[ruleof15]

]The 4-card diamond suit.
The basic premise of bidding according to Goren, Schenkin, Kaplan-Scheinwold and most all writers of books on bidding state 4-card suits must be bid up the line. This is not only so you will get in the correct contract but the strong hand will be up when the contract ends in a partial. Bidding this way also protects opener’s strong hand from being face up on the table. Why make it easy for defenders by having the strong hand visible? Secondly this helps if you end up playing defense, which is important because one plays defense 50% of the time. The third reason is this allows opener to confidently bid 1NT when holding one of these distributions: 3-3-2-5, 3-3-3-4 or 3-4-2-4, 3-4-1-5, 2(AQ)-3-3-5. If you check the times these combinations appear you will find they are the most popular distributions.[/size]

[wank]

i hope you don't mind if i note this down to share with my friends.

[hrothgar]

ruleof15, on 2014-December-07, 11:06, said:

]The 4-card diamond suit.
The third reason is this allows opener to confidently bid 1NT when holding one of these distributions: 3-3-2-5, 3-3-3-4 or 3-4-2-4, 3-4-1-5, 2(AQ)-3-3-5. If you check the times these combinations appear you will find they are the most popular distributions.

You appear to be saying that opener should rebid 1NT following the auction

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (P)

holding a 3=4=2=4 or 3=4=1=5 shape.

I find this surprising.

If responder is bidding 4 card suits up the line you're going to be missing a lot of 4-4 major suit fits.
(not to mention a lot of good Moysians)

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2014-December-07, 15:54, said:

2=4=1=5 shape

[rmnka447]

Sorry, but your assertion that most all writers advocate up the line bidding is wrong. Kaplan-Sheinwold's 1960 groundbreaking book How to Play Winning Bridge advocated bypassing the ♦ suit to bid a major with hands of less than reversing values as responder. It was one of the first to advocate this style of bidding over a 1 ♣ opening. At the time, up the line bidding was a cornerstone of Standard American bidding as codified and popularized by Charles Goren.

Just to be clear, in the After a Minor Opening chapter of the K-S book, the following examples were given in the Responding in a Major subsection as cases where the major should be bid instead of ♦s:

♠ xxxx ♥ xx ♦ KQxx ♣ xxx (1)

♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ AKxxx ♣ Kx (2)

Up the line bidding works well in undisturbed auctions. However, when the opponents intervene, it may not do so well. Consider for hand (1), if after you bid your up the line 1 ♦ response, your LHO bids 2 ♥. You'll lose a ♠ fit unless opener has a hand strong enough to bid them as your hand isn't good enough to reopen.

[whereagles]

where I live lore is: "4M-4♦ ignores diamonds up to slam zone (16+)"

[mgoetze]

And what prompted you to write this unsolicited history lesson?

[diana_eva]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-07, 17:31, said:

And what prompted you to write this unsolicited history lesson?

Looks to me like OP is trying to discuss this idea rather than give a lesson.

[Vampyr]

whereagles, on 2014-December-07, 17:03, said:

where I live lore is: "4M-4♦ ignores diamonds up to slam zone (16+)"

Here a popular approach is to bypass the diamond suit unless you are going to bid on after opener's 1NT rebid.

[billyjef]

Is there a definite priority to right side suit contracts or notrump contract in such situations? Over 1 diamond response to 1 club opener, opener should bid some level of notrump with balanced hands is what it seems your post is saying. Thus, unless opener is unbalanced I am presuming, we ignore any potential major suit fit to prioritize rebidding notrump? True, those that bypass diamonds to bid their major (hopefully with less than game forcing values [or invitational values in some quarters]) will be at some disadvantage when opener has a fit with the major as it would often be better played from openers side when responder has less than game forcing values.

So, I think the unasked question that becomes apparent from your position is, why do many people, writers, pros, experts and us lesser mortals believe we should bypass diamonds in certain situations rather than always bidding our four card suits up the line starting with diamonds over our pds 1 club opener?

[hrothgar]

billyjef, on 2014-December-08, 07:24, said:

So, I think the unasked question that becomes apparent from your position is, why do many people, writers, pros, experts and us lesser mortals believe we should bypass diamonds in certain situations rather than always bidding our four card suits up the line starting with diamonds over our pds 1 club opener?

Bridge is a 4 handed game

The final contract that you land in is often less important than the path that you take there.
Auction that quickly place you in your final contract are to be preferred to long elaborate auctions that leak information to the opponents.

[nige1]

ruleof15, on 2014-December-07, 11:06, said:

The basic premise of bidding according to Goren, Schenkin, Kaplan-Scheinwold and most all writers of books on bidding state 4-card suits must be bid up the line. This is not only so you will get in the correct contract but the strong hand will be up when the contract ends in a partial. Bidding this way also protects opener's strong hand from being face up on the table. Why make it easy for defenders by having the strong hand visible? Secondly this helps if you end up playing defense, which is important because one plays defense 50% of the time. The third reason is this allows opener to confidently bid 1NT when holding one of these distributions: 3-3-2-5, 3-3-3-4 or 3-4-2-4, 3-4-1-5, 2(AQ)-3-3-5. If you check the times these combinations appear you will find they are the most popular distributions.

If you want to right-side more contracts, while reducing information-leak, you might consider

• Using transfer responses or
• Swapping the meanings of your 1♥ and 1♠ replies.

[gszes]

HUGE issue unfortunately and that means no easy answer. Let's start with the most
obvious p opens 1c rho p and we hold Kxxx Kx xxxx Qxx. Using this sample hand alone
we can make a great case for bidding 1s rather than 1d (up the line) for several
reasons.

1. Opener's confident ability to rebid 1n with most of the example hands you showed
is misplaced and there is a strong probability that there are a variety of places
that might be better to play in than 1n.

2. If we LOOK at the hand we can see a minimum responding hand with 2(3?) unsupported
honors. This means if we end up playing the contract there is a pretty good chance that
it will be better for us if the responder's hand is dummy. The stronger hand being
dummy is a disadvantage but probably not enough of one to make up for the fact that
the defense also does not know about responder's hidden dia length (and thus other
distribution). This means we increase the probability of right siding our final contract
if we respond 1s vs 1d.

3. Slam bidding gets off on the wrong foot whenever opener is short in diamonds. Splinter
is a very useful slam tool that can no longer be used when opener is short in diamonds
and our hand would be "perfect" opposite a short diamond.

Does that mean it is always wrong to bid 1d first???? If only it were that simple.
P opens 1c rho p and we hold xxxx xx KQxx Qxx. Now bidding 1d is probably better than
bidding 1s for several reasons.

1. We have essentially zero unsupported honors that may need protection from the opening lead
and by bidding 1d we increase the chances opener will become declarer. Which means openers
unsupported honors have a greater chance of being protected and thus we right side the contract.

2. Now opener can confidently rebid 1n with the example hands provided and it will probably be
a superior contract.

3. Slam bidding will not suffer when opener is short in diamonds since we have the expected
wasted values there.

The above means there is no 1 size fits all way to bid. The texture of your suit(s), the power of
your hand and a sound rebidding plan should determine if you should bid 1d vs 1M. You will get
better at judging as time goes by. My main advice is to try and avoid bidding a cruddy 4 card dia suit
mainly because of slam problems when opener is short in diamonds.