Rebid Headache

[Winstonm]

Note that this hand is much easier when playing Riton 2C or Gazilli.

Note that this hand is much easier if playing 2/1 GF except for suit rebid (and a few other exceptions) for those who are uncomfortable with Godzilla or 2C Riton.

Invitational jump-shifts are another option, but this diamond suit ain't all that good although the bid describes the range of the hand.

 

Given vanilla 2/1, I like the 2 aces but, at mp, I might just take a false preference to 2S and hope that P can make another move.

 

:lol:

 

DHL

We play that a suit rebid in a non-fit auction is non-forcing, but don't you think the suit should really be better than this to be playing 3D opposite x?

 

A lot of this is evaluation, it seems. The Jx of clubs rates to hold zero value, and the diamond length is even downgraded because of the likelihood of no better than a 6/2 fit. The hand essentially becomes, xx, AJx, xx, Axxxxx.

 

Is this really more than a 2S preference?

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

My thinking, and not necessarily right, is that partner having shown 9 cards in the majors that it is unlikely that NT is right for us and unless partner has some extras we don't have much play for game - so I am a 2S bidder.

 

Next question: to make a game try over 2S, should north bid out his shape with either 3C or 3D showing 5413 either way and 2N 5422?

 

Winston

Hi,

 

the main problem with 2S is, that

opener may think you hold 4-7HCP

with 3 card support, ... depends which options

are included in your 1NT.

 

Now I am the first to look for plus scores,

even playing TEAM, but you are red, playing

IMP's and underbidding will miss to often

a game, even for my taste.

 

Either show your strength or show your 6 card

suit, but hiding either feature, is no real option.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I understand you points, but the way we play the 2S rebid would only be made on a 3-card suit that would not accept any game try, or about 5-7-ish. The problem with forcing NT and 2/1 is that many hands have to fall into this category and you do the best you can to deal with them.

 

So what you end up with, as we play, is a hand with a 3-card fit and 5-7 or a doubleton fit with 6-9-ish. With this range, opener needs to make a move with a good 16 or more.

 

Seems you have to pick your poison on these hands - we try to define better the non-forcing rebids with suitable suits and the 2N rebid as 10-11 balanced.

 

The example hand falls through the cracks and is most likely a demonstration of hand evaluation rather than methods. IMO, this hand is not much better than xx, AJx, xx, Axxxxx, or the top end of a 2S preference. Unless partner can bid some more, there is probably little missed due to the lack of fit, although certain minimum hands can be constructed that make game worthwhile.

 

Winston

[Fluffy]

If your partnership shows invitational with ♦ by bidding them twice then you should had started with 2♦.

[goodwintr]

What would the two-spade preference bidders do with the same hand lacking the ace of hearts (make it the ten, say), or the ace of diamonds (make it a low one), or the sixth diamond (toss it into clubs)? If the answer is still two spades, doesn't that mean simple preference -- a very common bid -- includes an awfully wide range of hands? Here, the 1NT-then-2S sequence means, "not enough strength, or not enough spades, to raise to 2S" -- when what you actually have is, "poor secondary spade support, good secondary heart support, six diamonds, and two aces."

 

Another question (these are really questions, not disguised opinions): What is there about the supposed 5-2 spade fit, with two small trumps in dummy, that makes it more attractive than a supposed 4-3 heart fit, with AJx in dummy? If you had to guess, right now, which major suit would be the superior trump suit, wouldn't you guess hearts?

[david_c]

With invitational hands with doubleton support you can preference to the 3 level.

 

I prefer this occasional 5-2 fit rather than not being able to discriminate my minors one-suiters.

 

Another option of keeping 2NT as Good-bad is taking out of the 1NT forcing the invitational balanced hand.

There's a problem with this - it's not sufficient just to take balanced invitational hands out of 1NT. You also have to take out all hands which are unbalanced but might have to rebid a natural 2NT anyway. So you'd have to treat a 1=3=4=5 hand as balanced, because if it starts 1♠:1NT,2♥ and 2NT would be artificial then you have no sensible rebid.

[Guest Jlall]

Another question (these are really questions, not disguised opinions): What is there about the supposed 5-2 spade fit, with two small trumps in dummy, that makes it more attractive than a supposed 4-3 heart fit, with AJx in dummy? If you had to guess, right now, which major suit would be the superior trump suit, wouldn't you guess hearts?

Obviously if you had to guess now you would guess hearts. The 2S bidders are choosing not to invite, but that doesn't logically make pass the best bid. The problem with pass is it ends the auction. Over 2S partner with extras can still bid, so at least with 17 opp 9 you won't end in a partscore. If partner is 5-5 or 6-4 he will often bid 3 of the appropriate major. With 16 or 17 he will often bid 2N or 3 of a minor. I agree if partner was barred you would pick hearts as trumps, but it is a partnership game and leaving it open for partner isn't a terrible idea.

[Winstonm]

Guess the bottom line is 2/1 is not perfect, and 1N forcing is it's weakest point, having to do a lot of work that is covered naturally in SAYC. I would venture to say that if these tweener kinds of hands came up on every board in a team match that the SAYC players would have a huge advantage; however, if all the boards were games and slams this advantage would flip-flop back to the 2/1 ers.

 

My estimations on these types of hands:

 

With 5422 it takes a good 17+ to bid 2N.

With 5431 it takes a good 16+ to bid 3 of a minor.

With 6421 it takes a good 15+ to bid 3 of the major.

 

The hardest opener rebid problem comes when 5/5 majors - how do you dinstinguish strength in this hand or can you?

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

however, if all the boards were games and slams this advantage would flip-flop back to the 2/1 ers.

they aren't? I guess that's why I go down so much :rolleyes:

[mike777]

Guess the bottom line is 2/1 is not perfect, and 1N forcing is it's weakest point, having to do a lot of work that is covered naturally in SAYC.  I would venture to say that if these tweener kinds of hands came up on every board in a team match that the SAYC players would have a huge advantage; however, if all the boards were games and slams this advantage would flip-flop back to the 2/1 ers.

 

My estimations on these types of hands:

 

With 5422 it takes a good 17+ to bid 2N.

With 5431 it takes a good 16+ to bid 3 of a minor.

With 6421 it takes a good 15+ to bid 3 of the major.

 

The hardest opener rebid problem comes when 5/5 majors - how do you dinstinguish strength in this hand or can you?

 

Winston

Winstonm:

 

Your theme seems to be that in your game these hand types are a significant problem for you at the table.

 

As I come back to bridge I am suprised on how little basic constructive bridge bidding is an issue at the table for me. Just bidding the aggressive game and not bidding the aggressive slam seems a good general rule when nothing else is there to guide me.

 

I am amazed how many of these tg I win because of basic silly mistakes by the expert opponents and how many I lose because of a lack of basic, beginner level counting and visualizing the hand in the play and on defense for me. Perhaps the second biggest issue is judgement in the bidding when there is preemptive bidding by the opp and I have a decision to make. A third issue is not just simply bidding the hand in front of me at times, not sure what is going on when this happens :rolleyes:.

[Winstonm]

Guess the bottom line is 2/1 is not perfect, and 1N forcing is it's weakest point, having to do a lot of work that is covered naturally in SAYC.  I would venture to say that if these tweener kinds of hands came up on every board in a team match that the SAYC players would have a huge advantage; however, if all the boards were games and slams this advantage would flip-flop back to the 2/1 ers.

 

My estimations on these types of hands:

 

With 5422 it takes a good 17+ to bid 2N.

With 5431 it takes a good 16+ to bid 3 of a minor.

With 6421 it takes a good 15+ to bid 3 of the major.

 

The hardest opener rebid problem comes when 5/5 majors - how do you dinstinguish strength in this hand or can you?

 

Winston

Winstonm:

 

Your theme seems to be that in your game these hand types are a significant problem for you at the table.

 

As I come back to bridge I am suprised on how little basic constructive bridge bidding is an issue at the table for me. Just bidding the aggressive game and not bidding the aggressive slam seems a good general rule when nothing else is there to guide me.

 

I am amazed how many of these tg I win because of basic silly mistakes by the expert opponents and how many I lose because of a lack of basic, beginner level counting and visualizing the hand in the play and on defense for me. Perhaps the second biggest issue is judgement in the bidding when there is preemptive bidding by the opp and I have a decision to make. A third issue is not just simply bidding the hand in front of me at times, not sure what is going on when this happens :).

Welcome back to the game, Mike.

 

I'm in the same boat - until this past June I hadn't turned a card in over 4 years. I don't hold any records for tournaments won but I may hold the record for how many times I've let my ACBL membership lapse. :P

 

You make good points. My question, though, is who should be making the aggressive moves? If both are pushing too hard for close games that's a little much, isn't it? From what I've seen, it pays to get aggressive with fits and to back off without.

 

IMO, the hand shown is a real trouble hand because due to the auction the best features of the hand counteract each other - the diamond suit is less valuable and the heart holding is more valuable - but the Jx of clubs is surely worthless. So IMO you have a good 9 count without a fit. This tells me to take less aggressive action.

 

And in my methods the diamond suit is just not good enough for 2D followed by 3D, so I am "stuck" with a forcing NT. Maybe that concept is open to debate - but like I've said before: ya picks your poison.

 

Winston

[MickyB]

Guess the bottom line is 2/1 is not perfect, and 1N forcing is it's weakest point, having to do a lot of work that is covered naturally in SAYC.  I would venture to say that if these tweener kinds of hands came up on every board in a team match that the SAYC players would have a huge advantage; however, if all the boards were games and slams this advantage would flip-flop back to the 2/1 ers.

 

My estimations on these types of hands:

 

With 5422 it takes a good 17+ to bid 2N.

With 5431 it takes a good 16+ to bid 3 of a minor.

With 6421 it takes a good 15+ to bid 3 of the major.

 

The hardest opener rebid problem comes when 5/5 majors - how do you dinstinguish strength in this hand or can you?

 

Winston

I agree with this, except I don't think 5431 distribution is worth a point more than 5422 (unless you don't reevaluate for Qx and Jx holdings).

 

I imagine a 5-5 majors hand of this strength would just bid 3♥ over the 2♠ preference?

[mike777]

You make good points.  My question, though, is who should be making the aggressive moves?  If both are pushing too hard for close games that's a little much, isn't it?  From what I've seen, it pays to get aggressive with fits and to back off without.

 

IMO, the hand shown is a real trouble hand because due to the auction the best features of the hand counteract each other -

ya picks your poison.

 

Winston

Well if expect partner to very often have:

 

AKxxx

KTxx

x

xxx

 

 

Bidding 2s is easy and the D suit is an illusion. It also makes the decision on who should be aggressive easy, Opener. Note I said that invite hands with long minor are just an issue one must choose to live with in this style :P. But invite will need to be better than this collection.

[tlgoodwin]

And if opener does have AKxxx K10xx x xxx, where would you want to play? I'd rank the contracts in this order: (1) 2H. (2) 3H. (3) 2S.

[Finch]

Another question (these are really questions, not disguised opinions): What is there about the supposed 5-2 spade fit, with two small trumps in dummy, that makes it more attractive than a supposed 4-3 heart fit, with AJx in dummy? If you had to guess, right now, which major suit would be the superior trump suit, wouldn't you guess hearts?

Obviously if you had to guess now you would guess hearts.

No, I would guess spades. Giving a load of sample hands won't add much to the debate, but if partner is 5-4 in the majors hearts is only right when we aren't trying to draw trumps, that is we're trying to scramble tricks. Any time we need to draw trumps we are likely to want to play in spades.

 

The two key cards you really want for play in hearts are the SA and the HK. Missing either of them is probably going to make hearts no picnic. Take away the HJ and you are really, really likely to want to play in spades.

 

By the way, I haven't done the sums but I guess that 6-4 in the majors is about as likely (if not more so) than 5-5.

[mike777]

And if opener does have AKxxx K10xx x xxx, where would you want to play? I'd rank the contracts in this order: (1) 2H. (2) 3H. (3) 2S.

Passing 2h must be wrong. Partner is allowed to have more, yes?

[Guest Jlall]

No, I would guess spades. Giving a load of sample hands won't add much to the debate, but if partner is 5-4 in the majors hearts is only right when we aren't trying to draw trumps, that is we're trying to scramble tricks.

It seems to me like it's likely your line of play (if in 2H) would be trying to scramble tricks by ruffing diamonds/spades. If they lead trumps, you could revert to setting up spades or ruffing some diamonds and trying to scramble home with 8 tricks. If in game, you'd probably try to setup spades. Perhaps "obviously" was too strong a word, but I did not want to argue such a minor point. The point of my post, and the counterargument to his argument even if you do concede hearts is more likely to play better than spades, is that the main reason to bid 2S as opposed to pass is to keep the auction open for partner.

[Al_U_Card]

Since I too play 3D as a drop dead bid, the choice between 2S and 3H is solely based on the scoring. 2S at MP and 3H at Imps for me..... If he makes a game try over the 2S I will accept. At imps he will know that I am inviting with a min...and btw, AJx of H can't be used to draw trump and take the tap or ruff S good, so I am reluctant to play in the 4-3 fit unless pard has significant extras. The game try in S will get us to NT I would think.

[Chamaco]

With invitational hands with doubleton support you can preference to the 3 level.

 

I prefer this occasional 5-2 fit rather than not being able to discriminate my minors one-suiters.

 

Another option of keeping 2NT as Good-bad is taking out of the 1NT forcing the invitational balanced hand.

There's a problem with this - it's not sufficient just to take balanced invitational hands out of 1NT. You also have to take out all hands which are unbalanced but might have to rebid a natural 2NT anyway. So you'd have to treat a 1=3=4=5 hand as balanced, because if it starts 1♠:1NT,2♥ and 2NT would be artificial then you have no sensible rebid.

I'd need to see the hand for the texture of the suits, in order to decide.

 

However, should I find a bid with that generic shape, without other info on suits quality/textures, I'd bid 3H, sometimes playing in a Moysian, which does not necessarily rate to play worse than NT, given the general misfit and communication problems in NT.

[MickyB]

Obviously if you had to guess now you would guess hearts.

No, I would guess spades. Giving a load of sample hands won't add much to the debate, but if partner is 5-4 in the majors hearts is only right when we aren't trying to draw trumps, that is we're trying to scramble tricks. Any time we need to draw trumps we are likely to want to play in spades.

 

The two key cards you really want for play in hearts are the SA and the HK. Missing either of them is probably going to make hearts no picnic. Take away the HJ and you are really, really likely to want to play in spades.

 

By the way, I haven't done the sums but I guess that 6-4 in the majors is about as likely (if not more so) than 5-5.

What about 8 million sample hands? :huh:

 

Peter Cheung posted a simulation on RGB that said that with 20-22 HCP, you'll take only 0.057 tricks more in the 5-2 fit. Obviously this is based on double dummy analysis - could this favour the 4-3 fits?

 

5-5 distribution is a bit more likely than 6-4 (20% against 15%).

[whereagles]

What's wrong with a simple 2NT? Slight overbid, but we do have some heart honors to compensate, and the diamond ace can very well be the 9th trick.

[Al_U_Card]

Wrong lie. I would think that the opps will find their Club lead (from longest and strongest) and get 5+ tricks before you get 9...or 8...or 7

[Kalvan14]

I always find a bit strange that people play 2/1, and from the beginning they start to find reasons not to play a 2/1 as a GF. :P

I may be an integralist, but a 2/1 bid (not in competition) is a GF. Thank you very much. This includes also the infamous 1M-2m-2any-3m, which - in my system - is a single-suit reverse, and imposes trumps.

I do agree that the forcing NT is not the best part of the system; IMHO, you can always find a way out of a fix.

Going back to the posted deal:

a) if i am playing MPs, there is no question: 2♠. It guarantees some MPs, and it leaves open the door for pard to show a 5-5;

B) playing IMPs, 2♠ would be chickenish. I would choose 3♥, as the lesser evil. If pard is weakish, he should have some shape, and 3♥ is a reasonable contract even on a Moysian fit. If he is strong, I would not despise 4♥ on a 4-3. Why all this fear of playing with just 7 trumps?

c) 2N would never, never, never be in my book with this hand. give me a 4-5 either way in the minors, and some 9 to 12 HCP, and it would be my bid.

d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence.

e) 3♠: in my book, it shows a limit raise in ♠, with a balanced hand and 3 trumps. So it is clearly out of the question here.

 

Hope I have not offended anyone B)

[Guest Jlall]

d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence.

so with x x KJTxxxx Qxxx you bid what?

[Kalvan14]

d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence.

so with x x KJTxxxx Qxxx you bid what?

2 ♠, and - if doubled - 3♦.

Obviously you cannot match every possible hand with a descriptive bidding sequence. I choose to loose on (rare) hands like this one (take away the J or the 10 of ♦ and I might pass over 1♠) rather than misrepresent my hand in more forward going occasions.

IMHO, the more I look at the hand you put as an example, the more attractive would become passing over 1♠