Rebid problem

[mikegill]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sxhxdkqxxcakj9xxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♣ - P -1♠ - P - ?[/hv]

 

What do you rebid and would you bid any differently at IMPs?

[Guest Jlall]

2D at both forms of the game.

[Halo]

I think it is best to have an agreement that the reverse is wider range (in terms of points) with this shape. So I would bid 2D.

 

I wouldn't want to bid differently based on method of scoring.

[mikeh]

2♣ at mps, 3♣ at imps (because vulenerable).

 

I would not reverse because, for me, a reverse has a higher minimum than does 3♣, and this is not a hand on which I want to make quite as strong a statement as that.

 

The opps's silence suggests, while not guaranteeing, that partner has either or both some decent values and/or both majors.

 

If he has decent values (a good 10+ or better) we will almost surely survive 2♣. If he has say 8-10 hcp, we may play 2♣ with some play for 3N, so I am making the more aggressive call at imps.

 

I do not reverse because this hand will not play well opposite a medium major 2-suiter with stiff or void ♣, nor will a 4-4♦ fit usually be the big pay-off...obviously I will regret this move if partner holds Axxxx Axx AJxx x :)

 

I would be more worried about the more frequent hand type of KJxxx KQxx xxx x, which gets us to 3N after a reverse, and possibly after 3♣. Of course, we've all been in and made worse games than this, but bidding game here is a tough way to make a living.

[hrothgar]

Difficult question for me to answer since I'll open almost all 7-4 patterns with 4M or 5m.

 

Hands like this often present almost impossible rebid problems.

I prefer to sidestep this particular problem by preempting (I recognize that this creates a world of new issues)

 

If I did decide to open 1♣, I'd probably rebid 2♣ at MP and 2♦ at IMPs. However, the more I think about it, the more I like a 2♣ at both forms of scoring.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

2C but 3C is an option.

If I bid 2C, I am pretty sure I get another

chance, and if not, which game I am

missing?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

2♦. If pard supports one of my suits, I'll seriously consider following-up with 4m RKCB if that's available.

[Guest Jlall]

If I bid 2C, I am pretty sure I get another

chance, and if not, which game I am

missing?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Axxx xxx Axxxx x

 

You asked for that one B)

 

Reversing or bidding 3C may get us to a bad 3N, but I think 2C will cause us to miss too many games. It's one of those if we have a misfit we are screwed, but if we have a decent fit somewhere we could make a lot type of hands.

 

As for 2D vs 3C, I think 2D will lead to a better description of our hand, possibly get us to diamonds, and give more room for partner to describe his hand. I think that it shows roughly the same playing strength as a 3C rebid, though typically shows more HCP. This is admittedly dangerous when this under valued high card wise but I think the payoff will be worth it.

[mike777]

Per Richard I opened 5 clubs.

 

If banned are we at least playing reverse flannery and Walsh style?

 

If so I rebid 3clubs I guess at both. Partner will never play me for this monster if I just bid 2 clubs, I could have so much less.

[inquiry]

Per Richard I opened 5 clubs.

 

If banned are we at least playing reverse flannery and Walsh style?

I can not imagine opening this 5♣. Sure you might shut out 4♥ or 4♠, but give you give up on slam or grand slam in both minors. And if you can have monsters like this, how weak can your 5m be?

 

I rebid 2♦ and I have some unusual agreements over this bid which I will not go into other than to remind you that I play misiiry so if I have a two suiter, I will have only 4♦ on this auction, and this 2♦ could be a monster one suiter without spade support.

 

Even if I wan't playing Misiry, I would rebid 2♦.

[mike777]

If first seat vul I think I got my bid. Sure I can miss slam.

[mike777]

"As for 2D vs 3C, I think 2D will lead to a better description of our hand, possibly get us to diamonds, and give more room for partner to describe his hand. I think that it shows roughly the same playing strength as a 3C rebid, though typically shows more HCP. This is admittedly dangerous when this under valued high card wise but I think the payoff will be worth it"

 

Justin raises an interesting point. Does 1minor=1major=3minor show as much playing strength as a reverse or does it in fact become much more random?

[hrothgar]

I can not imagine opening this 5♣. Sure you might shut out 4♥ or 4♠, but give you give up on slam or grand slam in both minors. And if you can have monsters like this, how weak can your 5m be?

When I am opening 5 minor I'm not trying for a controlled auction or a delicate slam exploration.

 

I'm not expecting partner to be able to precisely value his hand.

 

I recognize that partner ins't going to have much of a clue whether he should pass or raise or what have you.

 

I am making what I hope is a practical bid that will inconvenience the opponents more than my own partnership. Sometime this works, some times it doesn't.

 

Such is life

[mikeh]

As has been written before, there are traditionally two schools of thought re reverses.

 

The 'light' reverse would reverse with a K more than a solid opening bid, and this is (or was) a good test for a jump rebid of a minor opening: a good 6+ suit and a hand about a K more than a solid minimum.

 

The 'strong' reverse school requires a hand close to gf values. I belong to this second school, subject to a couple of qualifications.

 

One is that I play Ingberman, so that we can get out when responder has stretched to respond: as readers of earlier threads may know, I am also a member of the light responding school, altho not to the extent that Justin apparently takes it.

 

The other is that 5=6 hands can be reversed on significantly fewer hcp than lesser shapes.

 

The strong reverse school needs, for non 5=6 hands, a much higher minimum and goes up to a much higher maximum than a jump rebid.

 

I think of jump rebids as being from 15-17 hcp, altho there are 14 counts that qualify and even horrible 18 counts. A reverse would usually start at 17 and go to 22.

 

Take AQx KJxx x AJxxx

 

You open 1♣, partner bids 1♠. Do you reverse? Assume the 'x's are deuce-equivalents. If you'd reverse and think nothing of it, you are a member of the light reverse school.... and this is a great hand on which to belong to that school. If you

would either not reverse or you'd do it, hating the need to overbid this way, you're either a member of the strong reverse school or you'd like an application form.

 

Don't ask me what I'd bid with this hand: one of the benefits of being a charter member of the strong reverse school is that you never hold these hands :)

[awm]

My argument has always been: why do reverses show extra values? The basic reason is that you're forcing the auction to the three level when partner could have some awful minimum that just wants to preference your first-bid suit. So basically, 1♣-1♠-2♦ should show extra values because it eliminates the chance to play in 2♣ when partner has a misfitting minimum. But of course, 1♣-1♠-3♣ also eliminates the chances to play in 2♣ when partner has a misfitting minimum. So it seems sensible to me that the minimum values required for either of these actions should be roughly the same. Of course 3♣ also has an upper limit because partner can pass it (whereas reversing into a new suit is forcing, to allow you to describe complex two and three-suited hands without having to jump beyond 3♣).

 

So if the given hand is strong enough for 3♣ I think it's strong enough for 2♦. Sometimes you will win by being conservative and rebidding 2♣, but I think the chances for the club suit to run are too high -- you can make 3NT opposite a lot of eight and nine-counts.

 

As for mikeh's example hand of AQx KJxx x AJxxx, I think this is just a shade light of what I'd like for a reverse, and would bid a simple 2♠. Change the ♣J to the ♣Q and I'll bite though.

[P_Marlowe]

If I bid 2C, I am pretty sure I get another

chance, and if not, which game I am

missing?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Axxx xxx Axxxx x

 

You asked for that one :)

 

<snip>

:lol: great that I belong to the old fashioned school,

which would respond 1D instead of 1S, even with 4-4.

 

But I dont want to start a war, I know, that I may miss

game, and I know, that I play with a partner, who knows

me ...

My partner would certainly bid either 2D or 3C, I would prefer

3C, if he does not bid 2C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[neilkaz]

I am in complete agreement with awm's very well written last post.

[mike777]

I am in complete agreement with awm's very well written last post.

Again if both a reverse and a jump rebid of a minor have the same minimum playing strength, what is that for you guys? I am more from the strong reverse school.

 

Another question, assuming a one minor=one major start, is counting losers the same as counting playing tricks for you? Is a 4 loser hand, opening hand, worth 9 playing tricks or do these phrases have a different meaning to you?

[awm]

In general I've found that there is a big difference between long suits with and without the ace. Take a look at the following examples, all with the same shape, points, and LTC:

 

(1)

x

x

AQxx

AKJxxxx

 

(2)

x

x

KQJx

AKJxxxx

 

(3)

x

x

AKJx

KQJxxxx

 

Each can easily be counted as a four-loser 14-count with 1147 shape and one loser in each suit. However, I'd argue that hand (1) is actually substantially stronger than hand (3), with hand (2) somewhere in the middle. The issue is that the first hand is likely to take eight tricks in notrump opposite a mild club fit without losing any tricks to establish the clubs. This means that if partner has some mediocre minimum like Kxxx Kxx xxx xxx, there is actually good play for 3NT. On the other hand, number (3) will almost always have a club loser before establishing many tricks in NT. Opposite even a better hand for partner like Axxx Axx xxx xxx, you have very little play for 3NT (5♣ on the other hand is good). Opposite the pair of kings you can't make any kind of a game. The second hand (which is close to the hand we were given) is somewhere in between. The clubs will often run but that's seven tricks only, so the pair of kings won't quite make a game.

 

Anyways there is a difference between tricks (which basically means top tricks with a little luck) and losers (which assumes you can lose and regain the lead a few times). Counting losers is fine in a trump contract when you have good trump control, whereas in a notrumps contract you want to count tricks.

[mikeh]

My argument has always been: why do reverses show extra values? The basic reason is that you're forcing the auction to the three level when partner could have some awful minimum that just wants to preference your first-bid suit. So basically, 1♣-1♠-2♦ should show extra values because it eliminates the chance to play in 2♣ when partner has a misfitting minimum. But of course, 1♣-1♠-3♣ also eliminates the chances to play in 2♣ when partner has a misfitting minimum. So it seems sensible to me that the minimum values required for either of these actions should be roughly the same. Of course 3♣ also has an upper limit because partner can pass it (whereas reversing into a new suit is forcing, to allow you to describe complex two and three-suited hands without having to jump beyond 3♣).

 

So if the given hand is strong enough for 3♣ I think it's strong enough for 2♦.

I agree with other comments to the effect that this is an excellent post, but I still disagree with it :)

 

I think that Adam's approach is playable and may be popular, but I don't think it is mainstream (altho I may be the one swimming up river).

 

The reason lies in the approach taken by players in response to reverses or jump rebids. My experience, and certainly my own style, has been that I will pass the jump rebid with some hands with which I would force to game over a reverse.

 

Obviously, this style is predicated on (rather than being some form of justification for) using different ranges for reverses compared to jump rebids.

 

Playing Ingberman or a simpler method (2N puppet to 3♣, which may be passed), consider the auction 1♣ 1♠ 2♥

 

Holding KQxx Qxx xx xxx, I would bid a forcing to game 3♣ over 2♥. Slam is not impossible: Axx AKxx x AKQxx and game rates to be playable opposite a minimum (note to hand constructors, 'playable' does not equal cold or even good, and 'rates to' does not equal 'will')

 

However, I would pass a jump rebid of 3♣. He might hold xx xx AQx AKQxxx, a full value 3♣ that rates to fail even if they lead ♦s!

 

We may each draw the line in own own particular locations, but unless you draw no line at all.. unless you would always bid to game over 3♣ on exactly the same hands as you would force to game over a reverse... then you play a different low end for one of the bids than the other.

 

As for a theoretical rationale: one of the basic problems facing standard-based natural bidding methods is the wide range afforded initial opening bids. Successful methods usually focus on narrowing the range as much as possible on opener's rebid. The wider the range of opener's rebid, especially if it is a strong bid, the more difficult it becomes to bid accurately.

[Cascade]

Difficult question for me to answer since I'll open almost all 7-4 patterns with 4M or 5m.

That's a very wide range. How does partner judge what to do?

[Cascade]

For me 3♣ and 2♦ have the same minimum requirement and I am loathe to go all the way to 3♣ without showing my second suit.

 

I would reverse with four diamonds and five clubs so the question for me is do the two extra clubs make up for the lack of high-card points?

 

I think they do so I bid 2♦.

 

I would bid the same way at any form of scoring.

[flytoox]

I bid 3C, and I agree with Mikeh's post. 2D is about card strength, but 3C is more about playing strength.

[hrothgar]

Difficult question for me to answer since I'll open almost all 7-4 patterns with 4M or 5m.

That's a very wide range. How does partner judge what to do?

Hi Wayne

 

In general, I favor fairly disciplined methods. If I open 1♥ or 2♦ or what have you, I want partner to be well positioned to take the "right" action with his hands. (What these bids happen to describe, thats another story that can be left for later).

 

For the most part, this same philosphy holds true for my high level preempts. In particular, if I preempt in first or second seat my preemptive openings are pretty well defined. However, the definition looks something like this:

 

4S = Either a weak 4 level preempt in a major OR any 7-4 pattern unsuitable for a strong club opening.

The response structure that we use does not cater to the extremely undisciplined and wide ranging 7-4 patterns.

 

If partner wants to investigate slam, he does so under the assumption that we have a bad 4 level preempt that is unsuitable for a NAMYATS type opening.

 

Note that its possible for the 7-4 pattern to be significantly stronger than partner expects, but not significantly weaker. We might miss some slams this way, but we shouldn't end up bidding any really bad ones.

 

In a similar fashion, a 5m preempt shows either a normal 5m preempt or some 7-4 pattern. (For what its worth, I normally use my 4NT opening to show a good 5 level preempt in either minor. Once again, this helps ensure that the 7-4 pattern can be stronger than expected, however, it shouldn't be significantly weaker)

 

In general, I'm happy with this approach. As I said early in this thread, the 7-4 patterns are a royal pain in the butt. I've never been convinced that standard methods handle these patterns very well. Yes you CAN modify your reverse structure to accomodate hands like this one, but that places a lot of strain on the rest of the system. Furthermore, with this much shape it makes it highly likely that the opponents are going to be able to throw a spanner into the works.

 

I prefer to get the hand off my chest from the get go, blocking the opponents from describing their hands and preserving the integrity of my constructive openinng structure.

[HeartA]

I am with 3C rebid.