[Keith22]

I'm a beginner and am learning to bid using the ACBL book Bidding in the 21st Century, which teaches SAYC. Suppose partner opens 1♣ and I have the following hand: ♠A82 ♥KT2 ♦AT6 ♣7653. I have 11 HCP and no distribution points and fall into the 10-11 point invitational response range. I have too many points to respond 1NT, too few points to respond 2NT (SAYC requires 13-15 HCP to respond 2NT), and no suit to bid. If I bid 2♣, I suggest a minimum response, and if I bid 3♣, I suggest real support for clubs, which I don't have.

Which is the best (or least undesirable) response I could make?

[neilkaz]

 Keith22, on 2013-October-11, 13:08, said:

I'm a beginner and am learning to bid using the ACBL book Bidding in the 21st Century, which teaches SAYC. Suppose partner opens 1♣ and I have the following hand: ♠A82 ♥KT2 ♦AT6 ♣7653. I have 11 HCP and no distribution points and fall into the 10-11 point invitational response range. I have too many points to respond 1NT, too few points to respond 2NT (SAYC requires 13-15 HCP to respond 2NT), and no suit to bid. If I bid 2♣, I suggest a minimum response, and if I bid 3♣, I suggest real support for clubs, which I don't have.

Which is the best (or least undesirable) response I could make?

You should tell a white lie and bid 1♦ and then you can rebid 2NT to invite.

[Stephen Tu]

One of the things you'll learn is that SAYC has a lot of bidding holes in it. This hand falls into one of them. Basically you have a choice between one of:
- 3♣ (limit raise in SAYC) right on range, one fewer club than one would normally want
- 1nt, right on shape, a slight underbid (1nt normally being about 6-10)
- 1♦, planning to bid 2NT next round opposite most continuations. One fewer diamond than you normally want, but partner will raise diamonds fairly infrequently, and you should be able to correct back to NT or clubs without getting into too much trouble.

I think I would choose 1♦, but I wouldn't criticize partner for choosing one of the other options.

[billw55]

I would not call SAYC "bidding in the 21st century", but that is another issue.

Given the options, on this hand I recommend 1NT. A slight underbid, but with 3334 shape I can live with it.

2NT showing 13-15 is an inferior method, and therefore rarely used anymore (see first sentence). I recommend using 2NT to show 11-12, balanced, with no major suit, which I would then bid with this hand.

[Stephen Tu]

 billw55, on 2013-October-11, 14:57, said:

2NT showing 13-15 is an inferior method, and therefore rarely used anymore (see first sentence).

So for what reasons do you think it is inferior? I personally think it's better, for the following reasons:
- Although responder is balanced, opener may not be. Using 2nt allows you the 3 level to explore (opener can show shortness in a major or something of the sort), and let you find a superior minor game, sometimes slam, and play 3nt otherwise if responder has opener's shortness well covered. Over 3nt, opener more often can do nothing but pass and hope it's the right spot.
- It provides a better NT ladder for responder's 16+ range, you can bid 3nt with 16-17, 2nt with 13-15/18+, while if 3nt is 13-15 you have to muddy the waters and sometimes can't cleanly show your range.
- there are other methods to be able to show balanced invites (can go through other minor and/or inverted raise and/or put the hand type into one of your jump shifts)
- responder with 11-12 is more often forced to bid 2nt with xx in a major, responding in a suit may allow opener to rebid in NT which can leave a stopper less vulnerable on lead. Stronger hands are more likely to have stoppers and have more options on how to bid.

The only thing I like about playing 2nt inv is that it rarely comes up, 13+ is pretty rare also, since you need responder to have neither 4 cd major and opp silent. I think it is one of the modern trends that may be simpler to teach beginners but not truly more effective.

[mycroft]

1m-2NT-p is bad. Especially if you're a newer player, and more likely to slip a trick in the play.
1m-3NT when they drop a minimum is bad. Also when slower would get us to 6m.
1m-? when you have no SJS or any way to show a 16+ balanced hand is bad.

Sure there are ways to manage all of those, but going back to old-fashioned 2NT GF or HUGE, 3NT even more GF is one of the easiest ways to do it. Sure *that* brings its own problems - but I find those easier to deal with.

[Keith22]

As the original poster, I'd like to thank everyone for his advice. The 1♦ response works very well, as it is forcing and will permit opener to more fully describe his hand. In addition, responder can rebid 2NT, and in this case, the 2NT rebid shows a balanced hand with 10-11 points with stoppers in unbid suits. I wish I had thought of it myself!

I'm learning to play using the ACBL Learn to Play Bridge software and the ACBL Bridge Series of five books. The combination of these materials seems to me like a good set of tools to get started.

[steve2005]

probably not the best forum for this suggestion but here goes.
1♣-1N showing 11-12 hcp balanced without a 4 card major non-forcing
1♣-1♦ either ♦ or balanced hand 6+ hcp no 4M

trouble with responding 1N on 6-9 or 6-10 is you play hand from wrong side and with a minimum opposite a min you often have no play

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Every system has hands, that dont really fit into it, the given hand is
an example for the SAYC agreement set.

Given the 4333 shape, you could downgrade the hand.
It is quite a reasonable approach to subtract -1 from the HCP count, when
holding a 4333 shape hand.
This would lead to a 1 NT response.

On the other hand, you have Kings and Aces, some, would even consider
the hand an opening bid 2 1/2 quick tricks, hence they would rather
add points to upgrade the hand.

Bidding 1NT after a 1C opening is quite often played as 8-10/11, rather
than as 6-10, which would solve the issue, but now you may ask, what to do,
if one of your Aces would be replaced by a small card.

Finally: The down side of the 1D response is, that you only move the
issue, what to do one round, you will have a similiar question to answer
next round, ... in the next round bidding 2NT may show 11-12 instead of
13-15, but the bid is still not desirable.
But maybe partner bids something nice over 1D.

In short: take you pick and live with it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SimonFa]

 P_Marlowe, on 2013-October-15, 03:37, said:

Hi,


Given the 4333 shape, you could downgrade the hand.
It is quite a reasonable approach to subtract -1 from the HCP count, when
holding a 4333 shape hand.
This would lead to a 1 NT

With kind regards
Marlowe

But don't the two tens count as we'll? If they were twos I would definitely downgrade but would probably go down the 1D 2NT route on this one.

[P_Marlowe]

 SimonFa, on 2013-October-19, 13:46, said:

But don't the two tens count as we'll? If they were twos I would definitely downgrade but would probably go down the 1D 2NT route on this one.

The Tens are reasons to upgrade, especially in conjunction with the Ace / King, that
is also in the suit, the Aces / Kings got mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of
my response.
But I can add further points to consider, if making the decision to go for
upgrading / downgrading.

Lets assume, we are red, playing IMPS, this would be a factors for upgrading,
if playing MP, this would be a factor for downgrading.
How aggressive does your partner open, will he open always on sound values, i.e.
will he always have 12+HCP, or does he loves opening 10 counts, 11 counts on 54
shape.
If he openens sound, this would be a reason for upgrading, if he openes agressive,
this would be a reason for downgrading.

In the end you have a case of the glass either being half empty / half full.
So it comes down to, how do you view the world?

Take your pick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

 Keith22, on 2013-October-11, 13:08, said:

I'm a beginner and am learning to bid using the ACBL book Bidding in the 21st Century, which teaches SAYC. Suppose partner opens 1♣ and I have the following hand: ♠A82 ♥KT2 ♦AT6 ♣7653. I have 11 HCP and no distribution points and fall into the 10-11 point invitational response range. I have too many points to respond 1NT, too few points to respond 2NT (SAYC requires 13-15 HCP to respond 2NT), and no suit to bid. If I bid 2♣, I suggest a minimum response, and if I bid 3♣, I suggest real support for clubs, which I don't have.

Which is the best (or least undesirable) response I could make?

Not only is this a great question about SAYC (showing a bright bridge future IMO) but it should be a question regarding hand evaluation, as well. In the Work 4-3-2-1 point count system, Aces and Kings are undervalued, while Queens and Jacks are overvalued. In the presented hand, the high card points are comprised of prime cards only, AAK, so the hand is worth more than simply 11 - more like 12-ish. The shape of the hand is bad 3334, so remove a point for bad shape - back to 11-ish. However, the hand holds two good interior cards - the 10s - so now we are back to a 12-point hand. With the potential (because partner bid 1C) of a 9-card or even 10-card fit, and that fact that I get to play it, which is surely worth a point , I'm going to push this hand a little and make the slight overbid of 2NT. This is the kind of hand that - if partner has club length - can peel off 9 quick winners before the opps can get their length going, something like xxx, Ax, xx, AKxxxx.