[jogs]

Playing SAYC or 2/1 how many clubs does this auction show?

1♣-1♥, 1♠

TIA,
jogs

[jogs]

Maybe I should make this question clearer.

With 4=3=3=3

1♣-1♥, ?

Do you rebid 1♠? That means could be 3 clubs.

or

Do you rebid 1NT? That means 1♠ promises 4+ clubs.

[Vampyr]

jogs, on 2015-September-12, 08:23, said:

Maybe I should make this question clearer.

With 4=3=3=3

1♣-1♥, ?

Do you rebid 1♠? That means could be 3 clubs.

or

Do you rebid 1NT? That means 1♠ promises 4+ clubs.

Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.

[ggwhiz]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:

Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.

2/1 definitely has that ability and I believe SAYC does too. In my 2/1 partnership it promises 5+ clubs. We are allergic to re-bidding 1nt with a singleton and a 4-1-4-4 would have opened 1♦.

[BillPatch]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:

Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.

The bidding rules for both SAYC and BWS say opener always rebids the major: SAYC has no checkback convention, BWS New Minor Forcing. Kantar preaches the NT rebid, whether or not a conventional check back is present.

[jogs]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:

Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.

Look on Pavlicek's site. Missing a 4-4 fit is only inferior when one partner has a singleton or void.

I think one should respond 1NT with no way to check back.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2015-September-12, 10:59, said:

2/1 definitely has that ability and I believe SAYC does too. In my 2/1 partnership it promises 5+ clubs. We are allergic to re-bidding 1nt with a singleton and a 4-1-4-4 would have opened 1♦.

That is fine but obviously OP would do thing differently.

jogs, on 2015-September-12, 12:41, said:

Look on Pavlicek's site. Missing a 4-4 fit is only inferior when one partner has a singleton or void.

I think one should respond 1NT with no way to check back.

If you have a strong opinion why are you asking for the opinions of others?

[jogs]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 14:48, said:

If you have a strong opinion why are you asking for the opinions of others?

From another site, one poster suggested that consensus opinion was to rebid 1♠ with 4=3=3=3. Just checking if most agreed or disagreed with him.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:

Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.

You can always find the spade fit by bidding
1♣-1♥
1NT-2♠
3♠

I don't see that it matters. It's about how bad it is to miss the spade fit when responder passes the 1nt rebid. No check-back convention can fix that unless opps can be expected to accept insufficient bids.

[blackshoe]

I looked it up in Truscott's Bidding Dictionary. He says it could be 3. He says that "a lot of people" rebid 1♠ with 4=3=3=3. I wouldn't, but that's just me, and the book was published twenty years ago, so maybe things have changed. But I kind of doubt it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 16:37, said:

I looked it up in Truscott's Bidding Dictionary. He says it could be 3. He says that "a lot of people" rebid 1♠ with 4=3=3=3. I wouldn't, but that's just me, and the book was published twenty years ago, so maybe things have changed. But I kind of doubt it.

At least here in England it is practically unheard of.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-September-12, 15:38, said:

You can always find the spade fit by bidding
1♣-1♥
1NT-2♠
3♠

I don't see that it matters. It's about how bad it is to miss the spade fit when responder passes the 1nt rebid. No check-back convention can fix that unless opps can be expected to accept insufficient bids.

Come back, 4-card majors, all is forgiven.

[mcphee]

For me it is not logical to bid 2 suits when 4333, I see zero upside. It's nice to know when partner holds real clubs.
Does the same theory hold for players who select "better minor" and open 1D and then bid a S over 1H? Bid 2 suits, yyou need to have a reason, and 4 X 3 to me is a eason to tell partner about my balanced hand.

[Giangibar]

It all depends on your partnership agreement and on some sort of "local tradition": for example, I am Italian and here not a single player would bypass a 4-card Spade suit. For us, 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ could be 4333 and 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT absolutely denies 4♠. This method is played by our great champions Bocchi-Madala and Lauria-Versace too, so it can't be that bad.

Every method has its advantages as well as its disadvantages:

- In the typical American agreement of routinely bypassing 4♠ when balanced you end up playing 1NT from the right side more often than not, and you can also show a real ♣ suit when rebidding 1♠.
- In the typical Italian agreement of always bidding suits up the line, you never miss a 4-4 ♠ fit and you can improve your part-score bidding when responder has 5+♥ and 4♠, because after opener rebids 1NT you can be sure he doesn't have 4♠ so you can confidently bid 2♥. On the other hand, I have been living in Virginia for a few months and while playing there I noticed how, by skipping the 1♠ rebid, you end up playing 2♠ in the Moysian fit or 2NT or 3♥ instead of a more convenient 2♥ because responder with 5+♥ and 4♠ isn't sure about the possibility of a Spade fit and has to check back by bidding 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ (if you play XYZ), which is often too high when partner does not have 4♠.

In my opinion, the right-siding of 1NT is not a sufficient compensation for the loss of a 4-4 Major fit, and the presence of a real ♣ suit can almost always be shown later in the auction, so I prefer bidding suits up the line.

[Zelandakh]

Since your question was about specific systems, in SAYC 1♠ does not show extra club length: "Bidding at the one level is up-the-line in principle" (page 5). In 2/1 I would expect the balanced hand to rebid 1NT although it is essentially a matter for agreement. I personally prefer the 1NT rebid in the general case.

[dave_beer]

I play that I could have a 3-card ♣ suit and I also play different kinds of checkback with different partners.

The disadvantage of this approach is that partner doesn't know if I have a real ♣ suit.

The advantage is that I can play in 1♠ when partner can't afford to check back. That could be a 7-card fit since partner should probably pass with 3-(5-4)-1 and no reason to rebid 1NT.

If partner has a 4-card ♠ suit and a hand good enough to check back then it probably doesn't make any difference.

[mgoetze]

dave_beer, on 2015-September-13, 16:01, said:

The disadvantage of this approach is that partner doesn't know if I have a real ♣ suit.

If he wanted to know that he could have just agreed to play T-Walsh.

[jogs]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 16:37, said:

I looked it up in Truscott's Bidding Dictionary. He says it could be 3. He says that "a lot of people" rebid 1♠ with 4=3=3=3. I wouldn't, but that's just me, and the book was published twenty years ago, so maybe things have changed. But I kind of doubt it.

It has any been only recently students of the game have been studying how tricks are generated. 4432//4333. When HCPs are 19-24, The 4-4 fit makes about 0.5 tricks more than in notrumps. There is no advantage in playing in a suit one level higher.
Have there been any good books on theory(of how tricks are generated) written in the last 20 years?

[yunling]

jogs, on 2015-September-13, 22:19, said:

It has any been only recently students of the game have been studying how tricks are generated. 4432//4333. When HCPs are 19-24, The 4-4 fit makes about 0.5 tricks more than in notrumps. There is no advantage in playing in a suit one level higher.
Have there been any good books on theory(of how tricks are generated) written in the last 20 years?

Responder might not be balanced, in which case 4-4 fit is much better than NT.
Pavlicek's data does not show a profit for skipping 4-4 fit even if it is 4333 opposite 4432
http://www.rpbridge.net/8z17.htm#2

[jogs]

yunling, on 2015-September-14, 10:13, said:

Responder might not be balanced, in which case 4-4 fit is much better than NT.
Pavlicek's data does not show a profit for skipping 4-4 fit even if it is 4333 opposite 4432
http://www.rpbridge.net/8z17.htm#2

Pavlicek has a strange way of selecting hands included in his study.
In testing hypothesis one selects conditions. Like 4432//4333 and 19 to 24 HCP.
Pavlicek viewed the results and only chose observations where at least one contract makes.

DD analysis has a bias favoring defenders in notrump contracts.
When HCPs are 20/20, the declarer averages less than 6.2 tricks.
I've done my own study. In real play on BBO minis declarers
average better than 6.8 tricks.

You must have seen this yourself. Both sides made 1NT.
Real people don't find all those killer DD leads.