Bid and rebid

[han]

How would you bid this hand:

 

x

AK10x

QJ10xx

AJx

 

If you open 1D, what do you plan to rebid if partner bids 1S?

[gnasher]

I'd open 1♦ and then reverse, hoping that my aces and good diamonds will make up for the deficiency in overall strength. I don't think this is any more satisfactory than the alternatives of opening 1NT, bidding 1♦ then 2♦, or bidding 1♦ then 2♣. Somehow, though, reaching a hopeless game never feels as bad as missing a good one.

[P_Marlowe]

1D.

 

I would make the reverse, but than I belong to

the light reverse brigade, i.e. the reverse does

not promise another bid, an 2S over 2H is

nonforcing.

 

Assuming I would somehow be forced to play a

stronger reverse style, I would bid 2D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ochinko]

1♦, 1NT

 

I don't see a reason to reverse with a misfit in sight. If you swap ♠ and ♣ 1♦, 2♥ would be more appropriate

[fred]

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

 

If I had the same point count, but a singleton honor in spades instead of an x, I would have opened 1NT.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

 

This is a good hand for 4th suit forcing for only one round. Suppose partner raises my 2♣ bid. Since I play 4th suit forcing to game, 3♣ will have a somewhat wide range. I would pass 3♣ but could miss game.

 

With a slightly weaker hand I would rebid 1NT.

[han]

I don't know if it matters to anybody, but I was playing MPs.

[pclayton]

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

 

If I had the same point count, but a singleton honor in spades instead of an x, I would have opened 1NT.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This is my reaction too. I think I have just enough for 2♥ over 2♦, especially with these 10's.

[han]

If you rebid 2C partner bids 2S.

[Apollo81]

If you rebid 2C partner bids 2S.

I'd pass that.

[Edmunte1]

I would rebid 2♦, i think it is the least of evils here

[Codo]

If you are allowed to reverse with 16, I would reverse. The body of the suits is too good for 2 Diamond.

If your border is higher, I bid 2 ♣. To do the same as Fred could be quite a good idea.

[gnasher]

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values.

[Echognome]

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values.

If we held x AKT QJTxx AJxx it would be a wtp hand. We'd open 1♦, rebid 2♣, and then bid 2♥ over a 2♦ preference. I personally like to call this "bidding around the horn" which shows a range from about a K above minimum to minimum reversing strength. So no, I do not think it overstates values. Your agreements may, of course, differ.

 

If we held --- AKTx QJTxx AJxx, I think most would bid 1♦ then 2♣ then 2♥.

 

So that's the hand I'm going to sell it as.

 

Edit: We may also have an awkward 1=4=4=4 with slightly better values. Say we held x AKTx KJTx AJxx, now we would also bid the same way, at least I think we would.

[gnasher]

If we held x AKT QJTxx AJxx it would be a wtp hand. We'd open 1♦, rebid 2♣, and then bid 2♥ over a 2♦ preference.

 

If we held --- AKTx QJTxx AJxx, I think most would bid 1♦ then 2♣ then 2♥.

You may be right about what people actually do on these shapes, but to me it seems undesirable to follow the same sequence with a four-card heart suit as we would with a three-card suit. How is partner supposed to know what to do with a 5=4=2=2 eight-count?

[Echognome]

You may be right about what people actually do on these shapes, but to me it seems undesirable to follow the same sequence with a four-card heart suit as we would with a three-card suit. How is partner supposed to know what to do with a 5=4=2=2 eight-count?

I will readily admit that I'm biased on that by the fact that we play reverse Flannery (so partner would have bid 2♥ over my 1♦ opening to begin with. I suppose if we did not have that gadget it may go:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - ?

 

If partner feels he has enough to force game, then he can try 3♥ and we will find 4♥.

If partner feels he does not have enough for game, then he will bid 2NT and we will play there. I agree that is suboptimal.

[sathyab]

Why is there a need to bid 2♥ when partner takes a preference to 2♦ ? Is it to cater for a reverse flannery hand not strong enough to bid a forcing 2♥ (at least for one round the way most people play) over 2♣ or is it to say you have more than a minimum 5-4 hand? If the former, then, when partner has only four hearts, you're not improving matters much as you'll be playing in a seven card heart fit when you might have had at least as many or more trumps in a diamond contract. If partner took a preference to 2♦ with a 5521 hand of non-invitational strength, introducing hearts now is a winner whether you had a 1453 or 1354 hand. If it's the latter, then why not bid 2nt ?

 

If you play reverse flannery, you can rebid 2♣ and pass partner's preference to 2♦.

[P_Marlowe]

For whats it worth

 

For us 2H in the seq.

 

1D - 1S

2C - 2D

2H

 

is FSF.

 

If it is natural, say 5440, the bid has to show reverse

strenngth, and if this is so, why did partner not bid 2H

the round before?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

For us 2H in the seq.

 

1D - 1S

2C - 2D

2H

 

is FSF.

I too would play that as FSF. So far, I haven't heard much to persuade me that it's better played as natural.

[whereagles]

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

Do you guys ever make reverses that side of the ocean? :blink: 1♦ + 2♥ for me.

[jdonn]

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

Do you guys ever make reverses that side of the ocean? :blink: 1♦ + 2♥ for me.

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

[whereagles]

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

 

http://www.vivavi.com/catalog/images/res/hollow_chair_bamboo_1.jpg

[fred]

For us 2H in the seq.

 

1D - 1S

2C - 2D

2H

 

is FSF.

I too would play that as FSF. So far, I haven't heard much to persuade me that it's better played as natural.

Not sure what you mean by FSF in this context.

 

Are you suggesting that 2H is completely artificial? That you might bid 2H with (say) a singleton just to create a force?

 

That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

The way I think about it, if opener is strong enough to bid again, he makes his most natural bid. So 2H would always suggest at least 3 hearts - without 3 cards in hearts you would have some other more descriptive natural bid available.

 

Maybe 2H shouldn't be considered truly "natural" since you might make this call with a 3-card suit, but at the very least it should be considered "naturalish" in my way of thinking.

 

Should 2H even be considered forcing? One might intuitively think so, but if responder has something like:

 

Qxxxx

QJ10x

Jx

xx

 

don't you think he should be able to Pass 2H if you assume that 2H is a naturalish bid (and if you assume that you would rather get a plus score than a minus score)?

 

So for me, the only thing that is FSF about 2H is that hearts happens to be the fourth suit that was bid - it is neither artificial nor is it forcing.

 

I agree with jdonn that you should Pass a 2D preference with this hand. I also agree with whoever said that, if you are going to bid 2H over 2D, that you might as well bid 2H the round before.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

Hehe yeah, hands that are good enough to reverse are just so rare, I think I held one once.

[MickyB]

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

Hehe yeah, hands that are good enough to reverse are just so rare, I think I held one once.

You have to bear in mind that, for most hands that are actually good enough to reverse, Whereagles has already opened 2♣ :P

 

Oh yeah, the hand -

 

I'd bid 1D then 2D. Don't mind the 2C rebid. Having rebid 2C, making another move over 2D is ridiculous, game is so anti-percentage at this point. I consider a 2H continuation over 2D to be natural NF.