What's your rebid?

[Free]

Playing a standard version of 2/1GF, you hold:

[hv=d=s&s=sjtxhxdaqxxcakqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction starts:

1♣ - pass - 1♥ - pass

???

 

What do you bid?

[Walddk]

2♣. I do not reverse with a 16 count and a singleton in partner's suit. If responder can't bid over 2♣, we are unlikely to have missed a game.

 

If the response had been 1♠, however, I would reverse into 2♦.

 

Roland

[Halo]

2C for the reasons already stated.

[Gpm_bg]

first of all why not 1♦opening ?

But with the already bidded 1♣->1♥ i'm agree with 2♣ continue, which could hold more then 1NT (2♣ not guaranteed 2+cards in ♥ in contrast of 1NT rebid)

[000002]

with this moderate hand ,probably 1♠ is an acceptable rebid.compare with 2♣ or 3♣ reopen,i circa like 1♠ for its more flexibility than others .

 

 

 

regards 000002

[Codo]

I would make it as Roland... for obvious reasons

[Apollo81]

I'd reverse, but I wouldn't without the ♠10.

[pclayton]

This isn't your average boring 16 count. With the exception of a stiff heart, the minor suit holdings are primo. Boring 8 counts by pard will result in a spread 3N. K and R calls it 18.5.

 

I can see upgrading this to a 2N rebid, but 2♦ doesn't promise any more strength.

 

Over 2♥ and 2♠ (signoff), I'll rebid 2N. Over 2N, I'd probably pattern out with 3♠. Over 3♣ and 3♦ (forcing), I'll also try 3♠, which be a probe for 3N since I'm not bidding it myself.

[brianshark]

I'm in agreement with the reversers. I think the hand is good enough in spite of the heart singleton.

[P_Marlowe]

2D, but I play fairly light reverses, and a

reverse does not promise a rebid.

 

If you play the style, that a reverse does promise

a rebid, you have to bid 2C, since over 2H your

are dead.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pbleighton]

I reverse. The club suit is excellent, and the J10x of spades is nice.

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

I would reverse, I think it's an overbid but nothing else even remotely appeals to me.

[neilkaz]

I reverse. The club suit is excellent, and the J10x of spades is nice.

 

Peter

We are in complete agreement and the ♦ are also nice.

[kenrexford]

My option is 1♠, but this is admittedly a situation where partnership discussion is critical, and I have discussed this situation with most partners.

 

The decision we reached was based upon concerns that 1NT is bad with a stiff heart, that 2♦ way overstaes the strength, especially considering the high maximum range when 2♣ on a minor two-suiter is so unappealing, and that 1NT far understates the strength.

 

1♠, on the other hand, is a call that is expected to have this strength as a possibility. If the 3145 pattern is allowed, then avenues to uncover this problem are available. Further, the cost of discovery bids is minimized by the HCP and playing strength of the hand (if partner bids 3♠, 3NT probably makes).

 

The corollary to this is that with a weaker 3145, 2♣ is the only good option. In other words, it is the overall strength that gives the breathing space necessary for the spade-length distortion.

[pclayton]

My option is 1♠, but this is admittedly a situation where partnership discussion is critical, and I have discussed this situation with most partners.

 

The decision we reached was based upon concerns that 1NT is bad with a stiff heart, that 2♦ way overstaes the strength, especially considering the high maximum range when 2♣ on a minor two-suiter is so unappealing, and that 1NT far understates the strength.

 

1♠, on the other hand, is a call that is expected to have this strength as a possibility. If the 3145 pattern is allowed, then avenues to uncover this problem are available. Further, the cost of discovery bids is minimized by the HCP and playing strength of the hand (if partner bids 3♠, 3NT probably makes).

 

The corollary to this is that with a weaker 3145, 2♣ is the only good option. In other words, it is the overall strength that gives the breathing space necessary for the spade-length distortion.

I don't make prepared 1♠ bids anymore. With this pattern, if the hand is strong enough to reverse I will, and if its not strong enough, I should be able to rebid 1N .

[inquiry]

I don't make prepared 1♠ bids anymore. With this pattern, if the hand is strong enough to reverse I will, and if its not strong enough, I should be able to rebid 1N .

Gack.... you are going to rebid 1NT with this monster? How will partner ever know? (Yes, I know you choose to reverse, so I am not exactly sure where this 1NT rebid talk came from.)

 

After 1♣-1♥ this is closer to a 2NT rebid than a 1NT rebid. Here, I would just rebid 2♣. If partner can not take another call, we maybe high enough.

[kenrexford]

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. The problem with a 16-count is fairly simple to articulate, though.

 

If you would bid 1NT, then you will miss game on 26 HCP unless partner invites with 10. If he invites with 10, you will play a lot of 21-point 2NT contracts if partner can open with 11 HCP's.

 

If you reverse with 16, then your range is probably something like this as a minimum, up to quite strong (22?). That is unwieldy for partner. Sure, a weak 2♠ convention will help stop at 2NT, but then partner might have 6 HCP's, in which case you get to declare 2NT, again, on 22 HCP's.

 

To each his own, though.

[SoTired]

I voted for 2D, but can understand the 2C bidder's pessimistic outlook because responder bid our singleton.

 

What I can't understand is the 1S bidders. Unless you specifically have "1C 1H 1S = may be 3-card suit" rule in your partnership agreement, I think bidding a 3-card major is a mistake. I have been known to fudge a card on my minor suits, but I will not fudge a card on my major suits.

[mike777]

I would reverse, but close, if not I would open 1D and rebid 2clubs which has its own problems.

[mikeh]

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. 

No, it is not: it is not even in the same universe. This comment suggests an utter failing of any appreciation of bidding theory.

[mikeh]

I understand the 1♠bid, and have inflicted that on my partner's with this shape before, but not with this honour distribution... such clear playability for ♦s and relatively weak ♠s.

 

I would not reverse nor would I rebid 2N. I am a 'strong' reverser, and I will never be able to slow partner down if he has a good hand.... plus I will wrongside Nt if he has Ax of ♠, as a minor side risk. Put me down for 2♣...

 

BTW, ask yourself this question: if, over 2♣, he rebids 2♥ (and assume you are not playing weak jumpshifts) is this hand suited for a 2N bid now?

 

If you think that it is, and I do, then that should caution you against the overbid of 2N or the reverse.

 

I fall back on the fact that my partners KNOW that this hand is within the family of the 2♣ rebid, and they also expect more from the reverse/2N options.

[awm]

It seems like there are basically three styles, and these come with a tradeoff between finding the right strain and level:

 

(1) Fairly light reverses. This hand would certainly qualify for a reverse. This style maximizes your chance of finding the right strain, since you are bidding each of your suits in length order. However, there is a risk of playing a level too high, since the reverse becomes quite wide-ranging.

 

(2) Sound reverses but open the longest suit. On this hand you will be opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣. This may hurt your chances of reaching the best strain (partner will pass with a minimum 4441 shape for example where either of the pointy suits is likely to play substantially better than clubs). It can also push you to the wrong level since the 2♣ rebid is now quite wide-ranging (this hand is substantially better than a lot of 11-counts that open and rebid clubs). However the times you play the wrong partial you at least have extra strength (might make anyway).

 

(3) Sound reverses and open diamonds with both minors. On this hand you'd open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. This quite frequently carries issues with finding the right strain -- any time the hand should play in a minor partner will be forced to guess (with equal length) which minor to preference. On the other hand the reverses can be kept up to strength and the 2♣ rebid is fairly limited. Partner will usually do a good job figuring out whether you have game values; the issue is likely to be picking the right minor suit partial (or minor suit game).

 

My preferred style is the first, since I like to emphasize strain over level and much prefer to be in my best fit even at the price of playing the hand a level higher. I'd have no problems reversing on this hand.

 

There certainly exist hands where I'd consider bidding a three-card spade suit, but this is not one of them. Typical might be something like:

 

AKx

x

xxxx

AKQxx

 

Here I am too strong to rebid 1NT, and while reversing into diamonds might be okay on values (in my light-reverse style), I'd rather not convince partner to bid 3NT with a singleton diamond (could easily go down when we have slam in clubs) or convince partner to look for a diamond slam on a weak four-card holding (serious issues in the trump suit). So basically the hands where I'd rebid a spade on three cards are ones where the spades are quite strong and diamonds are weak, not vice-versa.

[Free]

It's clear that most people prefer to reverse on this hand. Ok, lets make it a bit more interesting: do you still reverse if you have ♦AJxx? And what is your rebid if you only have ♦ATxx?

 

1. [hv=d=s&s=sjtxhxdajxxcakqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

2. [hv=d=s&s=sjtxhxdajxxcakqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[pbleighton]

"It's clear that most people prefer to reverse on this hand. Ok, lets make it a bit more interesting: do you still reverse if you have DAJxx? And what is your rebid if you only have DATxx?"

 

No to both, the first hand was a marginal reverse. I rebid 2C on both, although I can see a 1NT rebid on the third hand. I prefer rebidding an excellent 5 card suit to an offshape 1NT rebid.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. 

No, it is not: it is not even in the same universe. This comment suggests an utter failing of any appreciation of bidding theory.

As you can see, I felt that 1NT was wrong and that 2♦ was wrong. Are you saying that I should call the prior post idiotic instead of being nice?

 

To clarify my thoughts, in case anyone cares:

 

(1) 1NT seems to be an absurdly egregious underbid. However, tons of people do this routinely and expect ibvites on trashy 10-counts. Their partners usually comply.

 

(2) 2♣ seems reasonable and would be my second preference.

 

(3) 2♦ seems too unwieldy. Sure, a 4th-suit weak convention will help, but not enough IMO. Minor two-suiters can be too strong to reverse on bad-stiff 16-counts.

 

(4) Opening 1♦ first solves a world of hurt, but many despise this idea.

 

(5) 1♠ also solves a world of hurt, but many also despise this idea. However, as mentioned, this is not a "lie" if the partnership expects that a one-level major rebid might be a 3-card suit from a problem 5431. (Similarly, 1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠.)

 

The specific pattern 3♠1♥4♦5♣ is a recurring problem, as no rebid is "right" unless the partnership allows flexibility in traditional definitions somewhere. The question is at what place to redefine? Redfine club length expectations? Redefine reverse parameters? Or, redefine 1♠ rebids. I happen to elect felxibility where space is maximized, meaning the cheapest call (1♠). Others are more inclined to protect major-length integrity, sacrificing something else. NT-range variability seems really bad. Club length expectancy seems decent to me, as it is the second-cheapest suit call and not a major. Reverse variability protects pattern honesty but sacrifices strength reliability.