Yet another rebid by opener problem...

[Lobowolf]

Unopposed auction: 1♦ - 1S; ??

 

 

 

♠x

♥KTxx

♦KQ9xx

♣AJx

[mike777]

I would try 1nt but I think it is close.

[Guest Jlall]

If I could only include 1 2m bid in my poll it would definitely not be 2D.

[Lobowolf]

If I could only include 1 2m bid in my poll it would definitely not be 2D.

ok, you caught me...I deliberately left my bid out.

[Guest Jlall]

If I could only include 1 2m bid in my poll it would definitely not be 2D.

ok, you caught me...I deliberately left my bid out.

I slightly prefer 1N over 2C with this hand type FWIW but they are very close to me...I think 2D really sucks but that's me.

[rogerclee]

1NT. I admit I fail to see the closeness of this.

[jdonn]

I hate everything but 1NT because any other bid begs to miss hearts.

[Lobowolf]

My bid is 2C, a call that Max Hardy once told me was "an easy one." I don't know about all that, but I think it's interesting. In the last several years, I've played in two 3-3 club fits when I had a 4-4 heart fit available.

 

This one ties into the question of 5-3 major suit fits, and how you uncover them (when responder has the 5, of course). I deny a singleton or void with my 1NT rebids, leaving responder free to rebid a 5-card major over a 1NT rebid; we're either in a 5-2 fit, which is approximately breakeven with 1NT, or we're in a 5-3 fit, which is superior.

 

The reason I say it ties in is, if the auction:

 

1♦ - 1♠;

1NT

 

might show 3 spades, or it might show a singleton, then responder has the unattractive choice of passing 1NT with a 5-card suit and missing 5-3 fits, or rebidding a 5-card suit and "finding" 5-1 fits. On balance, I find it preferable find bids other than 1NT as opener for that reason.

 

One way to mitigate the 5-3 fit issue is to raise more often with 3-card support, but I'd rather only do that with a singleton in the hand (as opener), or a worthless doubleton. If I have Hx in a side suit, I prefer to rebid 1NT. 5-2 fits play about as well in the suit as they do in 1NT, but 4-3 fits don't, so if you have to "risk" a 7-card fit to find most of your 8-card fits, I think the 5-2 fit is the one to cater to (except when the 4-3 fit comes with a sure ruffing value in the short hand).

[Guest Jlall]

When I first started playing expert standard was 2C, now it has moved to 1N.

[655321]

1NT.

 

This is not at all close for me. By rebidding 1NT you limit your hand, and make the rest of the auction much simpler. In addition, partner knows that when you do rebid 2♣ or 2♦, you have real suits, and these auctions are better. I would not want to lose all this because of a fear of sometimes playing 1NT instead of 2♠ with a 5-3 spade fit.

[crazy4hoop]

Almost makes me want to open this hand 1♥ (I can always say I missorted my hand at live bridge) but of course we'll probably get too high in hearts and partner won't want to play with me again (well, s/he may have other reasons for that but, whatever). I don't really "like" any rebid, but I go with 1NT as the least of all evils in this situation.

[neilkaz]

When I first started playing expert standard was 2C, now it has moved to 1N.

Yes and the same has been told to me by a couple world class friends/authors I spoke to about this a couple years ago.

[Lobowolf]

So do you automatically pass 1NT with your 5-card spade suits as responder?

[mike777]

I would think if you save your 3 card raises for when you have a stiff or a weak doubleton in an unbid suit and add on rarely rebidding 1nt with a stiff you should come out ok.

 

I understand this whole issue has been discussed in depth from at least since Al Roth.

 

I wondered why 2c rebid was not an option.

 

Edit. Roth went to the extreme and never rebid 2c with these type of hands without alot of extras. Therefore he rebid 1nt with a stiff or rebid good 5 card suits very often. As far as I know this never really caught on with other experts at his level let alone int level players.

[kenrexford]

2♣. I'll stay old school.

[CSGibson]

I have to admit I'm leaning toward 2 clubs, and trying to decide if I have enough to bid 2 hearts over the 2 diamond reply next.

[Guest Jlall]

I have to admit I'm leaning toward 2 clubs, and trying to decide if I have enough to bid 2 hearts over the 2 diamond reply next.

umm...you would be like a queen light at least to bid again over 2D from pard.

[CSGibson]

I have to admit I'm leaning toward 2 clubs, and trying to decide if I have enough to bid 2 hearts over the 2 diamond reply next.

umm...you would be like a queen light at least to bid again over 2D from pard.

yeah, I'd probably be willing to do it with another JT in there, too, but you are, of course, right on the money with that evaluation.

[Lobowolf]

I'd be happy enough that partner took a preference to my "real" minor.

[gnasher]

This is a matter of partnership agreement rather than judgement, but I prefer opener to rebid 2♦ with this type.

 

As Lobowolf says, if you allow a 1NT rebid with a singleton you create a problem when responder has a weakish hand with five spades, where he wants to remove to a 5-2 or 5-3 fit but not to a 5-1. It also complicates matters when responder has a good hand with six spades, because you have to cater for decisions about strain as well as level.

 

I've never understood the point of 2♣, which will lose any heart fit unless responder has a game-force, and sometimes leads to a poor or ridiculous 2♣/3♣. If you bid 2♣ and responder gives preference to 2♦, you have gained nothing over rebidding 2♦ yourself.

 

Of course, rebidding 2♦ is also imperfect, in that it too can lead to a 5-1 fit, and will lose the heart fit when responder is less than invitational.

[mike777]

At least on the forum many are playing reverse flannery to not lose hearts. :D

2c pretty much unlimits your hand.

1nt pretty tightly limits your hand.

2d limits your hand but not as much as 1nt and your suit is not that hot.

 

btw I think this is very common problem when opening 11-13 hcp hands with short spades.

1) You open with minimum hcp.

2) You open without the boss suit.

3) You open with a known rebid problem.

[SoTired]

I don't care what Experts say, the idea of rebidding a 3-card suit with a very common hand and possibly ending up in a 3-3 fit seems silly to me. Either rebid your 5-card diam suit or rebid 1N.

 

If not playing RFR and responder is weak, responder can bid 2H over 1N with a 5-4. If responder has only 5s, responder can pass or bid 2S and risk playing in a 5-1 fit. I think responder should usually pass. 1N is reasonable. A 3-3 club fit is not reasonable.

[Guest Jlall]

I've never understood the point of 2♣, which will lose any heart fit unless responder has a game-force, and sometimes leads to a poor or ridiculous 2♣/3♣. If you bid 2♣ and responder gives preference to 2♦, you have gained nothing over rebidding 2♦ yourself.

 

Of course, rebidding 2♦ is also imperfect, in that it too can lead to a 5-1 fit, and will lose the heart fit when responder is less than invitational.

1) Why does 2C lose hearts unless partner is a GF, and 2D lose hearts unless partner is a game invite? If partner bids 2N over 2C you can just bid 3H and find game. I presume you're going to tell me that you play 2H over 2D as inv+ and 2H over 2C as GF, and you do not play 3H over 2C as 5-5 inv, so there are some hands where partner can bid 2H over 2D that will not bid 2N over 2C. I wonder what those hands are, and if you could give an example of it and often it comes up. The truth is hands that bid over 2D with inv values are going to bid over 2C.

 

2) If partner passes 2C you are much more likely to be in a better contract than 2D would have been, I'm not sure why people fail to understand this! People do not pass 2C with 2-3 in the minors pretty much ever, certainly less than 5 % of the time that they have that shape. So if partner passes with equal length then whatever, diamonds may be a little better overall but sometimes clubs will be better, the big gain is when partner has 1-4, or 1-5, or 0-4, or 0-5, and there's also a gain opp 5503. Do you really not agree that if partner passes our 2C bid we have much more likely than not found the right minor?

 

In short, I think 2C rates to get us to the better partial over 2D, and I don't think it does anything to help with the heart issue. I fail to see what advantages a 2D bid offers at all.

[gnasher]

1) Why does 2C lose hearts unless partner is a GF, and 2D lose hearts unless partner is a game invite? If partner bids 2N over 2C you can just bid 3H and find game.

If that's what 3♥ means, you can find a heart fit opposite a 54xx invitation, but only if you're happy to be in game opposite a 5323 invitation.

 

Does 3♥ mean that? If it does, you can't use it as an exploratory move on a 1354 shape, but maybe that's not such a big deal.

 

I presume you're going to tell me that you play 2H over 2D as inv+ and 2H over 2C as GF ...

I assumed these methods when I answered the question. Isn't it more or less standard to play FSF as game-forcing?

 

... so there are some hands where partner can bid 2H over 2D that will not bid 2N over 2C.

No, I wasn't going to tell you that. This conversation might be easier to follow if you found out what my opinions were before trying to refute them.

 

Do you really not agree that if partner passes our 2C bid we have much more likely than not found the right minor?

It will probably be right if he is 1=4 or more clubbier, and probably wrong if he is 2=4 or 1=3 (though in the latter case 2♦ might not be much fun either). I did a quick and dirty simulation (code at the bottom of this message) with these assumptions, and I got:

  2C better   14%

  2D better   10%

  Irrelevant  76%

So, yes, I agree that on hands where we're going to play in two of a minor, 2♣ will gain more often than it loses.

 

Another problem with 2♣ that I mentioned is that it will get you to 3♣ (or 3NT, if you prefer) opposite an xx24 invitation. It can also, of course, create problems when partner has a better hand with club support, but you may get compensating gains by having 2♦ promise six.

 

It seems to me that the 2♣ bid creates more of a problem the weaker you are - if you're strong enough to accept responder's 2NT or 3♣ invitation, it's not that much of a problem, but if you aren't it is.

 

source format/none

south is {2 KT32 KQ932 AJ2}

# Counters
set Clubs_Better 0
set Diamonds_Better 0
set Irrelevant 0

main {
[space]set c [clubs north]
[space]set d [diamonds north]
[space]set h [hearts north]
[space]set s [spades north]
[space]
[space]# North has a 1S response
[space]if {$s < 4 || $h > $s} {
[space] [space]reject
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]# 6+ spades or 3+ diamonds or equal length or 2D + 0-3 clubs
[space]if {$s > 5 || $d > 2 || $d == $c || ($d == 2 && $c < 4)} {
[space] [space]incr Irrelevant
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]# 0-1 diamonds and 4+ clubs
[space]if {$d < 2 && $c > 3} {
[space] [space]incr Clubs_Better
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]# 2 diamonds and 5+ clubs
[space]if {$d == 2 && $c > 4} {
[space] [space]incr Clubs_Better
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]# 2 diamonds and 4 clubs
[space]if {$d == 2 && $c == 4} {
[space] [space]incr Diamonds_Better
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]# 1 diamond and 3 clubs
[space]if {$d == 1 && $c == 3} {
[space] [space]incr Diamonds_Better
[space] [space]accept
[space] [space]}

[space]puts "Unexpected shape: [north shape]"
[space]accept
}

deal_finished {
[space]puts " 2C better [space] $Clubs_Better"
[space]puts " 2D better [space] $Diamonds_Better"
[space]puts " Irrelevant [space]$Irrelevant"
}

[jdonn]

Do you really not agree that if partner passes our 2C bid we have much more likely than not found the right minor?

It will probably be right if he is 1=4 or more clubbier, and probably wrong if he is 2=4 or 1=3 (though in the latter case 2♦ might not be much fun either). I did a quick and dirty simulation (code at the bottom of this message) with these assumptions, and I got:

  2C better   14%

  2D better   10%

  Irrelevant  76%

So, yes, I agree that on hands where we're going to play in two of a minor, 2♣ will gain more often than it loses.

So you (rather painfully I might say) get clubs better than diamonds by a 7-5 margin, assuming you give the advantage of every equal length fit to diamonds? I think you would make an excellent presidential campaign advisor :)