but he cannot hold 4D), which will be determined by your next call.

Note, I struck out the forcing after 1C. In playing 1C as a 2 card suit in a 2/1 or SAYC context, 1C is not forcing, no more so than any other opening bid is (other than 2C). 1D is quasi-forcing as it tends to promise a "real" responding hand, but it does not promise a second call.

If the auction goes, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2S, by inference, partner was originally 4-4-3-2. If the auction goes 1C-1D-1H-2H, you don't really care if he was 4-4-3-2, as a fit has been located.

Where you really gain is that 1D openings now always promise 4 cards. This practically assures you of being able escape into 2D on a known 4-3 fit, if needed. It makes it easier to know whether or not to compete in diamonds. It also makes evaluating diamond game/slam contracts much easier later in the auction. Granted, at MP play, this isn't a top priority, but at IMP play, it certainly can be.

There are other inferences involved as well. Certainly, if you are not used to playing it this way (as you state), it is difficult to appreciate many of the nuances involved. But really, there are very few "sophisticated" responses/bids required by doing so. You simply bid your hand naturally, 4 card suits up the line.

jmoo.

[bid_em_up]

kenberg, on May 30 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

Huh? Totally false? It's totally true that I never understood why players want to open 1C on 4-4-3-2 and moreover it has a lot to do with appreciating the changes in the subsequent auction.

I misinterpreted your post then.

It is one thing to say you don't understand the logic behind the 1C opening, or what is gained by doing so, which is apparently what you meant.

I read it as "I don't understand how anyone could think this is playable, because it causes problems and solves nothing!!", as in being a sarcastic comment.

Sorry.

[hrothgar]

This really isn't all that complicated a subject:

Assuming that you are going to play relatively standard methods with a non-forcing one club opening, you have two different choices about how to bid 4=4=3=2 hands.

1. Open 1♣. The advantage of this method is that a 1♦ unambiguously promises 4+ Diamonds, giving responder a bit more latitude in raising Diamonds

2. Open 1♦. The advantage of this method is that a 1♣ opening unambiguously promises 3+ Clubs, giving responder a bit more latitude in raising clubs

Frankly, I don't think this choice matters at a practical level. Its all a matter of preference. In much the same vein, there's a quite a bit of debate in responding to a forcing NT response. I've seen a number of good Eastern European pairs playing methods in which a 2♦ promises 4+ Diamonds and a 2♣ response only promises 2 clubs.

Your mileage may vary, but I'd never claim that either method was severely flawed. There's really not much difference between the two approaches. As other folks have noted, if you really get excited about all of this, you probably shouldn't be playing standard.

[kenberg]

bid_em_up, on May 30 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

kenberg, on May 30 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

Huh? Totally false? It's totally true that I never understood why players want to open 1C on 4-4-3-2 and moreover it has a lot to do with appreciating the changes in the subsequent auction.

I misinterpreted your post then.

It is one thing to say you don't understand the logic behind the 1C opening, or what is gained by doing so, which is apparently what you meant.

I read it as "I don't understand how anyone could think this is playable, because it causes problems and solves nothing!!", as in being a sarcastic comment.

Sorry.

Somewhere in between. I have been around for a while, long enough to form an opinion about this. I didn't mean it to be sarcastic, but I did mean to say I see more problems than advantages. I agree with the comments of many that it often doesn't matter at all. But it sometimes matters. and I think that it is often easier to work out partner's minor suit shape when 4-4-3-2 hands are opened 1D.

I've played that 1C can be on 2, I've played that when 3-3 in the minors you open the better minor, but I far prefer playing that 1D shows four with the exception of 4-4-3-2. Conveniently, all of my current partners, at least the regular ones, agree. With a 3-3 holding where the diamonds are truly good and the clubs truly lousy, I may try 1D. But it's infrequent and I apologize if it goes wrong, which it might. Partner is apt to misjudge my shape.

Sometime back I played with a lady who preferred short clubs, but in deference to me she agreed that 1C would show three. She picked up a hand with one of her cards stuck behind another. Looking at her 4-4-2-2 shape she finally just decided that what ever she had agreed to, she just had to start with a short club with this holding.

[awm]

There are some issues here beyond the merits of "short club."

One problem is that there are a lot of different ways to play "standard." There's Goren standard. There's SAYC. There's "seat of the pants" standard. And a lot of people who have been playing 2/1 for most of their bridge define "standard" as a sort of "2/1 without GF 2/1 bids" which really isn't a good definition.

Because of this, beginners will hear all sorts of contradictory things about how to bid. What do you open with 4432? What with 1345? Do you respond to 1♣ up the line, or majors first? When do you raise responder's major suit response on three cards? Does a 2/1 bid promise a second call? Does rebidding your major show six? Does rebidding your minor show six? How much extra do you need for a reverse? What do you open with 5♥ and 6♣? Should opener ever rebid a 3-card minor after a (presumably non-forcing) 1nt response to 1M? Does a limit raise of a major necessarily promise four-card support (or could it be three)? What do jump shifts show? Is 1m-2NT forcing? What are the continuations after 1♦-2♣?

In essence you can answer these (and the many other unlisted questions) any way you want. Some combinations of answers will lead to a better or more playable system than others. But the real problem is that people learn very different answers to them and yet think they are playing "standard." Then they have an accident (or series of accidents) when partner doesn't have the same answers, and then get upset and leave the table....

[foo]

jtfanclub,

Using SA or 2/1, a response promises ~6+ HCP and 2+ cover cards.

There is no teacher anywhere who is going to support responding on 0 counts.

[inquiry]

foo, on May 30 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

jtfanclub,

Using SA or 2/1, a response promises ~6+ HCP and 2+ cover cards.

There is no teacher anywhere who is going to support responding on 0 counts.

I know of at least one teacher who advocates bidding on shapely nothing if for no other reason than make it tougher on the opponents. I have heard him say this.

But I don't even think he would suggest this approach to beginners...

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on May 30 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

I think that's a wonderful idea. Anybody know if such a book exists?

You could start with S.J. Simon's Why You Lose At Bridge. I think Victor Mollo wrote on the subject, as well.

[helene_t]

As for this 4=4=3=2 1♣ vs 1♦ thing:

If you have a response scheme that makes effcient use of the extra step you have after 1♣ as opposed to 1♦, of course it's better to open 1♣, assuming that opps won't interfere.

If opps interfere, or if responder starts with a Walsh-style 1M, the extra step is gone and you might reason that it's better to open 1♦ since then both minor suits promise the same length. On the other hand, the number of possible shapes opener can have is already larger for 1♦ (which includes the 4-4 and 5-5 patterns) but I'm not sure how relevant that is. You might make a simulation to determine how often you end up in a poor minor suit fit when defending or playing in the other minor would have been better, depending on whether you open those hands with 1♣ or 1♦. My guess is that any difference you might find would be neglible compared to the uncertainty imposed by the subjectivity of the assumptions behind the simulations. I think it would be more interesting to discuss the merrits of open the better minor based on where your honors are. But I might be wrong.

Finally, 1♦ when clubs is your shortest suit has the advantage of preempting 2♣ by opps.

[kenberg]

inquiry, on May 30 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

foo, on May 30 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

jtfanclub,

Using SA or 2/1, a response promises ~6+ HCP and 2+ cover cards.

There is no teacher anywhere who is going to support responding on 0 counts.

I know of at least one teacher who advocates bidding on shapely nothing if for no other reason than make it tougher on the opponents. I have heard him say this.

But I don't even think he would suggest this approach to beginners...

Bidding on nothing makes it tougher for someone. I guess you could invoke the old saw that you confuse two opponents but only one partner.

The other day I opened 1C, partner responded 1S, and I had a rather good 18 count with four decent spades. I suppose 4S is a little pushy but I bid it and despite partner's 6 count it made. It wouldn't have had much of a play opposite a 0 count, shapely or not.

What does this guru recommend after 1C-1S when opener has a good hand and spades?

I know it's "a matter of style". What isn't? My style is to assume that when partner bids he actually has something.

If one of those spade spots was the king, 1S would be a fine bid. Maybe even the Q although it gets trickier. But with nothing but spots in front of my eyes, I pass.

Teacher, Leave the kids alone!

[kenberg]

Jlall, on May 30 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

I would recommend not GFing with balanced 18s and 4 card support. If you have 18 and a stiff, you may get too high, or you may make opposite 5 trumps and some shape. Actually I had this exact hand once + the spade jack and partner splintered and game was cold, go figure. Obviously sometimes you will get too high.

I probably agree. It was a youthful burst of optimism. You're becoming old and cautions, Justin.