Rebid Major or 2nt

[skjaeran]

Easy 2NT rebid for me, 12-14 balanced with stoppers in the unbid suits. Lacking a stopper I'd rebid 2♥, which is a catch-all for hands not fitting any other rebid. Btw, I strongly prefer to split the NT-ranges and rebid 3NT with 18-19.

[bid_em_up]

I am in a game forcing auction.  I have a balanced hand with values in every other suit than partner's suit.

 

I bid 2NT.

 

What am I missing?

And now for a completely different view.

 

Maybe the fact that you actually have support for partners suit?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to raise with 3 small in this sequence and by failing to do so partner can never evaluate his hand/fit properly.

 

Partner tends to promise a 5+ card suit for his bid (granted there may be some hands where he only has 4, but then he also likely has a delayed raise for your major if that is the case). If he had opened 1H or 1S, you would have absolutely no problem raising on XXX. Now all of the sudden, just because he makes a g/f bid in a minor, there is some valid reason where XXX is no longer considered to be support? Puhleeze.

 

Raise partners suit for cryin' out loud. Your auctions become much simpler after this.

 

And while it may be the "common treatment these days" to rebid 2H or 2N, personally, I think that it is a bad treatment.

 

jmoo.

[whereagles]

Raise partners suit for cryin' out loud. Your auctions become much simpler after this.

That's fine in theory but, unfortunately, raising pard's suit is one of the most space-consuming bids available. Hence, it should only be used when it carries extra information, e.g. extra values or shape.

 

If you could support by bidding the next step (an interesting agreement, btw), then it would be a no brainer :)

[jdonn]

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

 

- You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.

- You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.

- I disagree with the comparison to majors. If you are going to play in the suit then it doesnt matter. But when we are a balanced minimum with xxx of partner's minor, we are probably not going to play in the suit.

- If the auction heads toward slam, there is all the time in the world to show some diamond support. If it doesn't, then what have you gained?

 

Honestly you made a few claims but didn't give reasoning to support any of them. How do you think raising partner on xxx simplifies the auction, especially considering it's the most space consuming action? Why do you think rebidding 2NT on a balanced minimum is a bad treatment? How do you think raising partner on this holding will help him evaluate his hand properly?

[bid_em_up]

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

Does it make it more complicated than having to decide whether to rebid 2H or 2N with this hand? I don't think so. I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid. Quite easy to me, in fact.

You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.

Do you really want to play 3N with only Kx as a stop in clubs? Or Qxx in spades? Partner did not bid 1S over 1H, so he also has 3 or fewer spades (unless of course he is 4♠/5♦+). In either case, again, do you really want to play 3N? If partner cannot bid 3N himself over 3D, it is likely that you don't belong there anyway (imo).

You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.

More than denying a fit at all? I don't think so. More than lying about the length of your major suit (if you choose to rebid 2M)? Again, I don't think so. At least if he knows he has some degree of fit, he can better judge slam potential, 3N or 5m, immediately.

If the auction heads toward slam, there is all the time in the world to show some diamond support. If it doesn't, then what have you gained?

And now you are on the four level at least, one level higher than you would have been had you initially shown support. Wouldn't you prefer to start cuebidding a level lower if possible? And even if you show support at this level (4), how will he know that it is actual support and not just some forced preference on what could be 2 cards?

How do you think raising partner on xxx simplifies the auction, especially considering it's the most space consuming action?

Why do I think it simplifies the auction? It shows support immediately. That alone is enough of a reason for me, but...

 

See the previous paragraph about space consuming. Now you will be at the 4 level showing support when you could have done it a level lower.

 

It frees up the 2M rebid to actually show a 6 card suit. It releases the 2N bid to show a hand that actually doesn't have support for partners suit (3-5-2-3).

 

If you think that you gain more by having to make a false rebid of 2M or 2N and you can "make up the difference later", more power to you (and others). But I fail to see what, if anything, this "gains" you. Either bid is a semi-lie and misleads partner as to the true nature of your hand.

 

I prefer the accuracy obtained later in this auction or in other auctions than to 'make up' an inadequate choice for this hand.

 

I stated up front that it was an entirely different view. I know that the raise to 3m would not be the choice of many. However, it is what I find works best with this hand type, for me anyway. I'm certainly not asking you to agree with me, nor would I expect you to, nor would I ever attempt to try to convince you or any other non-partner that they should play it this way.

 

:)

[hanp]

OK I've had it with all these posters that claim that their pet style works well for them. So easy to say and impossible to check. In your case I just don't believe that you have kept track of the hands where you raised partner on such a hand and got into trouble because partner didn't know you had balanced crap with stoppers in both unbid suits, or raised to 3D on a nice 3541 shape and missed a slam or better game because partner didn't expect a real raise or you felt forced to bid higher because your 3D bid wasn't encouraging enough.

 

If you do keep track of your results with these entirely-different-view raises then please tell me and I will apologize.

[bid_em_up]

OK I've had it with all these posters that claim that their pet style works well for them. So easy to say and impossible to check. In your case I just don't believe that you have kept track of the hands where you raised partner on such a hand and got into trouble because partner didn't know you had balanced crap with stoppers in both unbid suits, or raised to 3D on a nice 3541 shape and missed a slam or better game because partner didn't expect a real raise or you felt forced to bid higher because your 3D bid wasn't encouraging enough.

 

If you do keep track of your results with these entirely-different-view raises then please tell me and I will apologize.

And I...

 

really don't give a ***** what you think.

 

How about them apples??

[hanp]

Well that's very unfortunate, I had a slight hope that you would post links to a large number of deals where your partner was able to deal with your style of raises.

[jdonn]

I'm with han, it's frustrating. I mean, do I respond to each individual point you made, which leads to one of those never-ending nitpicky discussions where finally someone just gives up? My instinct was not to, but I'm going to try until I get bored with it.

 

You say raising partner would simplify the auction, but you don't say why. I can think of several ways it makes the auction more complicated.

Does it make it more complicated than having to decide whether to rebid 2H or 2N with this hand? I don't think so. I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid. Quite easy to me, in fact.

What does "I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid." mean here? I don't even know what you mean by 'my hand', you have a minimum, you have a five card major, and you are balanced, which aspect of that are you getting off your chest with this bid that wasn't already off your chest? Or is "hand" just a redundancy for "support" and you said the same thing twice? As for getting your support off your chest, that is backwards logic. Of course if you think raising partner only promises xxx then by raising him you get your xxx off your chest. And of course if you think it promises better than xxx then you are getting support that you don't have off your chest. In other words, that statement doesn't support your argument, rather it follows from your argument.

 

You have no room to work out black suit stoppers. If partner doesn't have heart support, there is only one bid available below 3NT.

Do you really want to play 3N with only Kx as a stop in clubs? Or Qxx in spades? Partner did not bid 1S over 1H, so he also has 3 or fewer spades (unless of course he is 4♠/5♦+). In either case, again, do you really want to play 3N? If partner cannot bid 3N himself over 3D, it is likely that you don't belong there anyway (imo).

My point was that 2NT (or 2♥) leave you more room to work out stoppers in the black suits, and your counter was that I am going to reach bad 3NT contracts because we have suits poorly stopped? The entire point of making a lower bid is you have room to figure all that out, unlike over 3♦ which leaves us guessing. You can say you think we won't belong in 3NT if partner doesn't bid it, but I don't know why you think that. Give partner Qxx in our Kx suit and he won't want to bid it based on your own logic.

 

You haven't differentiated your level of support. If you are going to raise on xxx, and as I assume on AQxx, partner is in a world of hurt to decide how to proceed with his KJxxx. In fact, you made the claim it helps partner evaluate, I directly contradict that and claim it will hurt his evaluation.

More than denying a fit at all? I don't think so. More than lying about the length of your major suit (if you choose to rebid 2M)? Again, I don't think so. At least if he knows he has some degree of fit, he can better judge slam potential, 3N or 5m, immediately.

Who says the other bids deny a fit? Who says rebidding a major suit with 5 is a lie? You are again going backwards and using your conclusions to justify your arguments. You keep making statements that it will help partner to know we have at least some fit, but you don't say why or how. I gave a specific example. If I have KJxxx of diamonds I am very happy if partner has AQxx, and very sad if partner has xxx. If you want to generically say that him knowing we have xxx or better is going to be helpful to him, then at least justify it somehow. Is my example wrong?

 

Ok I got bored with it. Do you consider this type of discussion productive?

[655321]

And I...

 

really don't give a ***** what you think.

 

How about them apples??

 

An alternative reaction would be to take advantage of the forums by learning something from some of the excellent players who post here. But your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening la la la'.

 

Interesting.

[bid_em_up]

And I...

 

really don't give a ***** what you think.

 

How about them apples??

 

An alternative reaction would be to take advantage of the forums by learning something from some of the excellent players who post here. But your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening la la la'.

 

Interesting.

Or it may just be the other way around...

[rogerclee]

Or it may just be the other way around...

LOL

[mikeh]

I am late to this recently entertaining thread.

 

I go along with those who rebid 2N, thinking, if I can be so bold... wtp?

 

I mean, I am a huge believer in 2♥ as a catch-all. Give me AKJ Jxxxx Kx xxx and I rebid 2♥.

 

But 2N DESCRIBES my hand.. what a concept :P B) :)

 

I have probable stoppers in the unbid suits, I have no compelling reason to suggest diamonds as trump, nor to invite partner to stumble around at the 3-level with only partial black suit stoppers, and so on.

 

BTW, for those who say: I don't open 15-17 1N with a 5 card major.. go ahead and play your (inferior) method (I can elaborate on why it is inferior if anyone is interested and can't work it out for themselves... let me start by asking you for your rebid after 1♥ 1♠ when you hold Ax KQJxx Axx Qxx). But you are not answering the OP.. you are not playing normal 2/1 methods.

 

As for the 'debate' (one side offers reasons and arguments, the other insults) about raising to 3♦, josh's posts say almost everything I would say on the topic.

[1eyedjack]

I voted 2N. The problem is more interesting in something like SAYC where the 2/1 response is not GF.

[mikeh]

I voted 2N.  The problem is more interesting in something like SAYC where the 2/1 response is not GF.

Don;t confuse SAYC with SA.

 

While I haven't tried to play SA for many years, it is entirely possible to play a very sophisticated form of SA... SAYC, otoh, was expressly designed to reduce all players to a very basic level.. the original concept was that SAYC would be used in restricted duplicate events, in which all contestants used the same methods.

 

Sort of like a boxing event in which all competitors agreed to use only one arm.. it might be amusing but SAYC is not bridge any more than the one-armed boxing is boxing.

 

Sorry for the apparent effort to threadjack :P

[Phil]

I still like 2♥, but I don't hate 2N. I detest 3♦ for most of the reasons Josh mentions, especially the idea we can't sort out black suit stoppers.

 

2♥ still lets pard bid out a 5♠/6♦ hand whereas 2N does not.

 

Our hearts are pretty good. Its quite easy to construct hands where a 5-2 is way better than 3N. Most of the time, pard will be endplayed into 3N over 2N.

 

In spite of the 'range drift' of 1N that seems quite popular here, 2N for me shows real black suit stoppers or a good 13-14 5M332. This control rich minimum still wants to look for a suit, at least for now, especially without a diamond filler.

[y66]

In the Mike Lawrence 2/1 style, opener rebids 2N here to show a balanced hand with stoppers (12-14 OR 18-19).

 

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

 

Have to laugh at Han's comment about pet styles and data. I agree completely, but since when have proliferators of methods ever felt compelled to support their pet ideas with data? In bridge, "science" is a euphemism for complexity; it has nothing to do with empirical testing unfortunately.

 

In Modern American Bidding (2003), Beverly Kraft and Eric Kokish put minimum balanced hands in the 2M catchall. In this style, 2N shows 15+, balanced hands with stoppers. In BWS 2001, which they helped edit, 2N shows a minimum balanced hand. Would really like to know why they changed this. Perhaps, David_C's post accounts for this. Have not seen a better explanation.

[hanp]

Have to laugh at Han's comment about pet styles and data. I agree completely, but  since when have proliferators of methods ever felt compelled to support their pet ideas with data? In bridge, "science" is a euphemism for complexity; it has nothing to do with empirical testing unfortunately.

In retrospect I think I was overreacting. Unfortunately it is quite common for people to say that their method works well for them and usually it means nothing more than that they play it and are happy doing so. Of course that's fine.

 

I remember Edmunte similarly (though less aggressively) recommending rebidding clubs on ace-empty-fifth in another thread, and I reacted to that as well. I must say that Edmunte's recommendation seems a lot more reasonable to me than raising diamonds with this hand, but I can't really prove that bidding 3D is that bad. All I can do is duplicate Josh's effort of summing up all the problems with that style plus my own experience with auctions starting 1M-2m-3m.

 

In general I'd say that constructive auctions where a minor is bid and raised are more difficult than auctions where a major is raised, because in the case of a major that usually determines the strain while in the case of a minor it does not. That's why I think it is so important to distinguish the flat minimal hands from the hands that are much more suitable to play in 5D or 6D.

 

Also, given how descriptive 2NT is (5332 with stoppers in both unbid suits) and how much room there is left, bid_em_up would need to bring a very large friend to convince me that it is wrong. :(

[hanp]

Phil said:

 

2♥ still lets pard bid out a 5♠/6♦ hand whereas 2N does not.

 

1H -2D

2NT - 3S

4D - ??

 

I think we have to raise diamonds even though we have only 2 HCP in partner's suits. 3S should show a very distributional hand (at least 4-6 but one could argue it should show 5-6). With a 18-19 count we should bid 4C (with diamond support) or 4H (with 3 spades and no diamond support). I think that 4S would show something like KJx Axxxx Kx Qxx: a minimal hand with 3 spades (of course) suitable for playing in spades. If partner doesn't want us to bid 3NT with that he shouldn't bid spades.

 

Partner knows so much about our hand now (3532 or 2533 with 12-14 points and a stopper in each black suit) that it should be easy for him whether to offer 4S, ask for keycards, sign off in 5D or try for slam with 4H or 5C.

 

Let's compare with a 2H rebid:

 

1H - 2D

2H - 2S

3D - 3S

4S

 

Surely we have to show our diamond support now right? What does partner know about our hand? I think that partner actually knows less about our hand. We could have something nice like Kxx AJxxxx AJx x or something ugly like the actual hand. Well, no we can't because we would rebid 2NT with that :(.

[whereagles]

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

Guess I'll have to disagree with Rodwell. I firmly believe this strategy is wrong.

[jdonn]

In their new book on 2/1, Rodwell and Grant also recommend this style. Excerpt here.

Guess I'll have to disagree with Rodwell. I firmly believe this strategy is wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have said why you believe that yet?

 

I guess anyone can disagree with Rodwell if they want, but I would hope they have a reason, other than that they take pride in it being impossible to convince them of anything. :)

[whereagles]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have said why you believe that yet?

That is correct. I might say why tomorrow or the day after, if I bother. Right now I'm just going to get some sleep.

 

You know how dangerous it is to post when sleepy :)