what's your bid?

[rbforster]

Playing 2/1 or Std American, you respond 1♠ to partner's 1♥ opening. What's your call after partner's 2♦ rebid?

 

[hv=d=&v=&s=st7xxxhxdxcak8xxx]133|100|1♥-1♠

2♦-?[/hv]

[cherdano]

2H, nothing else would occur to me.

[han]

I'm with cherdano here.

[Guest Jlall]

yep, 2H. Btw I strongly agree with 1S here.

[goodwintr]

And I strongly disagree with 1S. Playing 2/1 not forcing to game, or forcing to game unless responder rebids his suit, I vote for 2C, then 3C. (If 2C is forcing to game, you have a problem. You might "solve" it via 1NT, then 3C.) That 1S is awful is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot stand any rebid except a spade raise. (Well, you might survive if opener rebids 2C . . . .)

[cherdano]

And I strongly disagree with 1S. Playing 2/1 not forcing to game, or forcing to game unless responder rebids his suit, I vote for 2C, then 3C. (If 2C is forcing to game, you have a problem. You might "solve" it via 1NT, then 3C.) That 1S is awful is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot stand any rebid except a spade raise. (Well, you might survive if opener rebids 2C . . . .)

You can stand a spade raise, you can stand 2N, you can stand 1N, you can stand 2C, you can stand 2H. Only 2♦ is ugly.

[Guest Jlall]

That 1S is awful is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot stand any rebid except a spade raise. (Well, you might survive if opener rebids 2C . . . .)

Could not disagree more.

 

1S works better than 1N if:

 

1) Partner is going to raise spades (and doesn't have the values to reverse). This includes a lot of 3541 shapes, as well as hands with 4 spades.

 

2) Partner is going to make a "delayed raise" in spades, with extra values in 3S. IE, we still win if it is going to go 1H-1S-2D-2H-2S.

 

3) If your plan over a 2H rebid is to bid clubs I think that is wrong. If that is the plan 1S will work better when 2H is our best contract. If you are going to pass 2H then your 1N bid caters only to a 2D rebid from partner and seems silly.

 

4) We have a 5-3 spade fit and partner is going to rebid 2N. We can find our fit now, but if we had bid 1N we cannot.

 

1S will break even with 1N when:

 

1) partner has a 1N rebid over a spade or a 2C rebid. In either case we can reach clubs.

 

2) Partner can reverse in spades.

 

3) Partner is going to jump.

 

1N is better than 1S only when:

 

3C is a better contract than 2 red and partner is going to rebid that.

 

It seems like a small target to aim for, and when you're right you win a partscore swing. Missing 5-3 and some 5-4 spade fits will lead to losing game swings which is a disaster.

 

Even when you get to bid 3C, sometimes partner will bid 3 red anyways if they are very shapely. I know people love to show how smart they are by bypassing spades to bid 1N, and it is a valid concept with something like 4 spades and 7 clubs, but you are just losing way too much doing it with 5 spades.

[ArtK78]

I have a lot of sympathy with 2♣ followed by 3♣ (assuming that 2♣ is not game forcing). It is an unambiguous sequence which describes your hand reasonably well, and is wrong only when partner has a good spade fit. Opposite a marginal spade fit, Txxxx is not going to play well.

 

As for the argument that the 1♠ bid is only ugly when partner rebids 2♦, I would bet that, holding this hand, partner is going to rebid 2♦ about 11 times out of 10. Joking aside, partner is far more likely to bid 2♦ over 1♠ than any other call.

 

If you are playing 2/1 game forcing, you have no choice but to bid 1♠.

[jdonn]

As for the argument that the 1♠ bid is only ugly when partner rebids 2♦, I would bet that, holding this hand, partner is going to rebid 2♦ about 11 times out of 10. Joking aside, partner is far more likely to bid 2♦ over 1♠ than any other call.

2♦ may be the most likely bid, but it is not close to as likely as the entire combination of times that 1♠ works better. I can't see how this could even be a debate, 1♠ seems obvious.

[Guest Jlall]

And on a subset of the hands where partner rebids 2D you still win by having bid 1S (partner bids 2S over 2D), and some of them you break even (partner bids 2N or would have bid 3D/3H over 3C and does that over 2H).

[Fluffy]

I've seen this hand or one very similar 3 or 4 times already, and there is always people who claim they wouldn't bid 1♠.

 

On the other hands I disagreed with 1♠ because it left you bid-less WHOEVER bid 2♦. because 2♦ is gonna be bid, you just don't knwo who will do it.

 

 

here we have an easy double if LHO bids it, so 1♠ is ok.

[helene_t]

A similar problem came up in the Dutch BF's bridge knowledge test, the one you need to pass to be admitted to the training for the highest TD qualification. (Admittedly the hand had only four spades, and six diamonds). The question was phrased

a) what's the systematic bid with this hand?

B) the principle of preparedness might suggest a different bid, which one is that?

 

The funny thing was that the year after, my bridge partner took the test, and then there was a question about the meaning of

1♥-1♠

1N-2♦*

 

The answer was that it's weak with long diamonds. But the year before they suggested not bidding like that with such a hand :)

[whereagles]

I'm gonna bid 2♠. This might turn out to be worse than 2♥, but 2♥ isn't going to be a good spot anyway...

[ralph23]

And I strongly disagree with 1S. Playing 2/1 not forcing to game, or forcing to game unless responder rebids his suit, I vote for 2C, then 3C. (If 2C is forcing to game, you have a problem. You might "solve" it via 1NT, then 3C.) That 1S is awful is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot stand any rebid except a spade raise. (Well, you might survive if opener rebids 2C . . . .)

2♣??? Well..... some players obviously have a lot more imagination than I do !! :)

[rbforster]

In retrospect, it seems like this hand will evaluate to be either very good or very bad depending on if partner has a fit for us. Unfortunately it's more likely partner will have a misfit for us with either hearts and diamonds, or just hearts. Passing initially (instead of 1♠) seems like a big position to take, especially at IMPs or when partner's could have a very good hand, since 4♠ or 3N could make with a spade or club fit respectively.

 

Suppose partner's 1♥ opening had been a limited bid (in precision say 11-15 points). Would anyone be considering passing 1♥ then?

[keylime]

Failing to bid a spade here, is hanging your partner and frankly cause for partnership dissolution.

 

There are so many reasons here to bid a spade:

 

1. If you do NOT bid a spade, and decide to pass - LHO gets a free shot at the pot. Bidding a spade will deny LHO's potential 1S balance / sandwich NT / Raptor 1NT overcall and you're not going to get hung if pard jump shifts. Playing a limited bid system, it's even MORE paramount to bid a spade to try to steal the hand.

 

2. If you rightly decide to bid, but instead decide to bid 2C, how are you going to show a minimum over pard's 2D rebid? Pard may take 2S as a better hand than you really own.

 

3. If you bid 1NT, you're not playing bridge. We're going to torture pard into playing 1NT playing SAYC, and throw him curve balls if they jump rebid. What if they bid 2nt? How'd you like that 1NT bid now when you might be ice cold for six clubs/spades instead?

 

4. If you bid a spade, you can handle pard's jump rebid. Pard knows you have something over there and if they hold a 3-6-x-x hand they're much better set in the auction.

 

So if pard rebid 2D, I'll rebid 2H. I'm no worse off now, than if I would have passed, and I am better off versus a scary 2C call.

[han]

Suppose partner's 1♥ opening had been a limited bid (in precision say 11-15 points). Would anyone be considering passing 1♥ then?

I wouldn't, and at least at IMPs it seems really wrong.

[Guest Jlall]

Suppose partner's 1♥ opening had been a limited bid (in precision say 11-15 points). Would anyone be considering passing 1♥ then?

no, never.

[P_Marlowe]

As others already said:

 

2H now.

 

And 1S is the only reasonable bid,

any other bid is mastermining at best,

and if partner did it, I would use stronger

words inwardly, they may burst out, in

case partners action turned out bad.

 

We have a 5 card suit, and unless 1 NT

is forcing, we dont have a realistic

chance of introducing clubs.

But if we bid 1S, partner may bid 2C with

only 3 clubs in case he opened a strong NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Suppose partner's 1♥ opening had been a limited bid (in precision say 11-15 points).  Would anyone be considering passing 1♥ then?

Firstly, I have no experience with such a system.

But I would say, pass becomes an option, but

it may heavily depend on your 2-level openings

as well.

Espesially if he had the option to open a 2-suiter

with 54 in the mayors, because in this case the

chances that you have an spade fit drops.

 

with kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

I don't think 1NT, intending to eventually bid 3♣ later, is a bad strategy. I agree it's a pessimistic bid because it only caters for the worst-case-scenario (a 2♦ rebid by opener), but that scenario has a reasonably high chance of occurrance, so 1NT isn't nuts. On the contrary, it shows the player has the ability to think instead of numbly follow rules.

[ArtK78]

Assuming that you are playing 2/1 game forcing, bidding 1NT followed by 3♣ is essentially the same thing as what I suggested - bidding 2♣ followed by 3♣ when you are not playing 2/1 game forcing. Even though my suggestion got virtually no support, I don't feel that it is an unreasonable choice on this hand.

[whereagles]

Well, you do have some support from me. But that might not necessarily be a good thing... lol.