Notrump Rebids

[fifee]

I had an interesting discussion at Vugraph this morning with another player who shall remain nameless til later.

 

We watched a hand at Flame's match where Flame's opp opened 1♦ in 2nd position and after partner bid 1♠, opener rebid 1NT with:

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s4hq932daq87ck765]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Debate ensued about the NT rebid with a stiff ♠.

 

We agreed that we would not have opened this hand but even if your hand is not sub-minimum, what would you rebid?

 

I think rebidding 1NT or 2NT with a stronger hand should guarantee a balanced hand. The exception for me would be a hand with a stiff Ace or King and no better rebid. Am I out of touch here?

[han]

Matter of partnership agreement. Clear 1NT for me, but I know others frown upon 1NT.

 

If you rebid 1NT with this and frequently raise with balanced hand containing 3-card support then partner shouldn't often pull to 2S with a 5-card major. On the other hand, if you never raise with a balanced hand and don't rebid 1NT with this then partner will more often pull.

 

I believe rebidding 1NT is more common in the US while rebidding 2C would be more common in (for example) France.

[jdonn]

I like 1NT. If you rebid 2♣ you can never get to hearts any more when partner isn't a game force, and it's something I hate to do with only 4 diamonds anyway. It also fits well in a style where I raise a lot on 3, so partner won't need to rebid lots of 5 card suits.

 

I also wouldn't have opened that hand.

[kenberg]

I was there and enjoyed the discussion, and it could have been a verbatim repeat of discussions I have had with others. Myself, I am not fond of 1NT with a stiff, especially a spot. But very good players do it routinely and maybe I need to rethink this.

 

As it happened, the very next hand began 1m (diamonds again I think)-1S-1N, and responder rebid 2S on five.

 

Perhaps (?) if 1N is to be rebid on a stiff then 1S should often be raised to 2S on three? "Often" meaning not only when opener holds a strong three card holding and, say, a weak doubleton elsewhere. Many/most raise on three with that holding. But if he otherwise bids 1N with three, so when opener rebids 1N he may equally hold one or three spades, it seems responder has a tough choice holding five spades. A decent 5-2 fit may play ok, but a random 5-1 is a disaster.

 

Anyway, I'll eagerly await answers to your question.

 

Added: Two answers already while typing in mine! I also would not have opened, at least partly because no choice is appealing after the expected spade response.

[pbleighton]

I wouldn't rebid 1NT, but it's really a style preference, I don't think there's a significant gain or loss either way.

 

Peter

[the hog]

I would rebid 1NT on this hand. It is interesting that a number of players regard the 4441 shape as balanced/semi balanced. Certainly I feel that a new suit should show a 5-4.

[pbleighton]

4441 shapes are evil. Let's ban them.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Here's what I hope is an intelligent question.

 

If you have 1-4-4-4 shape, and plan to rebid 1NT over 1♠, why not open 1♣?

[jdonn]

Here's what I hope is an intelligent question.

 

If you have 1-4-4-4 shape, and plan to rebid 1NT over 1♠, why not open 1♣?

Certain competitive auctions require you to bid both minors. The typical example is

 

1m (2♥) X (P)

 

Now rebidding 2NT would be absolutely sick. On top of that, partner has just four spades and there aren't that many hearts left in the deck, so you are extremely likely to have a minor suit fit. So obviously you would rather have opened 1♦ so you can bid 3♣ now rather than the other way around.

[han]

Agree with Josh's general comment but why is 2NT over 2HX absolutely sick?

 

I also don't agree with your statement that partner cannot have 5 spades for the negative double (Jxxxx x AQxx Qxx is a 2S bid for you?).

 

Another reason to open 1D instead of 1C is that the diamonds are better, although not much. I would prefer to play a system where I can use judgement in such a situation instead of always having to open 1C (or 1D) with this shape.

[jdonn]

Agree with Josh's general comment but why is 2NT over 2HX absolutely sick?

Because you have half the deck and no tricks? It is usually an undesirable bid even with a normal weak notrump, though you often have no choice.

 

I also don't agree with your statement that partner cannot have 5 spades for the negative double (Jxxxx x AQxx Qxx is a 2S bid for you?).

I didn't say partner can not have 5 spades as some definitive statement. His bid shows four exactly and that's what you will play him for, if he doubled with more than that it's not something you can concern yourself with.

[1eyedjack]

To add a slightly new dimension to the OP, I normally play a weak 1N opening bid, and a 15-17 1NT rebid. If I have that 1-4-4-4 hand in the 15-17 range I would rather rebid 1NT as to rebid 2C may be confused with a weaker hand.

[Guest Jlall]

I am in love with rebidding 1N with this hand.

[Cascade]

I am in love with rebidding 1N with this hand.

You fall in love too easily Justin.

 

I hate rebidding 1NT with this hand...

 

but I hate the alternatives even more.

[Flame]

I think if you dont want to bid 2♣ on this hand you better open 1♣, this give more chances that partner wont bid 1♠.

[whereagles]

I usually do 4441s as follows:

 

If singleton is AKQ, treat as balanced

If singleton is J or below, treat as a 54 (5 of minor)

[kenberg]

Some years back I was responder in an auction that went 1D-1S-1N-6S. I was not happy when dummy tabled a stiff spade spot. Trumps broke 3-3 so the story had a happy ending, but I still remember the trauma of seeing dummy.

 

If we open a club and rebid 2C we would like to have six. If we open a diamond and rebid 2C we would like to be 5-4, preferably with the 5 being diamonds. If we open a minor and rebid 1N, we would like to have two in partner's major. Obviously something has to give.

 

This is such a basic issue that surely high-level partnerships and probably many mid-level partnerships have settled the matter both in how they begin and, importantly, in how they deal in the later auction with the problems created by their initial choices. It doesn't seem to me this is simply a matter of whether you love or hate rebidding 1NT with a stiff. It needs to be a package deal.

 

I have never seen this adequately dealt with in print. Often people point out the advantages of their approach and pretend the downsides don't exist. Sample question: If, after 1D-1S-1N opener might hold one, two or three spades, under what circumstances does responder, holding a modest hand and some spade length, rebid 2S?

[BillHiggin]

This is such a basic issue that surely high-level partnerships and probably many mid-level partnerships have settled the matter both in how they begin and, importantly, in how they deal in the later auction with the problems created by their initial choices. It doesn't seem to me this is simply a matter of whether you love or hate rebidding 1NT with a stiff. It needs to be a package deal.

 

I have never seen this adequately dealt with in print. Often people point out the advantages of their approach and pretend the downsides don't exist. Sample question: If, after 1D-1S-1N opener might hold one, two or three spades, under what circumstances does responder, holding a modest hand and some spade length, rebid 2S?

Yes, understand the implications with regard to the whole system.

 

As others have pointed out, frequently bidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit works better when opener can often raise the major with 3 card support (and then a checkback is needed for forward going continuations).

 

Those who choose the 1♦ 1♠; 2♣ style need to examine closely the 4th suit implications (how often does a heart fit get lost).

 

I personally like Walsh responses to 1♣ (slight preference for 5542 openings) with full xyz (and responder's reverse flannery). In that context, frequent 3 card raises and rebidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit seem to work well. With a different foundation, a different strategy may work better.

[EricK]

Here's what I hope is an intelligent question.

 

If you have 1-4-4-4 shape, and plan to rebid 1NT over 1♠, why not open 1♣?

Certain competitive auctions require you to bid both minors. The typical example is

 

1m (2♥) X (P)

 

Now rebidding 2NT would be absolutely sick. On top of that, partner has just four spades and there aren't that many hearts left in the deck, so you are extremely likely to have a minor suit fit. So obviously you would rather have opened 1♦ so you can bid 3♣ now rather than the other way around.

But if you have eg a 2434 hand you will (presumably) have opened 1♣, and now you are in the same position. In some ways you are in a worse position as your hand has even less offensive potential. I don't really see why 2NT is much less sick here than if you are 1444. The truth is that if an opening can be a weak balanced-ish hand, a weak distributional hand, or any number of medium strength or strong hands, you are going to come a cropper in some competitive auctions.

[pclayton]

I don't open this hand.

 

Give me another J, and rebidding 1N is fine, but its a style thing. I think this style is consistent with frequently raising pard with 3 spades instead of rebidding 1N. Its also consistent with not auto rebidding 2♠ with a 5 bagger over 1N.

[kenrexford]

This problem is one that is assisted by those of us who only open 1♦ when unbalanced. Sure, there are other problems, but this is a nice auction for us.

 

1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT will show 1444/1453 almost always (with 1354, rebid 2♣). This is a nice inference for Responder, who (1) will not rebid 2♠ unless playable opposite a stiff and (2) can rebid 2♥ to play with great assurance of a fit.

 

1♦-2♥-X-P-? is also not as much of a problem. Opener bids 2NT, pretty much assuring a stiff spade, although 2254 or 3262-type is technically plausible.

[awm]

Elianna and I routinely bid 1nt on hands like this one (okay, we would need another jack or so to open the hand). In fact we alert our 1nt rebids for precisely this reason. A few additional points about this style:

 

Rebidding 1NT with this hand is not the same as "treating 4441 as balanced." I would never consider opening 1NT with this shape. For example, if I open 1NT partner will often bid 3NT with a weak two or three-card holding in spades. This is not likely to be a good result. After 1m-1♠-1nt, partner does not have a weak two or three-card holding in spades so this is not a concern. If I open 1nt, partner will often transfer to spades and pass with a mediocre five-card suit, which is not likely to be a good result. After 1m-1♠-1nt, partner will not rebid spades unless she has six (or a very good five). These auctions really aren't the same -- if I open 1nt partner will expect that I normally have 2-4 spades (occasionally five) whereas when I rebid 1nt four spades is removed from the equation so I'll have 1-3 spades (and in fact I often raise on 3 with a suitable hand).

 

There are effects on the rest of your rebids. Rebidding 1nt with singleton works a lot better if you are willing to raise on three-card support and a balanced hand. If you don't raise on three, partner is somewhat stuck with a moderate five-card major and a weak hand. Opposite three card support from opener, 2M will play substantially better than 1nt. Opposite one card support from opener, 2M will be a lousy contract. On the other hand, the 1nt-rebidding style has a lot of advantages, in particular your minor suit rebids are virtually always six, your 1♦...2♣ sequences essentially guarantee 5♦+4♣, and you don't need to play reverse flannery over 1m because opener's unbalanced hands with 4♥ and minimum values extremely often rebid 1nt over 1m-1♠.

[kgr]

I personally like Walsh responses to 1♣ (slight preference for 5542 openings) with full xyz (and responder's reverse flannery). In that context, frequent 3 card raises and rebidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit seem to work well. With a different foundation, a different strategy may work better.

Or transfer walsh allowing to distinguish 3 and 4 card raise?

[pclayton]

... you don't need to play reverse flannery over 1m because opener's unbalanced hands with 4♥ and minimum values extremely often rebid 1nt over 1m-1♠.

No way Jose. Reverse Flannery is still very important.

 

What if opener rebids 2 minor with 6 minor / 4 hearts after 1♠?

 

Even 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ is a problem auction since responder could be 5-5 and stuck, or opener is 0=4=5=4 and the 4-4 heart fit is buried.

[jdonn]

Here's what I hope is an intelligent question.

 

If you have 1-4-4-4 shape, and plan to rebid 1NT over 1♠, why not open 1♣?

Certain competitive auctions require you to bid both minors. The typical example is

 

1m (2♥) X (P)

 

Now rebidding 2NT would be absolutely sick. On top of that, partner has just four spades and there aren't that many hearts left in the deck, so you are extremely likely to have a minor suit fit. So obviously you would rather have opened 1♦ so you can bid 3♣ now rather than the other way around.

But if you have eg a 2434 hand you will (presumably) have opened 1♣, and now you are in the same position. In some ways you are in a worse position as your hand has even less offensive potential. I don't really see why 2NT is much less sick here than if you are 1444. The truth is that if an opening can be a weak balanced-ish hand, a weak distributional hand, or any number of medium strength or strong hands, you are going to come a cropper in some competitive auctions.

I am not denying that it's a bad position with that shape also, but it's not the same issue.

 

1: When you are 2434 there is nothing you can do about it, when you are 1444 there is something you can do (open 1♦).

2: When you are 2434 you don't have nearly as strong implication of a fit outside as when you are 1444, so the upside to avoiding 2NT is a lot lower.

3: When you are 1444 the opponent may be able to set up and or run spades on you in notrump.