[marpool]

I usually play 4-card majors. In a match-point pairs event I agreed with a first-time partner to play 12-14 No Trump and 5-card majors. Also 1 Club "could be 2 cards" as a 1-round force with responses natural except 1 Diamond meaning less than 6 HCP.

I dealt myself:
♠ A J 7 4
♥ K J 6 4
♦ K Q 5
♣ J 6

I opened 1♣. Partner 1♦, opponents passing. Not playing checkback or similar I feared 1NT rebid would lose any major fit, so I bid 1♥. Partner bid 2♣ so I played in a 2-4 fit.

Looking at Klinger's The Power of Shape I think I just have to bid 1NT and let the possible major fits look after themselves.

Some of you folk have massive experience of 5-card majors. Can you shine light on this please?

[PrecisionL]

Your bidding implied an unbalanced hand with at least 4♣ and 4♠. More frequently 5♣. Rebid 1NT or open 1NT.

[silvr bull]

marpool, on 2017-June-13, 21:54, said:

I usually play 4-card majors. In a match-point pairs event I agreed with a first-time partner to play 12-14 No Trump and 5-card majors. Also 1 Club "could be 2 cards" as a 1-round force with responses natural except 1 Diamond meaning less than 6 HCP.

I dealt myself:
♠ A J 7 4
♥ K J 6 4
♦ K Q 5
♣ J 6

I opened 1♣. Partner 1♦, opponents passing. Not playing checkback or similar I feared 1NT rebid would lose any major fit, so I bid 1♥. Partner bid 2♣ so I played in a 2-4 fit.

Looking at Klinger's The Power of Shape I think I just have to bid 1NT and let the possible major fits look after themselves.

Some of you folk have massive experience of 5-card majors. Can you shine light on this please?

My bidding style is the same as this, except with less than 6 points responder says PASS. Responder first bids a 4 card major, even if his Ds are much better, unless his hand is strong enough to reverse into his major later. With that agreement, a 1NT (15-17) rebid by opener is automatic. If responder bids 1D and there is a 4=4 major fit, responder will have a strong hand and will bid his major next.

[wank]

The problem is this idiosyncratic 1D response. Obviously noone else plays that way unless playing a strong club system. For normal natural bidders 1D essentially denies a major unless strong so they can safely rebid 1NT on your hand. In your situation, you should play that 1M doesn't guarantee clubs (or just get rid of the 1D artificial response and play the way the rest of the world does.)

[marpool]

Thank you all. Those responses do shine extra light on it.

[RedSpawn]

PrecisionL, on 2017-June-13, 22:26, said:

Your bidding implied an unbalanced hand with at least 4♣ and 4♠. More frequently 5♣. Rebid 1NT or open 1NT.

Agreed.

You have a 15 point balanced hand but you need to deduct a point for four queens and jacks OR a point for the worthless j♣ trapped in doubleton. An open of 1NT as a revalued 14 points sends your partner the message loud and clear.

[fromageGB]

PrecisionL, on 2017-June-13, 22:26, said:

Your bidding implied an unbalanced hand with at least 4♣ and 4♠. More frequently 5♣. Rebid 1NT or open 1NT.

Disagree.
I would not argue if playing normal methods, but with this agreement, the 1♦ is not normal. It shows a very weak hand, and nobody has yet made a natural bid. You have to bid your suits upwards, so must bid 1♥. You then pass whatever partner says, if anything.

Edit : but with partner's hand I would not be bidding a 4 card club suit. If 2344 I pass (would not argue with 1NT), if 3244 I bid 1NT.
It seems wrong to agree such methods unless you have the time to agree what happens after 1♦. As to thinking you should be in 1NT, you would be happy to play in 2♣ if partner had the 5 card suit expected.

> "bid 1NT and let the possible major fits look after themselves".
I hardly think there will be any further bidding by partner, so the major fits get lost.

[RedSpawn]

fromageGB, on 2017-June-14, 11:44, said:

Disagree.
I would not argue if playing normal methods, but with this agreement, the 1♦ is not normal. It shows a very weak hand, and nobody has yet made a natural bid. You have to bid your suits upwards, so must bid 1♥. You then pass whatever partner says, if anything.

Edit : but with partner's hand I would not be bidding a 4 card club suit. If 2344 I pass (would not argue with 1NT), if 3244 I bid 1NT.
It seems wrong to agree such methods unless you have the time to agree what happens after 1♦. As to thinking you should be in 1NT, you would be happy to play in 2♣ if partner had the 5 card suit expected.

> "bid 1NT and let the possible major fits look after themselves".
I hardly think there will be any further bidding by partner, so the major fits get lost.

I am not suggesting that your analysis is incorrect; but the hand is question is the functional equivalent of a balanced hand of working 14 HCP.

A 1NT open (promising 12-14 HCP) is the most descriptive bid of the hand and partner can decide if he needs further information about a major fit with a stayman investigation, hand values permitting.

If I have a choice between 1 of a suit open and a valid snapshot 1NT opening bid ---> 1NT is the more descriptive bid.

[rmnka447]

silvr bull, on 2017-June-14, 00:46, said:

My bidding style is the same as this, except with less than 6 points responder says PASS. Responder first bids a 4 card major, even if his Ds are much better, unless his hand is strong enough to reverse into his major later. With that agreement, a 1NT (15-17) rebid by opener is automatic. If responder bids 1D and there is a 4=4 major fit, responder will have a strong hand and will bid his major next.

I also play similarly except opening minors are 3+.

With the way original poster is playing, maybe they should have an agreement that with 4+ ♣ and a bad hand responder can pass instead of bid 1 ♦. Sometime you may end up in a 4-2 fit, but more often you'll have a 7+ card fit. Playing a 4-2 fit at the 1 level maty not be optimum, but it usually isn't the end of the world.

There's another issue with designating 1 ♦ as a weak bid. If you have balanced 6-7 count and no major -- xxx Ax xxxx Qxxx or similar -- then you're forced to bid 1 NT. That allows an opening lead through the strong hand rather than into it. So there are some hands where you'd like to able to some time manufacture a 1 ♦ response, so opener can rebid 1 NT.

If you're playing in an environment where most opponents are playing strong NTs, bidding 1 NT on OP stated hand probably isn't going to cost you much.

[sfi]

wank, on 2017-June-14, 06:38, said:

The problem is this idiosyncratic 1D response. Obviously noone else plays that way unless playing a strong club system. For normal natural bidders 1D essentially denies a major unless strong so they can safely rebid 1NT on your hand.

This. The 1D response seems to make the system all but unplayable as described. You would need a lot more discussion about how to show strong hands over 1D, how to show clubs, and how responder can find safe spots to play on potential misfits. Or just pass with weak hands and leave 1D as a natural bid, which at least means you will face the same problem as others.

Polish Club has a similar issue (1C = weak NT, clubs or any strong hand), where the 1D response includes weak hands and the 1NT rebid shows 18-20. It addresses it by potentially bidding a 3 card major at the one-level and potentially scrambling for the best fit. I mention this to show how your agreement can cause problems which do not always lead to good contracts, and that good bidding theoreticians haven't come up with perfect solutions.

[JLilly]

I'd have bid 1NT. The hand is heavier on queen/jack points than ace points, and lacks lower intermediates to back up the queens and jacks. What's more you have ♣Jx, so your club holding is your weakest *and* you have an unprotected, likely worthless honor there. Demote your 15 to 14, especially considering your shape.

[JLilly]

Also, I agree with the other posters that a 0-6 HCP 1♦ response to what could be a minimal (12 HCP) 1♣ opening is a crappy system. If you have to respond with a very weak hand, at least use Walsh transfers to put you in most likely the least-bad suit at the 1-level.

[JLilly]

Also, more experienced players are welcome to tell me how I'm full of crap -- arguing on the internet has instilled a style that may not be appropriate for an early-intermediate BBO player.