Yet another rebid by opener problem...

[Lobowolf]

I deliberately made the club & diamond suits neither overly strong nor overly weak. I think that the advantages to 2♣ over 2♦ are moderate enough that I'd rebid 2♦ if the disparity was overwhelming (e.g. AQJxx vs. Txx).

 

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits. After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

[pclayton]

1N. Agree with the sentiments about 1N replacing 2♣ as the normal rebid.

 

Yes Dan you don't automatically rebid a five card spade suit over 1N.

[655321]

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits.  After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

I don't think these are comparable situations.

Yes, I always transfer to a 5 card spade suit when partner opens 1NT, and I never rebid 2♠ when partner rebids 1NT.

 

But, when partner opens 1NT his possible holdings are :

• 5 spades (unless you exclude these too)
  
• 4 spades
  
• 3 spades
  
• 2 spades
  

and he won't have a singleton spade.

 

When partner rebids 1NT his possible holdings are:

• 3 spades (only those hands unsuitable for a 3 card raise)
  
• 2 spades
  
• 1 spade (sure, if your 1NT rebid denies a singleton this doesn't apply)
  

so you already know that many (I agree, not all) of the winning hands for spades are no longer possible, making the decision not to rebid 2♠ pretty easy.

[benlessard]

If opener often raise with 3♠ support then responder will often pass 1Nt holding 5S . So this make rebidding 1Nt with a singleton more attractive.

 

PS

If you play some unbalanced diamond system the responses i suggest are.

 

1D---1S

???

 

1Nt = clubs

2C= 6D or D+H reverse

2D = D+H NF non-reverse strenght

2H = weak or GF S raise

2S = intermediate raise.

2Nt + GF

 

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

Agree and i think 2D is a beginner bid.

[Lobowolf]

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits.  After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

I don't think these are comparable situations.

Yes, I always transfer to a 5 card spade suit when partner opens 1NT, and I never rebid 2♠ when partner rebids 1NT.

 

But, when partner opens 1NT his possible holdings are :

• 5 spades (unless you exclude these too)
  
• 4 spades
  
• 3 spades
  
• 2 spades
  

and he won't have a singleton spade.

 

When partner rebids 1NT his possible holdings are:

• 3 spades (only those hands unsuitable for a 3 card raise)
  
• 2 spades
  
• 1 spade (sure, if your 1NT rebid denies a singleton this doesn't apply)
  

so you already know that many (I agree, not all) of the winning hands for spades are no longer possible, making the decision not to rebid 2♠ pretty easy.

It's true that the most beneficial situations don't apply; however, it's probably an extremely small percentage of the time when you open 1NT with a 5-card major that partner also has a 5-card major. I'd guess 75% of the time partner opens 1NT and you have a 5-card major, he's got either 2 or 3, but that's completely off the top of my head.

 

Simulations I've run indicate that if you knew the 1NT opener didn't have a 4-card spade suit, it would still be beneficial to transfer into your 5-card spade suit. It's a clear gain when partner has 3, and about a wash when partner has 2.

 

 

Phil - I do routinely rebid the 5-card major with partners with whom I have the agreement that 1NT denies a singleton. I've found the situations where it's advantageous to come up much more often than ones where it's disadvantageous.

 

Granted, the more often you raise with 3 as opener, the less benefit you get out of being able to comfortably rebidding the 5-card major.

 

I get the occasional awkward hand (which even then isn't necessarily a bad board), but after 1m - 1M:

1. I never end up in NT with some cheesy 4-opposite-1 suit that doesn't stop very well.

2. I never end up in a 5-1 major suit fit.

3. I never miss a 5-3 fit.

 

5-2 fits break about even.

 

The downside is, rarely I introduce a 3-card minor, and rarely I rebid a 5-card minor (when the long minor is clubs, obviously introducing the other one isn't an option). Occasionally, that results in a missed heart fit, but it's very rare.

[benlessard]

I think knowing if it MP or imps is pretty important here. Obviously at Mp you should strive to play 1Nt instead of 2m.

 

1m----1S-----1Nt------???

In Mp its clear that rebidding 2S with 5S is a winner but in imps 1Nt is probably safer if partner can have a stiff.

[gnasher]

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 :wacko:

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength.

[Guest Jlall]

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 :P

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength.

Yes but your post/simulation does not account for the fact that in the cases where clubs is better than diamonds that you allow for, clubs will be MUCH better. There is a bigger difference in playing the 4-3 rather than the 5-1 as opposed to the 5-1 and the 3-3, especially "when you don't have that many HCP." There is a much bigger difference when you find a 5-3 also.

 

To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit.

[gnasher]

To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit.

I've already accepted, because of the results of my simulation, that 2♣ is better for getting you to the right two-of-a-minor contract. That's what I meant when I said

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

My subsequent comments were a response to some rather ungracious criticism of the method I used to reach this conclusion.

 

You haven't, however, convinced me that this is sufficient reason to prefer 2♣ over 2♦ when opener is minimum. As I've already said, there are still two disadvantages to bidding 2♣ on this shape:

- In order to be able to find a heart fit, opener has to bid 3♥ after 1D-1S; 2C-2NT, thus getting too high when responder doesn't have four hearts, and possibly also when he does.

- If responder raises to 3♣ with a 4324 or 5224 shape, we are probably in the wrong partscore at the wrong level.

[Guest Jlall]

- In order to be able to find a heart fit, opener has to bid 3♥ after 1D-1S; 2C-2NT, thus getting too high when responder doesn't have four hearts, and possibly also when he does.

You mean you would prefer to pass a 2N bid with this hand? Didn't occur to me, I would have thought this is easily enough to accept a game invite so I wasn't really worried about this factor.

 

- If responder raises to 3♣ with a 4324 or 5224 shape, we are probably in the wrong partscore at the wrong level.

 

Ok, but I think that partner will sometimes be raising 2D to 3D with a doubleton as well getting you to the wrong partscore when that happens also. I think of these situations as a wash.

[gnasher]

You mean you would prefer to pass a 2N bid with this hand? Didn't occur to me, I would have thought this is easily enough to accept a game invite so I wasn't really worried about this factor.

No, this hand is OK, because it has enough to accept the invitation. It's only a problem when you have the same shape but are too weak to actually want to accept the invitation.

[kenrexford]

If opener often raise with 3♠ support then responder will often pass 1Nt holding 5S . So this make rebidding 1Nt with a singleton more attractive.

 

PS

If you play some unbalanced diamond system the responses i suggest are.

 

1D---1S

???

 

1Nt = clubs

2C= 6D or D+H reverse

2D = D+H NF non-reverse strenght

2H = weak or GF S raise

2S = intermediate raise.

2Nt + GF

 

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

Agree and i think 2D is a beginner bid.

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

 

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣. Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453 or 1444 shape. That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

[dburn]

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 :)

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength.

Yes but your post/simulation does not account for the fact that in the cases where clubs is better than diamonds that you allow for, clubs will be MUCH better. There is a bigger difference in playing the 4-3 rather than the 5-1 as opposed to the 5-1 and the 3-3, especially "when you don't have that many HCP." There is a much bigger difference when you find a 5-3 also.

 

To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit.

I am not sure which of 1NT, 2♣ or 2♦ is likely to result in the best partscore for our side - the arguments by Jlall and gnasher are interesting. To me, 1NT seems obvious because it is the least lie, and if our best partscore happens to be 2♥, the only way I can get there is to bid 1NT now. More sophisticated players would already have got there by responding 2♥ in the first place (a very common treatment among European experts, showing a weakish hand with 5+-4+ in the majors) but I am not a sophisticated player.

 

Of this I am sure, though: if I rebid 2♣ and partner happens to have a very good hand, I have done something very bad indeed for our side by showing nine cards in the minors when in fact I have nine cards in the red suits. Opener's rebid with a minimum hand should, in my view, not be a wilful distortion of opener's shape for no good reason, especially when (as in this case) it runs the risk of burying a 4-4 major-suit fit.

[gnasher]

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

 

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣. Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453 or 1444 shape. That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

True, but by using 1NT to solve this fairly rare problem you give up one of the major constructive benefits of playing an unbalanced diamond, which is that you can use 1♦-1M-1NT to show 3-card support.

[kenrexford]

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

 

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣.  Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453  or 1444 shape.  That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

True, but by using 1NT to solve this fairly rare problem you give up one of the major constructive benefits of playing an unbalanced diamond, which is that you can use 1♦-1M-1NT to show 3-card support.

I'm not that impressed, myself, with that idea. I understand that many love this method. It is just not for me.

[Winstonm]

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

Yeah, well when I started playing we simply opened 1H - what problem? :blink:

[shevek]

2♣, since 1NT = 15-17

[awm]

Definitely 1NT for me. This has the nice effect of limiting the hand, and I have pretty good methods over opener's 1NT rebid (as do many people) to handle game force and invitational hands. Not to mention that we find 2♥ when partner is weak.

 

One problem no one has mentioned is responder hands like:

 

♠Axxx

♥xx

♦xx

♣Kxxxx

 

This hand is a pretty easy pass (or maybe club signoff) after 1♦-1♠-1NT, and a pretty easy pass after 1♦-1♠-2♦. But I think this hand is worth an invite over a 2♣ rebid by opener, because opener could have 5-5 in the minors (in which case it really doesn't take much to make 5♣ on the ten card fit) or opener could have as much as 17-18 high (in which case 3NT probably cold).

 

Opposite the actual opener hand, after 1♦-1♠-2♣-3♣ you are getting a bit high, and while this partial is okay several people indicated that they are accepting the invite (obviously a good move opposite 11 hcp with 4♣, maybe not such a great move opposite this hand though).

 

My point is that I don't really think it's a wash on invitational hands. I suspect that rebidding 2♣ is a loser on invitational hands (because partner will misjudge the value of a prime hand with club length), and it may also be a loser on game forcing hands (how will you persuade partner that 6♣ on the suppoesd 4-4 fit is a poor contract). On hands where the best contract is a partscore, rebidding 2♣ is better than 2♦ most of the time but rebidding 1NT seems superior to both.

[sathyab]

Definitely 1NT for me. This has the nice effect of limiting the hand, and I have pretty good methods over opener's 1NT rebid (as do many people) to handle game force and invitational hands. Not to mention that we find 2♥ when partner is weak.

 

Int makes it easier to handle sign-offs in other suits, but what about sign-offs in spades ? A hand like KQTxx Qxx xx xxx, over 1♦-1♠-1nt is an easy 2♠ bid if partner doesn't rebid 1nt with a stiff spade. Do you have methods to handle this hand knowing that partner can easily have a stiff spade or is that the trade-off you're willing to make ?

[Guest Jlall]

Definitely 1NT for me. This has the nice effect of limiting the hand, and I have pretty good methods over opener's 1NT rebid (as do many people) to handle game force and invitational hands. Not to mention that we find 2♥ when partner is weak.

 

Int makes it easier to handle sign-offs in other suits, but what about sign-offs in spades ? A hand like KQTxx Qxx xx xxx, over 1♦-1♠-1nt is an easy 2♠ bid if partner doesn't rebid 1nt with a stiff spade. Do you have methods to handle this hand knowing that partner can easily have a stiff spade or is that the trade-off you're willing to make ?

BTW a common misconception is that you cannot rebid 2S with 5 if your partnership can rebid 1N with a stiff... I would definitely rebid 2S with your example hand and it's not close. You have a good hand for a 5-1 even (just score 4 trump tricks), and you have a bad hand for 1N (non runnable spades, likely no entry).