What should the rebid be?

[vuroth]

Besides this, he may have a mere 4333 or 4243 and belongs to the millions out there who bid their 4 card spade suit instead of simply rebidding NT with a 4 card major.

 

Holding a 12-14 4243 hand, you open 1♦ and partner responds 1♥.

 

What do you bid now, 1♠ or 1NT?

 

If 1NT, how do you find a 4/4 spade fit?

 

Does SAYC vs 2/1 make a difference?

 

Thanks.

 

V

[Walddk]

I bid 1♠ with some partners, 1NT with the rest. It's a matter of agreement, and both approaches are playable. Personally, I prefer to bypass a major to show my hand type and range. If you must rebid 1♠, you could have a variety of hands, 4-4 included.

 

The advantage of bypassing the major is that your partner knows you're unbalanced if you rebid 1♠. The disadvantage is that you can't play in a spade partial (with a 4-4 fit) when responder is weakish. If he has at least invitational values, he can check back for a 4-4 fit.

 

Whether you play this or that metod, I don't think it has anything to do with system you use; merely a matter of agreement.

 

Roland

[han]

Agree with Roland, this is just a matter of agreement and has little to do with what system you use. I always bid 1S unless I have 4333 distribution. I don't think this method is clearly superior to bidding 1NT but it is easy to have a guideline so that I don't have to waste time and energy thinking about it at the table.

[pclayton]

It is a matter of agreement, but, 1) in the US and, 2) we are playing strong NT's, 1♠ is mandatory unless the hand is 4=3=3=3.

 

If anyone thinks this sequence has anything to do with Walsh, prepare to be flamed.

[hrothgar]

I've had very different agreements with different sets of partners

 

As I understand matters, Tim and I have agreed that a 1♠ rebid could be made on a flat hand (4243, 4333, or some such). However, both of us seem comfortable exercising judgement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tim were to rebid 1N with a 4=2=4=3 hand with 5432 in Spades...

 

In other partnerships, the 1S rebid promised an unbalanced hand

[Wackojack]

This divide in methods does get me wondering which is superior. Or are they roughly equal and you do whatever makes you feel most comfortable? I have the feeling that knowing 1m-1h-1s is unbalanced is not sufficiently large benefit for the cost of foregoing playing in a part score 4-4 spade fit. Pehaps at imp scoring it is not so important, but at match point you want to give yourself the chance of the best score. This is just a feeling. Worse still, say after 1c-1h-1nt-pass, then opps come in with 2♦. You cannot reach a 2♠ 4-4 fit +110 and if you defend against 2♦ you are likely to be looking at -90.

 

As I said this is just a feeling and I am willing to be convinced that bypassing the 4 card spade suit with a balanced 12-14 is at least as good or better than not doing so.

[helene_t]

The defense is made slightly more difficult by opps not knowing if declarer has four spades when he rebids 1NT.

 

Also if you don't like opening 1NT with 4252 and 15-16 points and it starts

1♦-1♥

1♠-1NT

it is nice to know that 1NT is positive since responder could have taken a preference to ♦ with 5-7 points. So it's safe to make a game try.

 

Those are quite marginal issues I suppose. It is possible that bidding 1♠ is technically better, at least at matchpoints. I prefer to bypass in order to make the follow-ups to fsf preciser/simpler. I don't have strong opinions about it though.

[Finch]

Whether you play this or that metod, I don't think it has anything to do with system you use; merely a matter of agreement.

In England, you rebid 1NT (unless you opened 1S in the first place).

In France, I believe you rebid 1S.

Pclayton says that in the US you rebid 1S.

 

Online? Who knows

[vuroth]

Whether you play this or that metod, I don't think it has anything to do with system you use; merely a matter of agreement.

In England, you rebid 1NT (unless you opened 1S in the first place).

In France, I believe you rebid 1S.

Pclayton says that in the US you rebid 1S.

 

Online? Who knows

Online? 2♣, 3NT and pass all spring to mind...

 

:)

 

:lol:

 

V

[P_Marlowe]

#1 1S, if I bid 1NT, I bury the spades, no way to

recover, a matter of judgement.

 

#2 No idea, but in this case responder has to bid

spades, if he happen to have a 4 card suit,

assuming 1NT is the system bid.

 

#3 In SAYC 1S is clear, in 2/1 I would say, depends

but in general 1S is also clear as well.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: For B/I players I would recommend they stick

with 1S.

[Walddk]

#1 1S, if I bid 1NT, I bury the spades, no way to

recover, a matter of judgement.

I don't bury the major unless responder is weak. If invitational or better, she can check back for a 4-4 fit if the agreement is that it's systemic to bypass a major. So, in some instances it is indeed possible to recover.

 

Roland

[Lobowolf]

It is a matter of agreement, but, 1) in the US and, 2) we are playing strong NT's, 1♠ is mandatory unless the hand is 4=3=3=3.

 

If anyone thinks this sequence has anything to do with Walsh, prepare to be flamed.

Particularly given that this thread is in the B/I forum, it's worth elaborating a little on the importance of the distinction between the auction:

(I should note that I'm in the same geographic area as Phil, FWIW)

 

1♦-1♥;

?

 

 

 

and

1♣-1♦;

?

 

 

The first auction doesn't say anything about whether responder has 4 spades or not; even if he did, he'd bid hearts first. So if you're interested in locating a spade fit, you'd better bid spades now; if partner has a weak hand, 1NT will probably end the auction.

 

In the second auction, it's very common practice to skip over a diamond suit to show a 4-card spade suit, with a weak hand. Therefore, the 1♦ bid suggests that there's a very good chance that either responder doesn't have a spade suit, or will be strong enough, if he does have a spade suit, to show it over 1NT. So as opener, it's ok to skip spades to rebid 1NT. There are inferences available from the 1♦ bid on the second auction that aren't available from the 1♥ on the first auction, even though the two appear similar.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 1S, if I bid 1NT, I bury the spades, no way to

    recover, a matter of judgement.

I don't bury the major unless responder is weak. If invitational or better, she can check back for a 4-4 fit if the agreement is that it's systemic to bypass a major. So, in some instances it is indeed possible to recover.

 

Roland

I agree, #1 described the agreement I play,

but if you have the agreement to always bypass,

than you will / should have agreements to find the

4-4 anyway, see #2.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

This is a matter of agreement. I prefer to bid my spades when I have them. A few points about this:

 

(1) Bidding the spades tends to be a big winner at MP scoring. This is because you can play in 2♠ (or 1♠ when partner is weak) instead of 1NT. This is rarely a big difference in score, but it can easily be +110 instead of +90 or the like. This advantage tends to matter less at IMPs.

 

(2) I've actually won a number of boards by rebidding 1♠ instead of 2NT. The reason is that if partner is passing my 2NT rebid it is often a lousy contract. I would much rather play in 1♠. The fact that a lot of people respond to 1m on garbage these days means that a pass of the 1♠ rebid (or 2NT rebid) is not as rare as one might think. This actually pays off a lot even at IMPs, as I get to play 1♠ making for +80 instead of 2NT failing for -50 or -100.

 

(3) There is a slight advantage in game or slam bidding associated with letting the 1♠ rebid show an unbalanced hand. For example it is easier to determine if you have a big minor suit fit. However, your auction is typically so low and you have the ability to establish such a cheap game force (via fourth suit over 1♠ or 2-way NMF over 1NT) that I'm not convinced this benefit is all that big a deal. You could easily relay out opener's entire hand regardless of your agreement about one-level rebids if you played such methods.

[skjaeran]

I'd rebid 1♠ in any partnership we open 1♦ on that hand. This might lead to some trouble later on in GF+ sequences. But I strongly prefer to be able to find the spade fit on partscore hands.

[mikeh]

It is a matter of agreement, but, 1) in the US and, 2) we are playing strong NT's, 1♠ is mandatory unless the hand is 4=3=3=3.

 

If anyone thinks this sequence has anything to do with Walsh, prepare to be flamed.

Partnerships in the US are allowed to have their own agreements.

 

Virtually all US partnerships, in a std or 2/1 approach usually open 1♣ with 4333, and the OP asked about 4243, on which the usual opening is 1♦.

 

There are some pretty good players who believe in being allowed to rebid 1N after 1♦ 1♥ on balanced hands with 4 spades (by definition, 4=2=4=3 or 4=3=4=2), and to state that rebidding 1♠ is 'mandatory' is just plain wrong.

 

You may disagree with it. You may argue that it misses some 4-4 spade fits. I will agree with that point... but we all systemically miss certain 4-4 major suit fits in all 5 card major methods with which I am familiar... except some variants of a big club system in which an opening 1N denies a 4 card major.

 

I strongly prefer the 1N rebid on all balanced hands, and I have played it in the US, and announced it, without any director call. I know a number of fine players, with significant international experience, who believe in this approach.

 

I will agree that this issue has nothing to do with walsh.. so what?

[mike777]

Besides this, he may have a mere 4333 or 4243 and belongs to the millions out there who bid their 4 card spade suit instead of simply rebidding NT with a 4 card major.

 

Holding a 12-14 4243 hand, you open 1♦ and partner responds 1♥.

 

What do you bid now, 1♠ or 1NT?

 

If 1NT, how do you find a 4/4 spade fit?

 

Does SAYC vs 2/1 make a difference?

 

Thanks.

 

V

one spade and I do not know how you find spades if you rebid 1nt if partner has less than invite and 4-4 in majors or 5h and 4s in the B/I forum.

[NickRW]

Playing IMPs, I would prefer 1N to show balance and strength, 1S to show unbalanced shape personally. The disadvantage of missing a few spade fits would be a price worth paying I think.

 

Playing MP - well - I don't like 5 card majors/strong NT right from the outset - the possibility of missing 4/4 spade fits being among the reasons.

 

Nick

[awm]

Playing IMPs, I would prefer 1N to show balance and strength, 1S to show unbalanced shape personally. The disadvantage of missing a few spade fits would be a price worth paying I think.

 

Playing MP - well - I don't like 5 card majors/strong NT right from the outset - the possibility of missing 4/4 spade fits being among the reasons.

 

Nick

This is an interesting comment, because a weak notrump based system is likely to miss a lot more 4/4 spade fits than a strong notrump system. The most common way to miss a major fit is to open 1NT and have partner pass. Playing weak notrump, you will open 1NT much more often, and when you do open 1NT partner is a bit less likely to have the high cards to act.

 

There are perhaps compensating advantages to the weak notrump (and additional disadvantages besides missing major suit fits as well) but I would not say that the possibility of missing 4/4 spade fits is a reason to select weak notrump over strong!

[the hog]

1NT for me. I have discussed this sort of sequence with Autralian theorist and international, Ron Klinger, many times. His argument is that you treat a balanced hand like a balanced hand iow you bid 1NT on these hands. What you lose on the swings you more than gain on the roundabouts.

[NickRW]

Playing IMPs, I would prefer 1N to show balance and strength, 1S to show unbalanced shape personally.  The disadvantage of missing a few spade fits would be a price worth paying I think.

 

Playing MP - well - I don't like 5 card majors/strong NT right from the outset - the possibility of missing 4/4 spade fits being among the reasons.

 

Nick

This is an interesting comment, because a weak notrump based system is likely to miss a lot more 4/4 spade fits than a strong notrump system. The most common way to miss a major fit is to open 1NT and have partner pass. Playing weak notrump, you will open 1NT much more often, and when you do open 1NT partner is a bit less likely to have the high cards to act.

 

There are perhaps compensating advantages to the weak notrump (and additional disadvantages besides missing major suit fits as well) but I would not say that the possibility of missing 4/4 spade fits is a reason to select weak notrump over strong!

Your comment is fair and I put the point I was trying to make poorly. You're right that playing weak NT puts you effectively in the same sort of position as someone playing 5cM with a strong NT who then elects to skip showing spades in favour of rebidding 1N with a weak NT type opener.

 

What I should have said is that electing to play 4cM and playing it in the more modern style of opening the higher ranking suit except 4/4 majors kicks some of the possibilities of losing a 4-4 major fits into the long grass. This would be so regardless of whether you play it with a strong or weak NT - though I wouldn't like to play it with a strong NT and also have 2/1 with less than at least invitational values (as in either Acol or SAYC style). This somewhat pre-emptive style of choosing what to open seems more than playable at MP - but I am dubious as to whether it would be much good for IMPs.

 

Nick

[mike777]

1NT for me. I have discussed this sort of sequence with Autralian theorist and international, Ron Klinger, many times. His argument is that you treat a balanced hand like a balanced hand iow you bid 1NT on these hands. What you lose on the swings you more than gain on the roundabouts.

1) for B/I I got to believe this is the least of the issues of "why we lose" :) We lose for so many other basic issues. :)

2) I would be surprised that 1nt is really "significant winning bridge at wc level" compared to other wc issues. :)

[the hog]

1NT for me. I have discussed this sort of sequence with Australian theorist and international, Ron Klinger, many times. His argument is that you treat a balanced hand like a balanced hand iow you bid 1NT on these hands. What you lose on the swings you more than gain on the roundabouts.

1) for B/I I got to believe this is the least of the issues of "why we lose" :) We lose for so many other basic issues. :)

2) I would be surprised that 1nt is really "significant winning bridge at wc level" compared to other wc issues. :)

I didn't say its significant, Mike. I'd be very surprised if this were the case. I think it makes bidding far easier to know what hand type partner has.

 

Look at the hand that prompted this thread:

x xxxxx xx AKJxx

If you "know" that pd 5D and 4S, I strongly contend, despite the overwhelming comments from the sans cullotes, that your rebid should be 2D. 1NT is not poor, but 2D is better. There is very likely to be a heart hole in a NT contract. If Pd does happen to be 4254, then playing 2D in a 5-2 fit will not hurt either.

[MickyB]

I prefer rebidding 1NT. I like to know whether opener is balanced, and I prefer methods where unbalanced hands tend to show and balanced hands tend to listen.

 

It's important to have a checkback method that lets you find your 4-4 fit when responder has 4S5H weak.

[mike777]

"Look at the hand that prompted this thread:

x xxxxx xx AKJxx"

 

 

 

 

I grant I rebid 1nt after:

 

 

1d=1h

1s=1nt

 

but then I expect the opp to have more hcp than us very often on this auction. :)

 

opener is not 4=2=5=2 with 14+ hcp and if alot more passing.

 

in any event if not significant........in B/I.....I will try and improve on other auctions and play. :)