Low Level decision

[Fluffy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s87hakq10dq6ca9753]133|100|Scoring: IMP

S - N

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠*[/hv]

 

1♠= 4SF

[mcphee]

1S shows 4S and is not normally used as 4th suit, 2S is 4th suit in this position 3 or less S GF values.

 

I elected not to open 1NT which I feel is sensible and would bid 1NT although would not quibble with 2D at all.

[Free]

I would've opened 1NT.

 

Now, if 1♠ is in fact 4sf and GF, I'll rebid 2♣...

[flytoox]

I like 2D. If my diamonds are xx then I probably will just bid 1N, no matter I have spade stopper or not.

[han]

would have opened 1NT, so very glad that partner responded 1D not 1S. Also, I like to play 1S as natural here (2D would be GF). As I like to play that 1H already promises an unbalanced hand (so most likely 5 clubs) I'm not going to emphasize clubs for the third time. 2D seems the best lie. Edited September 14, 2005 by Hannie

[Echognome]

Hannie mentions what I think is an important question. Did the 1♥ show 5 clubs? I.e. would you have bid 1NT with a minimum balanced hand? If not, then a simple return to 2♣ is ok, but I wouldn't quibble with 1NT either. If 1♥ already showed that you had 5♣ then I think 1NT is more attractive, but wouldn't quibble with 2♦.

[the hog]

Not much point in playing 1S as natural. Some players play that a 2S bid now shows a decent hand with no S stopper with a 5422 shape. With that agreement, thats what I would bid, else 2D.

[helene_t]

I voted 2♣, especially if 1♥ does not suggest five clubs. But now I realize that I could have voted for a 1NT opening. I would certainly have bid that.

[whereagles]

I like 2D to show 3 cards, I'd try 2C here.

 

Opening 1NT is a close call. I'd certainly try if the DQ were SQ. As it is I'd bid 1C or 1NT depending on tactical considerations.

[SoTired]

if you open this hand 1C, then you must complete the picture and bid 2C now. I would think 3C would be 64. Although opening this hand 1N has its appeal (protecting your ♦Qx), your strength is concentrated in your 2 long suits, making this hand very powerful if a fit is found.

[Guest Jlall]

I vote for 2D, though I would have opened 1N. Not sure what I was planning on doing if partner bid 1S immediately.

[Jurek S]

I'd rather open 1♥ than 1NT. As 1♥ says nothing about ♣ why not bid your second decent suit - ♣? So 2♣, but if by agreement 2♠ is good hand, no ♠ I vote for it

[cherdano]

I have to say I really dislike opening 1NT with this hand, so the question is whether I dislike the 1♣ rebid problem even more. Might prefer 1♥ actually.

[pclayton]

Well, playing 'xyz' which is pretty common around here, pard bids 2C with an invite and 2D with a GF.

 

So 1S is sort of undefined. I think we are actually playing it as NF!

 

1S could also be used as a puppet to 1N or 2C too.

 

We also play walsh rebids so opener with a 4405 doesn't have to worry about missing spades since pard won't have them unless he has an invite or better.

[han]

I agree Phil, over 1C-1D-1H:

 

1S= natural non-forcing.

2C= start invite

2D= artificial GF

2S= natural and GF, shows good diamonds.

 

So if you play (as is becoming more and more popular here) that 1C-1D-1NT is strong (18-19 or 17-19) then you really don't need to play Walsh style responses. If partner rebids 1H or 1S (which can be done on a 3-card suit) you can show your major and strength (no need to show hearts if partner bids spades), and when partner rebids 1NT you probably have at least enough strength to invite game. I really like this auction:

 

1C-1D

1NT-2C

2D-2M

 

Opener has shown 17-19 balanced, responder has shown an invitational hand with a 4-card major and 5+ diamonds. Hard to do in "standard" methods.

 

Only with very weak hands (5-6 points, maybe 7?) do you need to show your major first.

[Guest Jlall]

So 1S is sort of undefined. I think we are actually playing it as NF!

 

<snip>

 

We also play walsh rebids so opener with a 4405 doesn't have to worry about missing spades since pard won't have them unless he has an invite or better.

So 1S is natural and invitational, not really "NF"?

[mike777]

1s=natural and game force :lol: Even playing XYZ or 2 way checkback.

Playing Walsh you got to bid 1s with all non g/f which is why I open 1nt :)

 

I open 1nt, now...just rebid 2D I guess. I do have Qx.

[pclayton]

So 1S is sort of undefined. I think we are actually playing it as NF!

 

<snip>

 

We also play walsh rebids so opener with a 4405 doesn't have to worry about missing spades since pard won't have them unless he has an invite or better.

So 1S is natural and invitational, not really "NF"?

Well - (as Hans implies) we will skip the ♦'s with 5-7 or so. And Opener's 1♠ rebid doesn't promise a 15-17 hand either.

 

So 1♠ by responder tends to show something like: Axxx, xxx, KQxxx, x. Its a hand you can't unilaterally invite on, since pard hasn't defined his strength yet - although if pard has the 15-17 variety, you will get interested.

 

And if pard wants to pass with his usual cheese like: Kxx, Kxxx, x, Axxxx you aren't upset.

[Al_U_Card]

When you open, and promise a rebid, the idea is that it is not a "problem" rebid. Opening 1NT solves the issue, so the lesser lie on this auction has to be 2D and ask pard if he would prefer that you open 1NT with that kind of hand......

[Guest Jlall]

We also play walsh rebids so opener with a 4405 doesn't have to worry about missing spades since pard won't have them unless he has an invite or better.

 

<snip>

 

So 1♠ by responder tends to show something like: Axxx, xxx, KQxxx, x. Its a hand you can't unilaterally invite on, since pard hasn't defined his strength yet - although if pard has the 15-17 variety, you will get interested.

These seem to contradict each other.

[pclayton]

We also play walsh rebids so opener with a 4405 doesn't have to worry about missing spades since pard won't have them unless he has an invite or better.

 

<snip>

 

So 1♠ by responder tends to show something like: Axxx, xxx, KQxxx, x. Its a hand you can't unilaterally invite on, since pard hasn't defined his strength yet - although if pard has the 15-17 variety, you will get interested.

These seem to contradict each other.

why's that?

[Guest Jlall]

first you say pard wont have 4 spades with a 1D bid unless he has invitational or better.

 

next you say that you only bypass diamonds if you have 5-7, and it is possible to have a hand with diamonds and spades that you cannot "unilaterally invite" on (whatever that means, doesn't invite mean you are doing something that is not unilateral?).

 

That seems to be a contradiction, but ok.

[mikeh]

Lots of issues here.

 

I like the use of 1♠ as FSF, with no reference to nor denial of ♠.

 

I saw that Bob McPhee liks to use 2♠ as gf. I strongly disagree: why use a method that destroys your own bidding space on complex gf hands? Think about opener's rebids after an ambiguous gf 1♠... you are assured of establishing fits or lack thereof lower after 1♠ than after 2♠ (provided that, like me, opener never jumps beyond 2♠ without very clearly defined hands).

 

Hannie and others discuss xyz.

 

For those who think that one can usefully play 2♣ and 2♦ as artificial, after the start 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, please advise of your preferred treatment for responder holding, as examples, xx xx KQxxx QJxx or xx xx KQ10xxx Kxx or similar constructions.

 

I have only played xyz a few times, but when I did, it was used after a 1♠ rebid: there being no need when 1♠ was available :P

 

Hannie also sugested that there is a growing trend to use 1♣ 1♦ 1N as 17-19 or 18-19.

 

What does one rebid with 5332 hands after opening 1♣, if one is out of range for 1N yet less than the 17-19 range?

 

And why would one do this? It does not 'solve' any problem hand: there is no problem showing 4Major 5Minor hands in 'standard' methods, provided one uses reasonably sophisticated agreements.

 

As to the actual question: I rebid 2♣, and would ask any who vote otherwise both 'why not 2♣?' and 'how does your rebid advance the auction?'

 

Notrump clearly should be played by partner: xx is not a reliable stopper, nor a holding your partner will expect for notrump.

 

No other suit makes any sense whatsoever.

 

After $SF, opener should strive to combine two purposes: one is to describe the hand held, and the other is to bid as cheaply as is consistent with accurate description. There is no need to preempt oneself before finding out WHY partner thinks his hand is worth a game force.

[han]

Phil's second post was a bit of a reaction to mine, in which I proposed not to play a strict Walsh style. In any case you can play 1S as NF, whether you play it invitational or wider ranging (constructive to invitational). I like the example hand Phil gives, Axxx xxx KQxxx x, it would be hard to describe this hand well if you have to start with 1S.

 

 

BTW Phil, I don't mind if you call me Hans, but my name is Han. It's an uncommon name in the US, but quite common in the Netherlands, and also in several Asian countries and in the future according to George Lucas.

[mike777]

Lots of issues here.

 

Hannie and others discuss xyz.

 

For those who think that one can usefully play 2♣ and 2♦ as artificial, after the start 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, please advise of your preferred treatment for responder holding, as examples, xx xx KQxxx QJxx or xx xx KQ10xxx Kxx or similar constructions.

 

I have only played xyz a few times, but when I did, it was used after a 1♠ rebid: there being no need when 1♠ was available :P

1c=1d=1h promises 5 clubs and 4 hearts.

 

Playing XYZ with your example hands:

2c=puppet to 2d and you can pass if you so choose.

 

1c=1d=1h=3c=sign off in clubs.

1c=1d=1h=2c=2d=3d=invite.

with some off shape 2-4-2-5 hands you may choose to open 1nt.

 

Of course responder hands with 4 spades and long minor invite can be a problem with this style. At the table the usual solution is:

1) Active opp's overcall and you can just bid normal, old fashion.

2) You rebid 2nt.