Responder's rebid

[Poky]

IMP. We vul.

 

♠K10x

♥x

♦KJ98x

♣A10xx

 

1♦ 4♥ Dbl* pass

???

 

* takeout

 

What is your bid and explain why?

[inquiry]

It might be just me, but pass and 4NT don't seem to be options. That leaves 4♠ and 5♣. If this was matchpoints, which it is not, I would try 4♠'s, at worse it should be a moysein with player with three card trumps short in the force suit.

 

Since this is imps, I have a second option: 5♣, not that 5♣ is necessarily any better than 4♠. I think I will still bid 4♠ at imps, since we can easlily be off two ACES on this auctin plus a slow trick, but I am less certain 4♠ is right at imps than at mp.

[Codo]

I openend 11 HCps without the majors, hmm, okay, not my prefered style, but at least I had no rebidproblem...

 

Now, I do have one.

 

Unluckily, pd is not short in hearts, so we cannot play him for 4144. So maybe he doubled with some 3334? Maybe, but in that case, he surely has 4 Spades. Anyway, I may miss a good club fit, but I search for the 3-3 fit and bid a confident 4 Spade.

At least, I need not to table my hand as dummy, which is a success...

[luis]

4NT same length in both minors.

 

Luis

[Codo]

4NT same length in both minors.

 

Luis

You trade KJ98x as same length as ATxx? Interesting view...

maybe "99.57% of the good bridge pairs play" it different....

[Finch]

It might be just me, but pass and 4NT don't seem to be options.

The difference between 4NT and 5C is a mildly interesting theoretical point.

There are two ways round of playing this

 

i) 4NT shows both minors, as 'close' in lengths as is practicable

ii) 4NT shows both minors, big emphasis on diamonds

 

You might think that the first of these is 'obviously' correct, until you realise that the corollary is

 

i) 5C shows much longer diamonds than clubs

ii) 5C shows serious clubs

 

where the second seems even more 'obviously' correct....

 

FWIW, I play 5C as being serious about clubs, and 4NT as diamonds with clubs on the side.

 

If you play Precision or some other nebulous 1D opening (or if you like opening 1D on 45 in the minors) you are probably better off playing 4NT as both minors, equal length or longer diamonds and 5C as both minors, longer clubs.

 

On this hand I'll bid 4S I suppose. But it could be a 3-3 fit.

[luis]

4NT same length in both minors.

 

Luis

You trade KJ98x as same length as ATxx? Interesting view...

maybe "99.57% of the good bridge pairs play" it different....

I opened 1♦ so having 5-4 is logical, I always open my longest minor when pd is not a passed hand. 5♣ to me here would then show 5 clubs, either 6-4 or 5-5 in the minors.

5♦ denies 4 clubs. Then 4NT is either 5-4 or 4-4 which is what I have.

 

Luis.

[hatchett]

I think pass is percentage, I have no idea what the right strain is so I'll take whatever plus is coming, okay I know it's -590! To pull I'd rather have another high card to increase my chances of making. I hate pulling to a three card suit when pass is a reasonable alternative.

 

For me 5C over the double would show at least 5C, if I want to move on this shape then 4NT would be the call.

[inquiry]

FWIW, I play 5C as being serious about clubs, and 4NT as diamonds with clubs on the side.

Yes, this is what I play too (I though this meaning was more or less universal). So 4NT is out since I don't have a strong preference for ♦ with some clubs on the side. In fact, I would just as well assume clubs as diamonds, so I would never bid 4NT to place emphasis on ♦'s,

[mikeh]

5♣

 

Pass is possible, but could be disastrous: could be a dreaded double game swing.

 

4♠ is superficially attractive, but partner may pass it with 3=2=3=5 for example and even a 4=3 may not fare well. Sure, we could get lucky and hit 5 in dummy, but he will often have bid 4♠ with opening values and a good 5 card suit.

 

He has to be ready for 5 minor, and I am one of those for whom 4N would suggest a 2 card discrepancy in minor suit length.

 

So I bid an unhappy, but in tempo, 5♣

[han]

4NT same length in both minors.

 

Luis

You trade KJ98x as same length as ATxx? Interesting view...

maybe "99.57% of the good bridge pairs play" it different....

I opened 1♦ so having 5-4 is logical, I always open my longest minor when pd is not a passed hand. 5♣ to me here would then show 5 clubs, either 6-4 or 5-5 in the minors.

5♦ denies 4 clubs. Then 4NT is either 5-4 or 4-4 which is what I have.

 

Luis.

Luis, you keep amazing me. Are your opponents able to keep a straight face when you explain that 4NT shows either equal length in the minors or much longer diamonds?

 

I play it like Ben, so 4NT is not an option.

[whereagles]

Actually, Luis might have a point here. 5♣ clearly means "I REALLY like clubs", which probably means a 55. So 54's and 64's bid 4NT, showing 2 places to play.

[luis]

Actually, Luis might have a point here. 5♣ clearly means "I REALLY like clubs", which probably means a 55. So 54's and 64's bid 4NT, showing 2 places to play.

That is exactly my idea, thanks :-)

[foo]

I like 4N, and not just for the reasons Luis has given.

 

4N also implies that my hand is a bit on the flexible side. After, all if I am 44 or 54 in the minors, then I have to be 32 or 31 or 22 in the Majors.

 

...and that mean that if GOP had 5 S's and was making the best of their bad choices, they might very well find a way to keep S's under consideration.

 

I'd also note that a 4N rebid has a large chance of causing the auction to "run off the rails" if used with a partner not sophisticated enough for it. Before you make what may be a $2 bid, make sure you do not have a $.50 partner...

[jdonn]

4NT is flexible, fine, but it implies spades? That's news to me. What do you bid on a similar strength 1264 hand?

 

The original poster can call 4NT takeout, but all it really is is an opening hand or near opening hand, without six spades or very long clubs or big diamond support. All these shapes must double if they have values.

 

4333

5224

4342

5323

3334

 

And many more in between. What else can you do on these hands when you have values, you either have to double, pass, or make some ridiculous wild stab at the contract. My point is that while you will often have a perfectly good fit to play in, you often won't also, and even if you have it you still have to find it. Not to mention that any marginal fit probably has suits not breaking, and if you should be doubled you will be doubled.

 

If I was bidding I would do 4NT. But it's imps, and I take the cash. Pass.

 

EDIT: Also, shouldn't this thread be called opener's rebid?

[foo]

4NT is flexible, fine, but it implies spades? That's news to me. What do you bid on a similar strength 1264 hand?

 

The original poster can call 4NT takeout, but all it really is is an opening hand or near opening hand, without six spades or very long clubs or big diamond support. All these shapes must double if they have values.

 

4333

5224

4342

5323

3334

 

And many more in between. What else can you do on these hands when you have values, you either have to double, pass, or make some ridiculous wild stab at the contract. My point is that while you will often have a perfectly good fit to play in, you often won't also, and even if you have it you still have to find it. Not to mention that any marginal fit probably has suits not breaking, and if you should be doubled you will be doubled.

 

If I was bidding I would do 4NT. But it's imps, and I take the cash. Pass.

 

EDIT: Also, shouldn't this thread be called opener's rebid?

w/ =1264 after 1D-(4H)-X;-??

I'm bidding 5D unless the D's are weak and the C's are chunky.

One thing I am =not= doing is implying that my hand is very flexible as to strain. We are playing 5m. It's just a choice as to which m.

 

Disagree that all of

=4333, =5224, =4342, =5323, =3334

Responders "must" X if they have values in this auction.

Particularly in the case of the 4333's.

Sometimes the most likely way to get a good score is to Defend. Especially when there is a decent chance that We are "taking the last guess."

I agree w/ Robson and Segal that We should never take the last guess.

 

I also disagree about pass being clear here.

GOP's X suggests a hand not suitable to defend. Unless our hand is more suitable to defend 4H than to play, we should bid.

Regardless of the form of scoring.

[joshs]

It might be just me, but pass and 4NT don't seem to be options. That leaves 4♠ and 5♣. If this was matchpoints, which it is not, I would try 4♠'s, at worse it should be a moysein with player with three card trumps short in the force suit.

 

Since this is imps, I have a second option: 5♣, not that 5♣ is necessarily any better than 4♠. I think I will still bid 4♠ at imps, since we can easlily be off two ACES on this auctin plus a slow trick, but I am less certain 4♠ is right at imps than at mp.

Facenating. I thought pass and 4N were the only options. Bidding a 3 card spade suit at the 4 level strikes me as silly, unless you were paid by the opponents or somehow wanted a minus score.

 

The main question is what 4N means. I think its both minors with longer diamonds. 5C shows a 5 card suit. If someone wants to convince me that 4N is natural, then I am all ears... Also its possible that if you never open 1D with 4D and 5C, that 4N would show 6-4 and 5C might only be 5-4.

 

If my partner will truely pass 4H with Hxx in hearts and a 12 count and will only x with shortness or lots of transferable values (i.e. its really for takeout), then I will bid 4N (I have such partners). Otherwise I am passing. I actually prefer the style where x really is takeout oriented...

[jdonn]

w/ =1264 after 1D-(4H)-X;-??

I'm bidding 5D unless the D's are weak and the C's are chunky.

One thing I am =not= doing is implying that my hand is very flexible as to strain.  We are playing 5m.  It's just a choice as to which m.

 

Disagree that all of

=4333, =5224, =4342, =5323, =3334

Responders "must" X if they have values in this auction.

Particularly in the case of the 4333's.

Sometimes the most likely way to get a good score is to Defend.  Especially when there is a decent chance that We are "taking the last guess."

I agree w/ Robson and Segal that We should never take the last guess.

 

I also disagree about pass being clear here.

GOP's X suggests a hand not suitable to defend.  Unless our hand is more suitable to defend 4H than to play, we should bid.

Regardless of the form of scoring.

I hope your partner isn't 4315 when you bid 5♦.

 

You are misapplying the statement 'never take the last guess'. That is good advice indeed, but refers to this type of auction:

If on some auction you bid X, the opponents are likely to bid Y, and you won't know whether or not to bid X+1. Thus you should bid X+1 to begin with and make them decide whether or not to bid Y+1. You force them to make the last guess instead of you.

On this auction, when you bid 4NT you are guessing that you should be playing instead of defending. Anything you do is a guess unless you are looking at all four hands (ok ok, any three hands.) There is no avoiding a guess so you do what you feel tends to be right. If that is bidding then ok, but it can't be justified by misapplying a slogan.

 

I don't know from where you are pulling the inference that partner's double shows offensive values but no interest in defending. It shows cards, points, strength. There are not enough bids at this level to make such a fine distinction. You can say all you want that it shows offense not defense, but it isn't true. I can't say it any better than Steve Robinson, talking about the auction 1♣ (4♦) DBL. Note the multitude of shapes he includes as examples, including 3433.

 

"Partner opens 1♣, RHO bids 4♦ and you have Kxx KQxx Kx xxxx, Kx Qxxxx Kx KJxx, AQxx Kxxx x Jxxx or AQx KQxx xxx KJx. In other words, [the double shows] a balanced opening bid. If you pass it could go all pass. What choice do you have? You must double. High-level doubles show strength and don’t promise any specific distribution. If you have a balanced opening bid, your only choice is to double." That is from his bimonthly bidding poll

 

http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Sol/2005/Sol0511.html

[foo]

You are misapplying the statement...

...and you a misapplying or inappropriately generalizing a few things.

 

On this auction, when you bid 4NT you are guessing that you should be playing instead of defending. Anything you do is a guess unless you are looking at all four hands (ok ok, any three hands.) There is no avoiding a guess so you do what you feel tends to be right. If that is bidding then ok, but it can't be justified by misapplying a slogan.

Wrong. I never said anything about guessing and if this situation was about guessing I'd tell people to roll some form of weighted dice rather than try and use logic and visualization to decide what best to do. I was using the "slogan" correctly.

 

A guess is just that, akin to rolling dice or flipping a coin or whatever. It is a =random= action.

 

Random actions do not good bridge make.

 

I don't know from where you are pulling the inference that partner's double shows offensive values but no interest in defending. It shows cards, points, strength. There are not enough bids at this level to make such a fine distinction. You can say all you want that it shows offense not defense, but it isn't true. I can't say it any better than Steve Robinson, talking about the auction 1C (4D) DBL. Note the multitude of shapes he includes as examples, including 3433.

 

"Partner opens 1C, RHO bids 4D and you have...

First, you blatently ignored my post. I said X shows =convertable values=, not offensive values. Of course it would be wonderful if we have offensive values, but that is not often the case.

 

...and here we have an inappropriate overgeneralization on your part of an expert's advice.

1= the auctions are nowhere near the same. Steve is talking about an auction where the Majors are both unbid. Big Difference.

 

2= Every hand Steve posted had 7+ cards in the unbids and =at worst= xxx in the opponent's suit. In all examples except one there were 2- cards in the opponent's suit.

IOW, every example Steve posted had =convertable values= and a reasonably non defensive ODR.

 

Yes, there are good hands that should pass rather than X or bid here.

 

 

I've noticed a trend in these forums.

People seem to think that preempts can always be punished or bid around.

Time to make the perhaps ugly truth explicit.

 

PREEMPTS WORK.

 

That's why people use them. For all the Science and bravado I see being brought to bear with the intent of negating their effectiveness, sometimes you willl have no choice but to defend or guess when They preempt.

 

Don't be conned into playing bad bridge just "because you don't want to be stolen from". Bid as accurately as you can and play the odds as best you can. And accept that if They get you on this board, you are going to be given the chance to return the favor at some point in the future.

[jdonn]

Wrong.  I never said anything about guessing

You mean except for in the post prior to your last one, when you were speaking all about the concept: "Sometimes the most likely way to get a good score is to Defend. Especially when there is a decent chance that We are "taking the last guess."

I agree w/ Robson and Segal that We should never take the last guess."

 

First, you blatently ignored my post.  I said X shows =convertable values=, not offensive values.

I again am giving you credit for exactly what you said: "GOP's X suggests a hand not suitable to defend." Does not suitable to defend mean offensive values, or just a total yarbrough? You never used the term convertible values, now you are misquoting yourself.

 

I don't have a problem with changing your tune, but don't tell me I'm misquoting you when I'm not.

 

...and here we have an inappropriate overgeneralization on your part of an expert's advice.

 

1= the auctions are nowhere near the same.  Steve is talking about an auction where the Majors are both unbid.  Big Difference.

The generalization was on the expert's part, not mine. As he said "High-level doubles show strength and don’t promise any specific distribution. If you have a balanced opening bid, your only choice is to double."

He did not make allowances for which if any majors are unbid. He specifically made his reference to high level doubles.

 

Don't be conned into playing bad bridge just "because you don't want to be stolen from".

That is advice that someone who wants to pass, like I do, would be giving to someone who wants to bid, like you do. And now you are the one quoting something I never said.

[foo]

Josh, I never said we should guess. I have in fact said we should do everything we can not to guess. In particular, I've said we should never be the one taking what is likely to be the last guess before it goes allpass or X-allpass or pa-pa-X-allpass.

Every time we have to take the last guess, either We have made a mistake or They have outplayed Us.

 

Not changing my tune one note.

"Not suitable to defend" means exactly that: not a defensive hand. Neither hands with convertable values nor offensively oriented hands are defensive hands. Since that was evidently not clear enough from my phrasing, I apologize for the lack of clarity and will be more explicit in the future.

 

The Big Difference between the auction 1m-(4om) and 1m-(4M) or 1M-(4OM) is that in the first auction all of 3N and 4M are possible contracts and an Opening bid opposite an Opening bid rates to make 3N or 4M.

Not so a 5 level contract which requires ~ a K more in playing strength to take 11 tricks.

Sometimes We will not be able to make 5 on such hands, but will be able to "X Them into oblivion." Sometimes We will not be able to work it out and just have to Defend.

 

Nor did Steve's quick blurb get into issues involving the vulnerability ratio.

Even if the auction is 1m-(4om) and Responder has an Opening bid, there are circumstances where it is not clear that Responder should X for possible T/O.

 

For instance, if We are at Favorable and I as Responder in this situation have just about any 4333 with 3 likely defensive tricks and not enough extras to make slam reasonably likely...

...I'm going to be searching for ways for Us to Defend with a Red Card on the table first and foremost.

 

That's even more true when I have to decide whether or not to ask GOP to bid when there is a possibility or a certainty that I'm forcing Us to the 5 level by doing so.

 

In these situations, Responder's ODR calculation is critical. A pass by Responder in these situations should say "GOP, my estimate is that We are more likely to score well if We Defend rather than Declare." Etc, etc.

That knowledge allows Opener to make better decisions.

 

If We at any point get reduced to taking blind guesses in these situations, We have most likely already lost the board.

[awm]

I prefer to bid 4♠. While passing is possible, I think most of us play the double as primarily "takeout oriented" and not penalty. We'd all double with hands like:

 

AQxx

x

Qxx

KJxxx

 

to give just one example. Opposite this hand 4♥ will often make and we can likely make 4♠ or 5♣ (especially if suits are breaking well enough for 4♥ to go set). There are many similar examples. It's true that partner will also double with some balanced hands, but I wouldn't expect a double on a hand including a real "trump stack" without much tolerance for opener to pull. It just seems that there are a fair number of hands where partner has one or two hearts and 4♥ can even make, and most of the hands where we expect to set 4♥ more than a trick or so also offer good play for some game contract.

 

In any case, 4♠ doesn't have to end the auction. Could it lead to a 3-3 fit? Perhaps, but this is unlikely. If partner doesn't have four spades, he knows we are headed for a moysian with the tap most likely in the short hand. Keep in mind that it would be very surprising for partner to have four hearts (why make a "takeout" double with such length) or for partner to have five diamonds (why not just raise), making four card spades all the more likely. On the off chance partner has some shape like 3235 or 3334, why leave 4♠ in? It won't play well even if opener has four.

[jdonn]

I prefer to bid 4♠. While passing is possible, I think most of us play the double as primarily "takeout oriented" and not penalty. We'd all double with hands like:

 

AQxx

x

Qxx

KJxxx

 

to give just one example. Opposite this hand 4♥ will often make and we can likely make 4♠ or 5♣ (especially if suits are breaking well enough for 4♥ to go set). There are many similar examples. It's true that partner will also double with some balanced hands, but I wouldn't expect a double on a hand including a real "trump stack" without much tolerance for opener to pull. It just seems that there are a fair number of hands where partner has one or two hearts and 4♥ can even make, and most of the hands where we expect to set 4♥ more than a trick or so also offer good play for some game contract.

 

In any case, 4♠ doesn't have to end the auction. Could it lead to a 3-3 fit? Perhaps, but this is unlikely. If partner doesn't have four spades, he knows we are headed for a moysian with the tap most likely in the short hand. Keep in mind that it would be very surprising for partner to have four hearts (why make a "takeout" double with such length) or for partner to have five diamonds (why not just raise), making four card spades all the more likely. On the off chance partner has some shape like 3235 or 3334, why leave 4♠ in? It won't play well even if opener has four.

Your arguments consistently seem logical, but I don't like this one and think it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

As regarding your example hand for partner, I consider it impractical to base my bid on the assumption the opponents have 11 hearts. Move his jack of clubs to hearts for something I consider more realistic and your expectation is something like 4♥X -1 or -2 vs. 4♠(X?) -1 or -2, particularly on the lousy breaks you know you are about to receive. Even on the example you gave, which was heavily weighted toward offense and away from defense, it is far from clear you want to be playing this hand. It won't be easy to use the diamonds and maintain trump control at the same time, all while not suffering ruffs to the short trump hand, and that is not to mention picking up the clubs.

 

With 3334 he would probably pull your 4♠ bid, but I don't think so with 3235. For all he knows this is the last making game if you are 42 in the majors, and even if not it is a level lower and thus less likely to be doubled than a minor suit game. It seems a little presumptuous to say 'I will bid my three card suit and play a potential 4-3, but partner should run with a three card suit and not play what he thinks is a potential 4-3.' Even if you are able to take your first ruff in the short trump hand in your 4-3 fit, your trump control issues are far from over at this high of a level.

 

Another issue is partner may have slam interest in spades if you bid them, and will be more than a little disappointed in your suit.

 

I still definitely think passing is right, but if you are going to bid then your goal shouldn't be to sneak into a 4-3 that you hope plays ok, it should be to find safety in your longest fit. 4NT is the bid that does that.

[awm]

This also reminds me of one of my pet peeves about the many words and terms used to define doubles.

 

Is it really accurate to say that a double is "takeout" when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

 

Is it accurate to say that a double is "negative" when it doesn't guarantee four cards in the only unbid major, and when you will frequently opt to defend holding minimum values and a singleton in the suit partner doubled?

 

Isn't such a double really "penalty" or maybe "cooperative"? In other words: "let's defend this contract unless you have a seriously distributional hand or substantial extras"?

 

If you'd really pass with this hand, it seems like you're treating the double much more like a cooperative double. Now, cooperative doubles are certainly a reasonable agreement in high-level auctions, but is it really accurate to say "double is takeout" and then routinely pass with hands like the one given? Seems very dubious to me.

[jdonn]

I never said double should be takeout. In fact, in prior posts I made more of a cooperative argument, particularly in quoting Robinson.

 

I still think you could argue takeout is the correct name even if you normally leave it in. The case would be that it presume's the doubler's intentions for his partner, not his partner's intentions. But it's just semantics anyway.