Style issue?

[MickyB]

My partner and I disagree on what these two hands should rebid playing 2/1 GF (reverses show extras)

 

[hv=d=s&s=saxxxxhxxxdakqcxx]133|100|1♠:2♣

??[/hv]

 

[hv=d=s&s=saxxxxhxxxdakqcxx]133|100|1♠:2♣

??[/hv]

 

He feels they should both rebid 2NT - the former because 2♠ denies an unbal hand, the latter because you need better spades to bid them twice.

 

I feel that both hands should rebid 2♠, the former because 2NT is likely to wrong-side no-trumps, the latter because it is unbalanced.

 

Are both styles reasonable?

Is one of them standard?

Which is your preference?

[inquiry]

I would not bid 2NT with either of them.

 

On the first one, i would bid 2♦, on the second, I don't have many hcp, but I have a great hand in support of clubs. Normally my 3♣ raise shows a better hand, but here i would raise to 3♣ happily.

[jdonn]

2NT??? On the second one??? In what way is that not a psych?

[awm]

I think there are plenty of hands which should rebid 2♠ without a sixth spade, including a lot of 5332 hands (especially if the two is two small and not in clubs).

 

2♠ is okay on these hands, although I'd be very tempted to bid 2♦ on the first. On the second hand it depends on exactly how much extra you want for 3♣.

[brianshark]

As far as I understand... there are 2 main styles for rebidding over a 2/1 GF bid. The first is that 2♠ is an automatic catch-all bid and 2NT or any reverse or minor suit raise shows extras. The second style is that 2NT shows a minimum balanced hand, 2♠ always shows extra length and you should bid your side 4-card suit, which includes raising a minor to the 3-level or reversing with a minimum.

 

Playing the first style, then your bid is an automatic systemic 2♠ with both hands (unless you judge the 2nd hand being worth the extras to bid 3♣ which I don't but some do I guess).

 

Playing the second style, on hand 2 you should raise to 3♣s. On the first hand, your systemic bid is 2N but it wrong-sides NT so if you want to lie a little to avoid this, I think 2♦ is your best way to do so.

 

Your apparent style is somewhere in between. By making some side-suit bids as showing extra strength, you are making some hands with only 5♠s impossible to bid therefore diluting the purity of your 2♠ rebid. Therefore in this style 2♠ just promises either a 6th spade OR an unbiddable 4-card suit (ie. an unbalanced hand). Protests about the ♠ suit being too weak are irrelevant because if you can't bid 2NT because you aren't balanced or a side-suit because it would show extras then you have to rebid ♠s on whatever rubbishy 5-card suit you have.

 

Whatever style you play is fine, as long as you know which it is.

[mikeh]

I would bid 2N with neither.

 

On the first, I think the best bid is probably 2♦, but I wouldn't criticize a 2♠ bid.

 

On the second, while most (including me) play that a raise to 3♣ shows extras... well... I HAVE extras in support of clubs. This is a heck of a hand, especially if partner is short in spades. I really don't like a style where I am supposed to NOT raise with AQJx when I have no other remotely descriptive call.

 

And the very concept of rebidding 2N on this hand suggests that partner has almost no clue as to how to bid.

 

Imagine responder with x Axx AJx Kxxxxx

 

Is there anyone in the world who, playing a normal 2/1 style, would not raise to 3N??

 

And is opener supposed to pull 3N to 4♣ on a hand 'too weak' to raise to 3♣?

 

If your partner says 'yes', ask him how much sense that makes opposite Qx Qxx AKx Kxxxx.

[gwnn]

I think they both need to rebid 2♠. 2NT by opener should promise 5332 with stops, (maybe very bad 4 carder in a 5422) end of discussion.

[paulg]

I suggest you both read Lawrence's 2/1 Workbook and then decide which style you wish to adopt.

 

Paul

[david_c]

I know these hands: Mike meant to say that the response on the second hand was 2♦. So 2NT isn't a psyche :)

 

I bid 2♠; maybe it is a style issue but I wouldn't like to be playing a style where you bid 2NT.

[Finch]

See This thread for the discussion of this point.

 

It's just a matter for partnership agreement what the 'catchall' rebid for opener is on a minimum hand. If you play that reverses show extra values and that rebidding your major shows 6, you have to bid 2NT. If you play that rebidding 2NT shows extras (because you play weak NT or because you don't like to open 1NT with a 5CM) then you have to rebid 2M or play something artificial.

 

The latter is what is sometimes called 'Acol style' rebids: 2NT shows extras, new suit at the 3-level shows extras, so all minimums have to rebid 2M.

[pclayton]

I like 2♦ on the first. We would like to avoid declaring NT here. AKQ looks like a 4 card suit to me.

 

3♣, like Mike says, looks right on 2. Opposite short spades, this is a monster dummy for clubs. Opposite spade support, we have a double fit.

[han]

I never psyche a 2NT rebid.

[Apollo81]

I think it's really funny how different 2/1 styles are around the world, even among good players.

 

Around here people play rebidding the major shows 6, so the book bids would be 2NT with the first one and 3♣ with the second one, but I think most experts would bid 2♦ with the first one. That's what I'd do.

 

If the OP intended to say that 2♦ was the response on the 2nd one, the book bid around here would be 2NT and I'd bid that without a 2nd thought.

[ArtK78]

I think it's really funny how different 2/1 styles are around the world, even among good players. 

 

Around here people play rebidding the major shows 6, so the book bids would be 2NT with the first one and 3♣ with the second one, but I think most experts would bid 2♦ with the first one.  That's what I'd do.

 

If the OP intended to say that 2♦ was the response on the 2nd one, the book bid around here would be 2NT and I'd bid that without a 2nd thought.

The "book bid" with the first one would be 2♦.

 

I cannot see bidding 2NT with xxx of hearts.

 

And the idea of bidding 2NT on the second one with a small singleton diamond is ugly beyond words (maybe not beyond words, but certainly beyond words that I would use in this forum). If 3♣ is not a permissible bid in your methods (and it certainly should be) then the only real choice is 2♠. The next best choice would bid 2♥. 2NT does not appear on my radar screen unless it is an artificial call.

[pclayton]

I never psyche a 2NT rebid.

Only 2N openings...

[Apollo81]

I think it's really funny how different 2/1 styles are around the world, even among good players. 

 

Around here people play rebidding the major shows 6, so the book bids would be 2NT with the first one and 3♣ with the second one, but I think most experts would bid 2♦ with the first one.  That's what I'd do.

 

If the OP intended to say that 2♦ was the response on the 2nd one, the book bid around here would be 2NT and I'd bid that without a 2nd thought.

 

The "book bid" with the first one would be 2♦.

 

I cannot see bidding 2NT with xxx of hearts.

 

And the idea of bidding 2NT on the second one with a small singleton diamond is ugly beyond words (maybe not beyond words, but certainly beyond words that I would use in this forum). If 3♣ is not a permissible bid in your methods (and it certainly should be) then the only real choice is 2♠. The next best choice would bid 2♥. 2NT does not appear on my radar screen unless it is an artificial call.

(1) No, the "book" in my area says that suits actually show 4+ cards in that suit and 2NT is the default rebid for problem hands. Obviously 2♦ is a better call but it is not the "book" bid since the "book" only refers to hand strength, suit length etc w/o regard to honor location.

 

(2) Did you realize I was referring to "if the response was 2♦" Raising clubs is obvious.

[han]

I never psyche a 2NT rebid.

Only 2N openings...

I don't think that I have ever psyched a 2NT opening tbh.

[awm]

People really play 2NT as the catch-all? This is sort of wow... say you have:

 

♠AKxxx

♥xx

♦Kxxxx

♣x

 

If you don't open this, add a jack or two until you get a minimum opening bid. 1♠-2♥ and you really bid 2NT? Or is 3♦ automatic on a 5-5 regardless of values?

[jdonn]

I think it's really funny how different 2/1 styles are around the world, even among good players. 

 

Around here people play rebidding the major shows 6, so the book bids would be 2NT with the first one and 3♣ with the second one, but I think most experts would bid 2♦ with the first one.  That's what I'd do.

 

If the OP intended to say that 2♦ was the response on the 2nd one, the book bid around here would be 2NT and I'd bid that without a 2nd thought.

Learning to play bridge in the DC area is kind of like.... what is the right analogy.... learning to speak English in the USA then going to live in England? You know what I mean. It is so clear to me that rebidding the major should not promise 6 that I cringe at the thought.

[ArtK78]

I think it's really funny how different 2/1 styles are around the world, even among good players. 

 

Around here people play rebidding the major shows 6, so the book bids would be 2NT with the first one and 3♣ with the second one, but I think most experts would bid 2♦ with the first one.  That's what I'd do.

 

If the OP intended to say that 2♦ was the response on the 2nd one, the book bid around here would be 2NT and I'd bid that without a 2nd thought.

 

The "book bid" with the first one would be 2♦.

 

I cannot see bidding 2NT with xxx of hearts.

 

And the idea of bidding 2NT on the second one with a small singleton diamond is ugly beyond words (maybe not beyond words, but certainly beyond words that I would use in this forum). If 3♣ is not a permissible bid in your methods (and it certainly should be) then the only real choice is 2♠. The next best choice would bid 2♥. 2NT does not appear on my radar screen unless it is an artificial call.

(1) No, the "book" in my area says that suits actually show 4+ cards in that suit and 2NT is the default rebid for problem hands. Obviously 2♦ is a better call but it is not the "book" bid since the "book" only refers to hand strength, suit length etc w/o regard to honor location.

 

(2) Did you realize I was referring to "if the response was 2♦" Raising clubs is obvious.

1) I would respond 2♦, book or no book. If pressed, I would say that I had a heart mixed in with my diamonds.

 

2) Sorry about that - I didn't see what you were getting at regarding your statement about a 2♦ response instead of a 2♣ response. Bidding 2NT over a 2♦ response is clear UNLESS it denies a singleton diamond. Then you are back to rebidding your Jxxxx of spades (or bidding 2♥ on KJx).

[skjaeran]

2NT??? On the second one??? In what way is that not a psych?

If it's the systemic rebid with this hand it's no psyche. Of course it's alertable.

 

I've tried that style once, and won't suggest you play like that.

[Cascade]

I bid 2♦ on the first one and raise to 3♣ on the second one.

 

If in fact the first response was 2♦ then I raise with the first hand and bid 2NT on the second hand.

[Yogeshdg]

As per lawrence the 1st hand should rebid 2♠(not promising 6spades and unlimited hand). I like 2♦ rebid but technically it does promise a suit and unless my pd and me have an agreement that 2♦ can be 3 cards i am really not that keen on a 2♦ rebid! You can also rebid 2nt (12-14) but as someone mentioned not advisable with no values in ♥.And if responder had responded 2♦ instead of 2♣ think you can continue in same fashion by bidding 2♠ as 3♦ should again be extras.

 

 

 

The second hand is an undisputable 3♣ rebid showing 4♣ and extras.

[the hog]

2S on the first one as I don't bid non existent suits. The second is worth 3C, even playing that it shows extra values.

[benlessard]

2Nt as catch all is dubious, you will wrongside too many 3Nt contract.

 

anyway its a 2D and 3C wtp for me what ever style we are playing.