[mikl_plkcc]

I normally bid suits up the line to find all possible 4-4 fits but I have seen people skipping suits, such that bidding two suits guarantee 5-4.

What's the popular style of bidding in the above 3 situations?

• skipping 1D to respond 1H/S
  
• skipping 1H/S to respond 1NT
  
• skipping 1H/S to rebid 1NT as an opener

[mw64ahw]

I prioritise the Majors by playing Transfer Walsh so 1R is 4+M

[awm]

Keep in mind that this will depend on the strength of the hand as well. While there is a style known as MAFIA (MAjors FIrst Always), this is not very standard nor very popular. When holding a hand with game forcing values almost everyone will respond in their longest suit, or bid four-card suits up the line. So it's always possible to respond 1♦ when holding 5+♦ and 4♠ when also holding sufficient strength.

When responding to 1♣ from partner, there are a few basic styles:

1. What's known as Walsh Style is popular, especially in the US among players who use 2/1 GF (even though this is not really tied to the core of 2/1, it was popularised by many of the same books/players). In this style, you never respond 1♦ when holding a four-card major unless you have game-forcing values. So you would bypass a longer diamond suit to bid a four-card major on a weaker hand. Since opener knows that 1♣-Pass-1♦ will not normally contain a major suit, he will normally bypass the majors to rebid 1NT/2NT on a balanced hand (concealing his major suit holding). If responder has the relatively rare 5+♦ 4-card major game force hand, he can reverse into his major at second turn.

2. There's a variant of Walsh called invitational Walsh which basically works the same way except that you bid 1♦ with 5+♦ and a four-card major and game invitational values (or more). So you only bypass a longer diamond suit with less than ten points or so.

3. Modern players have noticed that the 1♦ response to 1♣ is extremely low frequency in Walsh, so many of them have shifted to Transfer Walsh, where the 1♦ response shows hearts and the 1♥ response shows spades. This gives you an extra step in the (very common) major-showing responses which some use to show a weak notrump (allowing 1NT rebid to be the big notrump) and others use to show 3-card support (allowing 1NT and 2M to deny holding three trumps).

4. Whether to rebid 1♠ after 1m-Pass-1♥ is a somewhat separate issue; everyone plays that responder could easily be 4-4 in the majors on this start but some people feel that the advantages of the 1♠ rebid guaranteeing 5+minor and the 1NT rebid immediately confirming a balanced hand are enough to compensate for missing some 4-4 spade fits when responder doesn't have enough points to invite game.

5. There are still some people (like Elianna and myself) who prefer to bid our suits up the line, but I think this is less popular among experts these days than choosing one of the methods above.

I'll add that in response to your 2nd question, I don't think anyone is bypassing a four-card major as responder to 1m in order to bid 1NT. Obviously you could find some very weird system or some expert trying to "turn the hands" so that he will always declare the notrump doing this, but it's definitely not a common or popular approach.

[helene_t]

If forced to play natural responses to minor suit openings (in a 5-card major, strong not context), my preference would be that the Walsh principle applies spades but not hearts. I.e.

1♣-1♥ may bypass a 4-card diamonds, maybe a poor 5-card diamonds but not a 6-card diamonds
1♣-1♠ may bypass a 6-card diamonds if less than invitational strength
1♣-1♦
1♥ can be balanced
1♣-1♦
1♠ is unbalanced
1m-1♥
1♠ is a judgement call with balanced hands, 1nt is possible with a 4-card spades but not mandatory
1m-1♦
1♥-1♠ is a relay, like FSF but does not promise values

If forced to play either strict Walsh or strict 4-cards-up-the-line I would not care so much, the only think I would not be so happy to play is
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠* as natural in a 4-card-up-the-line context. This would mean that 2♠ would be FSF and that takes away too much bidding space if opener's hand can be as well balanced as unbalanced.

[paulg]

Coincidentally this was the topic of my blog this morning, based on the experts playing in the Platinum Pairs last night.

https://thebeercard....dge-at-top.html

[awm]

paulg, on 2025-March-17, 09:10, said:

Coincidentally this was the topic of my blog this morning, based on the experts playing in the Platinum Pairs last night.

https://thebeercard....dge-at-top.html

Wonderful blog post; this sort of thing is exactly why Elianna and I bid up the line. Amusing to see this happen to top players on vugraph.

[P_Marlowe]

We only skip diamonds with 44, the hand in the blog is real Walsh (longer diamonds) and this is way
to complicate for me.

[jillybean]

"..and one particular board showed that even the best bridge players can play worse than club players – it's a hard game!"

Great hand, thanks for blogging.

[mikl_plkcc]

paulg, on 2025-March-17, 09:10, said:

Coincidentally this was the topic of my blog this morning, based on the experts playing in the Platinum Pairs last night.

https://thebeercard....dge-at-top.html

Wow that's interesting. This shows that matchpoint is a completely different game than "normal bridge" where you are willing to sacrifice bidding games and slams accurately just for the sake of 10 or 20 points.

[mike777]

paulg, on 2025-March-17, 09:10, said:

Coincidentally this was the topic of my blog this morning, based on the experts playing in the Platinum Pairs last night.

https://thebeercard....dge-at-top.html

Ty for posting, very interesting, great fun.

One more example of where bidding low HCP minor suit slams, especially at MP, very difficult.

I note if this was from Sunday night, not only was it the Platinum Pairs, it was the finals, the best of the best top players played Sunday.

[mike777]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-17, 10:31, said:

Wow that's interesting. This shows that matchpoint is a completely different game than "normal bridge" where you are willing to sacrifice bidding games and slams accurately just for the sake of 10 or 20 points.

I would not be surprised if the exact same system, the same bidding, occurred at IMPS with these teammates.

[P_Marlowe]

It is a 11 trick game ( or slam ) on a 24 count with a 5-4 fit, playing MP.
The AK vs. the void provide 2 fast discards.

It makes.

[awm]

The slam is a bit of a perfect fit and might not even make if the clubs are swapped between the opponent hands. The one table that bid to it didn't have a very convincing auction (it seemed like some massive overbidding by opener). But reaching 5♦ is straightforward if you bid up the line and even a diamond partial beats all the pairs playing in clubs.

[P_Marlowe]

I agree. I want to play diamonds instead of clubs, an may it only due to the fact,
that my trumps are better. And I would end up in a diamond contract,
... I am just not 100% certain I would reach game, at least playing MP, my usual
reply is, that I need to be asked at the table, to find out, where I end up.

[bluenikki]

I once did a calculation that concluded, after 1♣ - 1♥ - ? that responder would be 4 - 4 majors less than half the time. If that is correct, then, at least at matchpoints, opener should bid 1♠ only when unbalanced or when the hand would be a good dummy for 1NT.

However, I did not include opponents' silence in the computation. Silence raises the odds of responder having spades.