Opener's rebid

[Echognome]

You open 1♣. Partner responds 1♥. You hold one of the following hands. What is your rebid in each?

 

 

1) ♠KJxx ♥Kxx ♦--- ♣AT9xxx

 

2) ♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣KJTxxx

 

3) ♠Kxxx ♥AJx ♦--- ♣QJ9xxx

 

4) ♠xxxx ♥AQx ♦--- ♣AJ9xxx

 

5) ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣AKJTxx

[jillybean]

1. 1♠ 2♥ very close 2nd

2. 1♠

3. 2♥

4. 2♥

5. 2♥ 1♠ very close 2nd

[Gerben42]

1♠. None of the hands is good enough for 2♠.

 

This may sound as a simplification but these hands have too much playing strength for 2♥ and too few trump support.

 

Also both opps have passed, why would they suddenly preempt in ♦?

[Echognome]

1♠. None of the hands is good enough for 2♠.

I don't understand. Of course they're not good enough for 2♠. My question is whether they are good enough for 1♠! Since by bidding 1♠ you are presumably taking another call over, say 1NT, by partner and bidding 2♥. My understanding is that this shows around 15-17 with a default of a 4315 in standard.

 

Edit: As an example, how are you bidding say:

♠AQxx ♥KQx ♦x KQTxx

[andy_h]

1) 2H

2) 1S

3) 2H

4) 2H

5) 2H

[dicklont]

1♠ on all hands.

My next bid will be in hearts, unless partner supports ♠.

[kenrexford]

I don't get it.

 

1♠. Always 1♠.

[Echognome]

I don't get it.

 

1♠. Always 1♠.

Do you always 1♠ with a 4315 no matter whether you are a dead min or a good 16?

 

Suppose you are responder with a 3=5=3=2 9 count. The uncontested auction goes 1♣ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ - ? Are you bidding again?

[karlson]

I agree with gnome's interpretation off immediate 2♥ vs 1♠ followed by 2♥.

 

I think 1, 2, and 5 are all barely good enough, with 1 being the closest. If partner went low by bidding 2♥ on all of them, I wouldn't object.

[the hog]

1) 2H

2) 1S

3) 2H

4) 2H

5) 2H

Agree with all of these bids. Support with support. I don't get always 1S.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't get it.

 

1♠. Always 1♠.

we agree!

[Guest Jlall]

I don't get it.

 

1♠.  Always 1♠.

Do you always 1♠ with a 4315 no matter whether you are a dead min or a good 16?

 

Suppose you are responder with a 3=5=3=2 9 count. The uncontested auction goes 1♣ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ - ? Are you bidding again?

Good thing these hands are 4306 so with weak hands we are going to bid 1C 1H 1S 1N 2C.

[mike777]

You open 1♣.  Partner responds 1♥.  You hold one of the following hands.  What is your rebid in each?

 

 

1) ♠KJxx ♥Kxx ♦--- ♣AT9xxx

 

2) ♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣KJTxxx

 

3) ♠Kxxx ♥AJx ♦--- ♣QJ9xxx

 

4) ♠xxxx ♥AQx ♦--- ♣AJ9xxx

 

5) ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣AKJTxx

one spade all

nothing fancy

 

I assume the partnership agreed to open one club.

[neilkaz]

1♠ on all but 4 where I have no preference between 1♠ and 2♥.

 

1♠ continues the search for a 4-4 fit and I should get to bid again.

[655321]

I was hoping Justin would respond to this thread! :)

 

I also wonder what the correct rebid is, in general, with 4 spades and 3 hearts when partner responds 1♥. i.e. 4324, 4315 shapes too.

 

Usually, I rebid 2♥, but this sometimes (often?) leads to bad results when we play in 2♥ and miss our 4-4 spade fit.

[Guest Jlall]

I was hoping Justin would respond to this thread! :)

 

I also wonder what the correct rebid is, in general, with 4 spades and 3 hearts when partner responds 1♥. i.e. 4324, 4315 shapes too.

 

Usually, I rebid 2♥, but this sometimes (often?) leads to bad results when we play in 2♥ and miss our 4-4 spade fit.

With 4324 I dislike bidding 2H. It seems like 1S is way more likely to get you to the right partscore (2S, 1N, 2C) than it is to get you to the wrong partscore (missing 2H). I won't get into 1N vs 1S on that shape since there are a lot of posts on that, but in general I think people who raise with 4324 really overestimate the chances that playing in a 4-3 fit is better with a balanced hand like that.

 

For game bidding both bids should be about equal, both will get to the right game unless partner has a hand that upgrades for a fit in which case 2H will be better with a 5-3 heart fit and 1S will be better opposite a 4-4 spade fit.

 

For slam bidding 1S should work better since you get to describe your hand at a lower level, but they should be similar.

 

With 4315 you are much more likely to belong in 2H than 1N now even if it's just a 4-3 heart fit. Ideally you will be able to bid 1C-1H-1S-1N-2H with this shape but the problem is there is no way to differentiate an 11 point hand with a 16 point hand (although awm made a post about possibly using 2D for this purpose a long time ago). Because of this the expert standard has been to raise directly with like 11-13ish and go through 1S then 2H with like a decent 14 to 16ish. This sucks when you have the 11-13ish range because you can miss spades but 2H is usually ok.

 

With 4306 if it is a partscore hand you never want to play 1N obviously but you would love to play 2C. Playing your 6 card suit is good on partscore hands, especially if the other option is a 4-3 fit. Also, if it is a slam hand 1S allows you to describe your hand way more accurately since you start lower. Good luck describing 4306 shape after raising to 2H. Also if it is a game hand where you belong in 5C, 2H is often going to be hopeless. Even if you have the methods to show 3 hearts unbalanced and then show short diamonds below 3N, 4306 is a lot different than 4315.

 

Really the only time I would be regretting bidding 1S with 4306 is if partner could game try over a 2H raise (5 hearts, 9 count, or w/e) and we could make that thin game but we would stop over 1C 1H 1S 1N 2C. Even then, those games dont always make. The other time is maybe if partner has 5H and 0 clubs and 2H is better than 2C, but in general I would expect 2C to be a wayyyy better partscore.

 

I do not consider 4306 or 4324 close in terms of raising to 2H.

[inquiry]

1. ♠KJxx ♥Kxx ♦--- ♣AT9xxx
   1♠
   
2. ♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣KJTxxx
   1♠
   
3. ♠Kxxx ♥AJx ♦--- ♣QJ9xxx
   1♠
   
4. ♠xxxx ♥AQx ♦--- ♣AJ9xxx
   2♥ - since this spade suit looks like a three card suiter to me
   
5. ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦--- ♣AKJTxx
   1♠
   

[P_Marlowe]

I don't get it.

 

1♠.  Always 1♠.

Do you always 1♠ with a 4315 no matter whether you are a dead min or a good 16?

 

Suppose you are responder with a 3=5=3=2 9 count. The uncontested auction goes 1♣ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♥ - ? Are you bidding again?

For one thing, you still have the option to bid 2C FSF

in case you happen to hold good 16HCP.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

I do not consider 4306 or 4324 close in terms of raising to 2H.

It's odd but I consider 4306 and 4324 completely different problems.

 

On the former the problem with raising hearts is that you may well be much better in clubs (your suggested auction 1C - 1H - 1S - 1NT - 2C is still concealing the potential heart support).

 

On the latter the issue is (IMO) mainly playing a 4-3 heart fit instead of a 4-4 spade fit. Personally on this 4324s I tend to raise hearts with a 'suity' hand and rebid 1NT with a 'NTy' hand, in the knowledge that because I don't rebid 1S ever on this shape, I am always going to miss a 4-4 spade fit so I might as well play a 4-3 heart fit than 1NT if I think it looks as if it could be right.

[mikeh]

I was hoping Justin would respond to this thread!  :lol:

 

I also wonder what the correct rebid is, in general, with 4 spades and 3 hearts when partner responds 1♥.  i.e. 4324, 4315 shapes too.

 

Usually, I rebid 2♥, but this sometimes (often?) leads to bad results when we play in 2♥ and miss our 4-4 spade fit.

With 4324 I dislike bidding 2H. It seems like 1S is way more likely to get you to the right partscore (2S, 1N, 2C) than it is to get you to the wrong partscore (missing 2H). I won't get into 1N vs 1S on that shape since there are a lot of posts on that, but in general I think people who raise with 4324 really overestimate the chances that playing in a 4-3 fit is better with a balanced hand like that.

 

For game bidding both bids should be about equal, both will get to the right game unless partner has a hand that upgrades for a fit in which case 2H will be better with a 5-3 heart fit and 1S will be better opposite a 4-4 spade fit.

 

For slam bidding 1S should work better since you get to describe your hand at a lower level, but they should be similar.

 

With 4315 you are much more likely to belong in 2H than 1N now even if it's just a 4-3 heart fit. Ideally you will be able to bid 1C-1H-1S-1N-2H with this shape but the problem is there is no way to differentiate an 11 point hand with a 16 point hand (although awm made a post about possibly using 2D for this purpose a long time ago). Because of this the expert standard has been to raise directly with like 11-13ish and go through 1S then 2H with like a decent 14 to 16ish. This sucks when you have the 11-13ish range because you can miss spades but 2H is usually ok.

 

With 4306 if it is a partscore hand you never want to play 1N obviously but you would love to play 2C. Playing your 6 card suit is good on partscore hands, especially if the other option is a 4-3 fit. Also, if it is a slam hand 1S allows you to describe your hand way more accurately since you start lower. Good luck describing 4306 shape after raising to 2H. Also if it is a game hand where you belong in 5C, 2H is often going to be hopeless. Even if you have the methods to show 3 hearts unbalanced and then show short diamonds below 3N, 4306 is a lot different than 4315.

 

Really the only time I would be regretting bidding 1S with 4306 is if partner could game try over a 2H raise (5 hearts, 9 count, or w/e) and we could make that thin game but we would stop over 1C 1H 1S 1N 2C. Even then, those games dont always make. The other time is maybe if partner has 5H and 0 clubs and 2H is better than 2C, but in general I would expect 2C to be a wayyyy better partscore.

 

I do not consider 4306 or 4324 close in terms of raising to 2H.

I agree with all of this, with the proviso that I will rebid 1N with 4324 hands. Otherwise, I could not have said it better.

[pclayton]

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass

?

 

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

 

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

 

Which is better?

[jdonn]

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass

?

 

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

 

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

 

Which is better?

This is what Justin and I played after 1♣ 2+, 1♦ 4+♥s, don't know if it's compatible with you since we played openers 1♥ bid shows exactly 3 hearts and any strength less than game forcing.

 

1♠ = Asking bid for further description from opener, many hands. Opener's rebids essentially natural (1NT = min bal, 2♣ = 3-6 min, 2♦ = 1345ish min, 2♥ 4315ish min, higher is what they sound like)

1NT = 4-4 in the majors, less than invitational, non forcing.

 

Playing that it would be totally automatic for opener to rebid 1♥ on all these hands, next bidding 2♥ if responder followed with 1♠, or the appropriate level of spades if responder followed with 1NT.

[mikeh]

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass

?

 

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

 

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

 

Which is better?

in my T-Walsh approach, 1♥ shows 2 or 3 hearts, and a minimum, balanced or semi-balanced, 1♠ (instead) woulds show 9+ black cards.

 

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ would be natural and non-invitational, catering to opener having accepted the heart transfer with 2-3 hearts, and a balanced hand with 4 spades.

 

1♣ 1♦ 1N shows 18-19 balanced, denies 4 hearts

 

So with the various posited hands, all with long clubs, I'd bid 1♠ rather than transfer, just as I would bid 1♠ rather than ever raise a natural 1♥.

[Echognome]

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass

?

 

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

 

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

 

Which is better?

in my T-Walsh approach, 1♥ shows 2 or 3 hearts, and a minimum, balanced or semi-balanced, 1♠ (instead) woulds show 9+ black cards.

 

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ would be natural and non-invitational, catering to opener having accepted the heart transfer with 2-3 hearts, and a balanced hand with 4 spades.

 

1♣ 1♦ 1N shows 18-19 balanced, denies 4 hearts

 

So with the various posited hands, all with long clubs, I'd bid 1♠ rather than transfer, just as I would bid 1♠ rather than ever raise a natural 1♥.

This is very close to what we play as well. Although I think the balanced or semi-balanced requirement depends on the hand. Well at least it does for us.

 

How are you bidding: AKx Axx x Jxxxxx or AKx K Kxxx Jxxxx after 1♣ - 1♦; ?

 

Question as a follow up for mike and justin. So is the idea then that with a 4306 we show clubs, then spades, then clubs, and only ever show hearts if partner shows 5 or shows a GF? I can live with that.

[Guest Jlall]

Question as a follow up for mike and justin. So is the idea then that with a 4306 we show clubs, then spades, then clubs, and only ever show hearts if partner shows 5 or shows a GF? I can live with that.

yep