Bidding with 4-3-3-3 shape

[ArcLight]

Jdonn and Jlall commented on a different thread about rebididng 1NT rather than showing a 4 card major with a 4333 hand. (this is rebididng 1NT on the 2nd bid, not opening 1NT)

The bidding was 1m - 1Z - with a choice of 1NT or 1M with a 4333 shape and 13 HCP.

 

I think Ron Klinger also advocates rebididng 1NT and not shoing the 4 card major.

 

1 - What are your criteria for bidding 1NT on the 2nd round?

- HCP total

- HCP quality

- which 4 card major

 

When would you not bypass the 4 card major?

 

 

If playing Walsh you know that after 1♣-1♦ responder lacks a 4 card major, unless he has a big hand and will bid again. But what about 1m - 1♥ -? when holding 4 spades?

[helene_t]

Always rebid notrump with 4333 and (almost) always with 4432. If playing 4-card majors, open the major with 4M4m to avoid the dilema (among other reasons).

[Gerben42]

Agree with this, but playing Polish ♣ you must bid 1♠. Partner will know you have a weak NT already and is allowed to rebid ♥ with 5 cards.

[hrothgar]

Agree with this, but playing Polish ♣ you must bid 1♠. Partner will know you have a weak NT already and is allowed to rebid ♥ with 5 cards.

Sadly, my copy of Matula is packed away from the move, but as I recall, there were some hands with 3 Hearts and 4 Spades where a 1♥ rebid was recommended.

[jdonn]

I agree with always rebid nt with 4333, very strongly, in any style. As for 4432 it depends on the hand and style is more of a factor, but I almost always rebid 1♠ with 4 spades and a 4 card minor after 1m 1♥. After a 1♦ response I'm much more likely to rebid 1NT.

[mikeh]

I am amongst those who routinely rebid 1N after 1 minor 1♥ whenever I hold a balanced hand, of the appropriate range, and regardless of spade length.

 

There are a number of reasons for it, to the point that my opinion is that any player who uses this style for any significant period of time is unlikely to return to up-the-line bidding, even if they were initially sceptical.

 

The main downside is that we miss a 4-4 spade fit when partner is 4=4 or 4=5 in the majors and is unable to move over 1N.

 

So we are discussing hands that are in the partscore realm.

 

As against that, rebidding 1N on balanced hands has NO impact on the ability to find the 4-4 spade fit on game-going or better hands... especially if one plays some version of 2 way new minor (an essential tool, imo)

 

And, having rebid 1N, opener has conveyed some potentially valuable information to responder, compared to a 1♠ rebid. A 1♠ rebid, for up the line bidders, is extremely wide-range in terms of hcp (could be an ugly 18 for example) and shape (could be 4333 or 4342 or 4243 or 4=0=7=2 or 5=2=6=0, etc).

 

Even more powerful is the information given by the 1N rebidders when they do in fact rebid 1♠ instead. We promise an unbalanced hand, which is helpful to repsonder in many ways. Say the auction has been 1♣ 1♥ 1♠, and responder has a weak 2=5=3=3 with no diamond stop (and often with a diamond stop). If opener could be 4333, what is responder to do? Bidding 2♣, assuming not xyz (this is the main reason I don't use xyz), gets to a 3-3 fit, but if opener is 4=2=2=5, 1N may be horrible while the 5-3 club fit is ideal. And, when game or slam are in the picture, knowledge that opener is shapely will often help responder gauge the appropriate level of enthusiasm, not to mention help to count tricks and judge denomination accurately.

 

And even the obvious downside of missing the 4-4 spade fit partscores are not always bad. I convinced a traditionalist friend of mine to try this approach. Almost immediately, the auction went 1♦ 1♥ 1N. We missed a 4-4 spade fit and, when dummy came down, he said, in a sarcastic tone... a triumph for the method!

 

We made 7 tricks and everone in 2♠ went down :angry: Now, this is rare, and the reality is that the usual result will be that 2♠ will be superior, but usual is not always, and there are a host of other upsides I have not mentioned (the opps defence to notrump when declarer has a 4 card spade suit, the opps' problems with balancing when opener could have 4 spades and so on)

[dake50]

I think this goes to basic bidding theory. Which bids/rebids will be ambiguous to allow the others to be clear? I much prefer many clear (re)bids, a few ambiguous to always unclear bid/rebid.

Eg. 1m-1H-1S is UNbalanced. Ambiguous 1NT allows checkback if desired.

I like 'got RIGHT stuff' immediate. 'Might have GOOD stuff' if/when I show it next.

[Guest Jlall]

There have been like 27428 posts on this, I think mikeh has written enough to publish a book :P

 

Anyways, I only bypass with 4333 except in some kind of exceptional circumstances.