How do you play this one...

[benlessard]

In "classic" standard its 100% not forcing. The reason was that a 1Nt rebid showed a stopper or xxxx. 2H with 3 and 2C with any 5 suit were possible.

 

However i believe that 2D forcing might be better than a 2D non-reverse. Especially if you open 1D all 4-4 minors hands.

[Lobowolf]

However i believe that 2D forcing might be better than a 2D non-reverse. Especially if you open 1D all 4-4 minors hands.

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

[benlessard]

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

[Lobowolf]

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;

2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

[jdonn]

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;

2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT....

[benlessard]

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT

You will find a lot of very good players (mostly over 50) that for them rebidding 1Nt without a stopper or with a stiff is unthinkable. All im saying was from the "classic standard" point of view.

 

Me i dont remember having some terrible boards with opening 1C with 4-4 in the m and rebidding D after a neg X but at the same time i see that playing 2D as a reverse is probably superior.

[Lobowolf]

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;

2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT....

I agree; I was just commenting on the supposition from the earlier post for people that promise a stopper with 1NT.