[kfay]

I've never claimed to know SAYC... but I'm going to say C with a sound hand.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

I think 1S is normal on that hand, and fits awm's definition. It's the 1D..2C route that I find disgusting.

I would sooner rebid 1NT than 2♣.

ok Jdonn ty for polite reply to my question, I was very unsure.

[awm]

Perhaps more problematic are hands like:

♠Kxx
♥xxx
♦AQJx
♣Kxx

or...

♠AQx
♥xx
♦Qxxxx
♣Axx

In both cases your choices are bidding 1NT with a small number of small hearts as a stopper, rebidding a good four-card diamond suit (or bad five-card diamond suit, respectively), or naming a three-card suit. I would bid 1♠ with either hand. On a good day partner will bid notrump for me. If he can't, spades could easily be the right strain.

[foo]

I did some checking around, and there are at least 2 very common ways of handling the problem implied in this thread within a SA context.

1= When holding 44, 54, or 45 in the minors and a hand not strong enough to reverse, strain to open 1D so you can have a "prepared" 2C rebid available.

2=
1m-(1H)-X-pa;1S shows exactly 3 ♠'s and a minimum
1m-(1H)-X-pa;2S shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a minimum
1m-(1H)-X-pa;3S shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a medium hand
1m-(1H)-X-pa;2H shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a Maximum w/o a Splinter.

One curmudgeonly wit I spoke to (he's actually quite a good player locally) said:
"If you have NT shape and no better bid, then grow a pair and bid NT d@mn it!"

I add this last with trepidation only because said player also uses treatment 1 and 2 above yet still includes the possibility the he might be endplayed in the bidding into having make a NT bid w/o stoppers in Their suit.

So there's a complete systemic way for handling the issue. YMMV.

[kgr]

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

This is a question for those who claim to know what SAYC is.

1C - (1H) - Dbl - (p)
1S


What does this auction show?

Not SAYC:
I play T-Walsh and the DBL here shows 4+ ♠'s.
- 1 ♠ is 3 card and forcing
- 2 ♠ is 4 card and weak

[Trinidad]

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

What do people bid with Kxx xx Axxx AQxx?

That one is easy: 1♠.

The hard one is: What do people bid with:
♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ Axxx ♣ AQxx ?

This is one of the reasons why in SAYC you will open balanced hands with 4-4 in the minors with 1♦. I know that in The Netherlands these hands are opened 1♣, but that is not SAYC.

Rik

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Dec 23 2007, 07:35 AM, said:

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

What do people bid with Kxx xx Axxx AQxx?

That one is easy: 1♠.

The hard one is: What do people bid with:
♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ Axxx ♣ AQxx ?

This is one of the reasons why in SAYC you will open balanced hands with 4-4 in the minors with 1♦. I know that in The Netherlands these hands are opened 1♣, but that is not SAYC.

Rik

I would never ever ever!!! bid 1♦ then 2♣ on hands like that. 1NT is easy. The fact they haven't raised implies partner is not short, and you describe the nature of your hand while leaving more possible contract available.

[dburn]

Suppose that your partner has:

♠Q642 ♥KJ9 ♦J65 ♣Q32

and the bidding begins with 1♦ by you and 1♥ by RHO.

If he is supposed to double because he has four spades and is a robot, and not bid 1NT because he is a sensible human being and not a robot, then it may be unwise to rebid 2♣ with 3=2=4=4 or 2=3=4=4 when he does double.

Otherwise, unless he is 4=3=3=3 or 4=4=3=2 with a heart guard (in which case he ought to have bid 1NT and not doubled) then your side will have an eight-card minor-suit fit. It is therefore fairly silly, lacking a heart guard yourself, [a] to rebid 1♠ with 3=2=4=4 and [b] to rebid 1NT with 2=3=4=4. These will land your side in the wrong part score quite a lot of the time.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Dec 23 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

Suppose that your partner has:

♠Q642  ♥KJ9  ♦J65  ♣Q32

There are hands inbetween the extremes. In other words, it's possible to have two heart stoppers or be balanced but for a negative double to still be obvious, such as KJTx AQxx xx xxx where 1NT is really a bad bid, or AQxx Kxx xxx xxx, etc.