An occasional position

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=saqthak2d6cqj7543]133|100|Scoring: BAM[/hv]

 

                     P

1♣   P   1♦     P

  ?

 

Quite decent sixteen high card points with 3-3-1-6 distribution. Six card suit headed by th QJ7 isn't so much strong. Have you any bid to avoid misdescribe th hand? I bet you have more suitable bids than mine.

 

Good luck! :P

[mtvesuvius]

3♣ for me, NF, 16-17 HCP describes my hand well IMO. I'd like to have a little better clubs, but nothing is perfect.

[skjaeran]

I'm not jump rebidding that suit, so I'l go low with 2♣.

[jdonn]

I slightly prefer rebidding 2♣. A 1♥ rebid is also possible, it will work very well if partner doesn't raise, and hopefully well if partner does raise. And offbeat as it is and knowing I can justifiably be lambasted for it, I don't think opening 1NT is THAT bad...

 

But I wouldn't.

[Free]

2♣: the suit is poor and I don't think this is worth an upgrade to 3-level

[kfay]

I slightly prefer rebidding 2♣. A 1♥ rebid is also possible, it will work very well if partner doesn't raise, and hopefully well if partner does raise. And offbeat as it is and knowing I can justifiably be lambasted for it, I don't think opening 1NT is THAT bad...

 

But I wouldn't.

This kind of brings to mind a hand that I played last night. I think I must have been Qxx Axx AKQxxx x. I considered opening this hand 1NT because I didn't relish either 1♦-1M-3♦ nor 1♦-1M-2M. In the end I opened 1♦. But obviously my suit is way better here... but then again maybe that's more of an argument for opening 1NT? I don't know.

 

On the hand in question I'd bid 2♣.

[whereagles]

3♣ for me, NF, 16-17 HCP describes my hand well IMO. I'd like to have a little better clubs, but nothing is perfect.

My thoughts exactly. Shape & strength should always take precedence over location of high cards.

[ASkolnick]

Playing WK NT, I rebid 1N.

If not, I bid 2C.

[Edmunte1]

I prefer 2♣ on this position, 3♣ should promise a better suit

[rogerclee]

2C for sure.

[JLOL]

I kinda want to bid 2N but I can't, so 2C I guess. Really unhappy about it though.

[dake50]

Will partner pass a 10+count over 2C? So missing 3NT? Or angle to 3NT when 6C on? Neither seems likely over 2C. 2C is best for ending in the right spot. Maybe 2C ends on his 6-count. The auction I fear is partner 14+ and won't see slammy. Can I strong enough rebid after 2C limits my hand's top to 15 +/-? Yup. 2C is ambiguous rebid just for the weak suit 16-17, poor controls(not here)16-17,

[awm]

3♣ for me.

 

There are basically two issues on this hand:

 

(1) What is the overall strength of the hand? Can rebidding 2♣ cause us to miss a good game, or rebidding 3♣ cause us to bid a bad game? What are the relative odds of these possibilities?

 

(2) How "dangerous" is rebidding 3♣ if partner has a bad hand with no fit?

 

I think a lot of people overrate point (2). Most of the time partner will have a couple of clubs, and even if they are two little we rate to be quite safe. Even if partner has short clubs, a great deal of those times partner is bidding something over 3♣. And sometimes opponents clubs divide evenly and we're basically fine.

 

As to point (1), it's certainly true that adding the club ten and nine (for example) would make this hand a lot better. But K+R (which weights suit quality pretty heavily) evaluates this hand to be comparable to:

 

Jxx AKx x AQJ9xx

 

I think most of us rebid 3♣ on that fifteen-count with a strong suit? Given the frequency with which people open ten-counts with six clubs at the one-level these days, I don't think it's best strategy to make the same (very non-forcing) rebid with 10 points and 16 points.

[Lobowolf]

Will partner pass a 10+count over 2C? So missing 3NT? Or angle to 3NT when 6C on? Neither seems likely over 2C.

I imagine a more likely danger would be partner passing a 7-8 count that makes 3NT (e.g. KJxxx of diamonds, and Kx of clubs), particularly as our majors are so strong, there's a good chance he won't have a stopper in either unbid suit.

 

This is not to say that 2♣ isn't correct; just that the risks of missing a game are more plausible than you suggest. All of the bids have their risks, though. I'm actually getting more and more tempted by Josh's 1♥ bid.

[jdonn]

As to point (1), it's certainly true that adding the club ten and nine (for example) would make this hand a lot better. But K+R (which weights suit quality pretty heavily) evaluates this hand to be comparable to:

 

Jxx AKx x AQJ9xx

 

I think most of us rebid 3♣ on that fifteen-count with a strong suit? Given the frequency with which people open ten-counts with six clubs at the one-level these days, I don't think it's best strategy to make the same (very non-forcing) rebid with 10 points and 16 points.

I rebid 2♣ on your example hand. BTW does K&R know partner responded in our singleton?

[Fluffy]

I'd bid 3♣, I always rebid 3m thinking about playing 3NT, and althou clubs aren't good, the overpower in the unbid suits seems to compensate the tempos we will lose stablishing them.

 

1M followed by 3 clubs also sounds interesting.

[H_KARLUK]

I voted for 2N.

 

I admit not a suitable one. I just thought that hand does've a lot of playing strength. So 1NT rebid would be a slight underbid, perhaps th right strain. Then I preferred to try luck factor with 2NT in Board a Match if there's a part score. It might easily go wrong. I did not see bright alternatives at that moment. Bcos it seemed me th club suit doesn't worth rebidding especially for three clubs - weak :) We won that board. But my p criticised me mercilessly: "don't you really wonder th quality of th opposition? 2NT is not so awkward?"

 

I sincerely appreciate for all nice inputs.

 

Hamdi

 

ps. When i asked her opinion she said "just 1♥ fine" :) Seems she liked to talk about th old hats!

[mtvesuvius]

I don't like 2NT because it misdescribes your hand strength and your distrubution. I see that I'm in the minority by bidding 3♣, however rebidding ♣ despite the fact that it's BAM, bidding clubs will usually get you to a better contract in the long run. A 1NT rebid is a huge underbid, and 2NT is certainly understandable, but it really doesn't describe your hand.

 

 

As for your partner's comment... 1♥ is not an option imo. :)

[jdonn]

As for your partner's comment... 1♥ is not an option imo.  :)

I'm actually still not convinced 1♥ isn't the best option. Do you disagree that it will tend to work well when partner doesn't raise hearts? Do you disagree that it will at least sometimes work well when partner does raise hearts?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of lying about suit lengths, especially in a major where we might end up playing there if I bid it. But it's no more misdescription than most of the other suggestions, is very low to leave us maximum manuvering room, and does a much better job of showing 'where we live' than any other call.

 

Heck I'm this close to talking myself into it. :)

 

(Final note - I believe I have never in my life rebid a three card major on an auction like this.)

 

(Final final note - The fact that 2NT was the chosen rebid at the table does lend a little credence to opening 1NT. At least it gets the strength right!)

[H_KARLUK]

Rehi my friend Mtvesuvius :)

 

I could not help myself at that moment. It seemed to me that th hand is too strong. Th wrong shape for 1NT, also ♣ were bleak to justify a warped jump for 2NT. But it was BAM and i decided to catch a best part score wildly.

I thought if th worse will comes to th worst when partner insists on to play in what she believes to find a 4-4 or 4-3 when i bid 1 ♥ to stand well for a raise. ♥ AKx good enough maintaining control. But i changed my mind quickly.

 

Now my special thanks for you. Maybe you meant "In th long term" with your "in the long run" words. If she can't trust nexts then i'm in trouble.

 

Well i never believed to bid a 3 card Major rebid like she recommended unless completely not avoidable.

 

Warm regards

Hamdi

[InTime]

:unsure: Well. . . I am playing Walsh with my partners where we will respond 1M rather than 1♦ (minors are for children) with a 5-card diamond + 4-card major unless having a reverse type of hand. So I will respond 1♥ (showing 4 hearts & 5+ clubs), leaving the consequent bidding open. If partner happens to have an opening hand with 4-hearts and 5-diamonds and raise me to 4♥, I will not feel that uncomfortable with a 4-3 fit (probably no tolerance for clubs anyway). With a combine 28+ pts we should be in game somewhere. I feel that 1♥ is just as wrong as all the other bids, but leaves me more room and is less of a lie :rolleyes:

However, if we do play bidding-up-the-line, I will not respond 1♥.

Being an over bidder rather than an under bidder, I will then bid 3♣.

Regards

[mtvesuvius]

As for your partner's comment... 1♥ is not an option imo.  :rolleyes:

I'm actually still not convinced 1♥ isn't the best option. Do you disagree that it will tend to work well when partner doesn't raise hearts? Do you disagree that it will at least sometimes work well when partner does raise hearts?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of lying about suit lengths, especially in a major where we might end up playing there if I bid it. But it's no more misdescription than most of the other suggestions, is very low to leave us maximum manuvering room, and does a much better job of showing 'where we live' than any other call.

 

Heck I'm this close to talking myself into it. :unsure:

I'm sure rebidding 1♥ will work sometimes here, but I don't think that it is ever good to lie about your suit lengths unless it's unnecessary, and there are certainly other options here. The real problem I see is when partner Jump-Raises ♥...

[Phil]

I like the comment about Walsh.

 

If pard never raises hearts, we are much better placed than a 2 or 3♣ rebid.

 

If we rebid 1♥ and pard raises to 2, this usually shows three card support and contructive-ish values. We can extract ourselves easily enough to 3N and pard won't hang us.

 

If pard has an opening hand with 4H+ diamonds, we might be in a little hot water but,

 

1. Its BAM and pard might respect our 3N decision

2. We might have slam somewhere