Basic question

[Wackojack]

We had no agreement except that we play nmf. Playing on-line one does not expect to formulate detailed agreements of the type that one might do with a regular f2f partner. So as Codo has eloquently put it -KISS.

[eyhung]

New resolution:  I will always rebid 1♠ unless 4333 Justin-like lol!.  Comparing the responses in this post with the 2005 posts, it is interesting to see that opinions are fairly evenly divided and that Justin, Mike on one side and Hog on the other have not changed their views.

As an adherent of the 1NT > 1S on balanced hands style, you will note that I did not rebid 1NT but 2♥. Responder has the hand type I was worried about: weak hand, mediocre (and unrebiddable) hearts, and a potential problem in clubs. It turns out the clubs are worth 3 tricks more on the defense vs. notrump, so the difference is down 3 vs. down 1 (hearts are a level higher). So I think this is less about your system and more about a misapplication of judgement.

 

Re: hearts vs. spades, both strains take only 7 tricks on best defense. Partner did not have a third club to make use of the ruffing value, and yet either major still plays better than notrump. One advantage of spades is that the North hand can pass 1♠. But then the East hand has a clear reopening double and then they can find the E/W par of 2♣ making 2. -50 in 2♥ or 2♠ seems to be practical par at IMPs.

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk852hq9853d102ck10&w=sq1093ha6d73cqj632&e=s6hj74dkqj96ca875&s=saj74hk102da854c94]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I was sitting South and rebid 1NT which was passed out. -150. :(

 

When I first started posting on this forum I played Acol weak no trump. Way back then in 2005 it would not have occurred to me to have rebid anything but 1♠. Then I read this post:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=7310&st=0

 

Check-back? I had heard of it but wtp rebidding 1♠. xyz? Whats that?

 

In my desire to improve, I learnt 5 card majors strong notrump and the various ways of playing check-back, albeit recognising that 4-4 major fits can be lost by playing this way. A rationalisation was that you would be no worse off than with acol 12-14 when you has a weakish hand with a 4-4 spade fit opposite a 12-14 no trump. Against that a 15-17 no trump opposite 5-7 would miss a 4-4 major suit fit, and Acol weak no trump would not.

 

New resolution: I will always rebid 1♠ unless 4333 Justin-like lol!. Comparing the responses in this post with the 2005 posts, it is interesting to see that opinions are fairly evenly divided and that Justin, Mike on one side and Hog on the other have not changed their views.

You may want to play 1D 2H as 5H+4S and weaker than invitation if you play a style to rebid 1NT regardless of spade holdings.

[quiddity]

Perhaps more blame should go to North's pass than to South's rebid. North has a weakish 4522 with a decent (soft) heart suit and South has promised 2-3 card support. Why not correct to 2H?

 

A comparison hand: http://thegargoylechronicles.blogspot.com/...5.html#comments

 

The author strongly prefers correcting to 2M with a much worse 5cM AND with the possibility that partner has a singleton spade.

 

BTW, that blog is the bomb.

[the hog]

[Fluffy]

I normally rebid 1♠ with 4 cards, but if I ever rebid 1NT it is because I have 3 hearts and want to show my tolerance for the suit to partner who will bid 2♥ if he has 5 of them, risking the 4-4 fit to get the likelly 5-3 fit instead.

[awm]

As a believer in bidding 1♠ with this hand, it may be worth pointing out that you have a lot of space available in the auction 1♦-1♥-1♠. The supposed gains from this promising shape in game or slam bidding are mostly illusory. For example, say you play the popular XYZ approach after the 1♠ rebid. Now:

 

(1) After 1♦-1♥-1♠, 2♦ is game force. You have space to relay out opener's entire shape, even if 4243/4324 hands are permitted. For example, you could play opener's 2♥ rebid is balanced or three suited and use symmetric relay the rest of the way. Note that symmetric relay is incredibly accurate in unobstructed game-going auctions -- you get opener's entire shape and general strength before 3NT and can find all the controls at a reasonable level too. Considering this, I very much doubt that excluding the two hand types above (4243/4324) is a huge boon to anyone's slam bidding. Most partnerships could benefit far more in the slam zone by using more carefully constructed followups to the game forcing call.

 

(2) What about game invites? Again using XYZ, you have two paths to 2NT. You can bid 2NT directly to show a hand that would bid 2NT even if 1♠ is unbalanced (i.e. no real fit). You can bid 2♣ followed by 2NT to show a hand with a mild diamond fit, where you would show a diamond invite provided opener had a shapely hand with 5+♦. This gets you to the right partial, finds 5♦ when it's a better game, etc. Most pairs who use XYZ here basically have more sequences than they know what to do with anyway (and either leave a lot of sequence undiscussed or assign them meanings that almost never come up).

 

(3) What about partials? Well, 1♦-1♥-1♠ does not promise five diamonds in any case because of the possible 4-1-4-4 hand. And it does promise four diamonds (assuming you open a club with 4333, as is the popular style). So you're not losing much here either.

 

The "information to the opponents" thing is mostly an illusion too. Sure, there are auctions where bypassing 1♠ hides opener's four-card spade suit from the opposition. But there are also auctions where responder has to show a four-card spade suit that he could've hidden on the way to game, because opener might still have a fit. For example, say responder has four spades and opener doesn't. Up-the-line bidding you get 1♦-1♥-1NT-3NT and no one knows about responder's spades. Bypassing you get 1♦-1♥-1NT and now responder has to bid checkback to see if opener has four spades, and you end up handing a huge amount of information to the defense (often not just that responder has four spades and opener doesn't, but frequently also extra information about opener's heart and/or diamond length). So you're just trading one auction being more informative for another auction being less so.

 

On the other hand, bidding up the line has advantages. You find your spade fits when responder is fairly weak (could even be a game if responder has shape). You can play 1♠ if responder has garbage. You can decide who declares in notrump based on the club situation (this can easily be a game swing).

[eyhung]

On the other hand, bidding up the line has advantages. You find your spade fits when responder is fairly weak (could even be a game if responder has shape). You can play 1♠ if responder has garbage. You can decide who declares in notrump based on the club situation (this can easily be a game swing).

The last point (right-siding the notrump) can be addressed by raising to 2♥ instead of rebidding 1NT on hands with clearly anti-positional holdings in the 4th suit. The biggest problem with a balanced spade rebid + XYZ structure is that you cannot play in 2♣ after opener starts with 1♣ -- responder can have a hand that is a clear weak preference to clubs if 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand. I would never play XYZ over a 1♣ opening with the unbalanced spade style. Obviously if you do play the (standard) balanced spade style, XYZ + symmetric relays have much to recommend them, but that is a significant amount of complexity that I feel most partnerships don't have the inclination to adopt.

[awm]

The biggest problem with a balanced spade rebid + XYZ structure is that you cannot play in 2♣ after opener starts with 1♣

Sure, but we were talking about 1♦ openings. The situation after 1♣ opening is somewhat different. First, XYZ is worse because it eliminates the ability to sign off in 2♣ (much more frequently desirable when partner opened 1♣ rather than 1♦). Second, opener could easily have three clubs for 1♣...1♠ (three-card diamond suit would be 4432 only, which raises hearts) which adds an extra hand type and makes raising clubs more awkward.

 

On the other hand, playing 1♠ as an unbalanced rebid combined with XYZ is really a horrible method, since now the odds of wanting to play 2♣ go way up (you know partner has a real suit).

[eyhung]

Sure, but we were talking about 1♦ openings. The situation after 1♣ opening is somewhat different.

I didn't realize that we were only talking about the 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction. Most people don't really want to differentiate between that auction and 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠, even if it would be technically correct to do so. (And yes, I agree with all your technical points.)

 

From a practical standpoint, I feel you're making an unfair comparison between unbalanced spade + simple followups vs. balanced spade + XYZ + symmetric relays. I believe the majority of standard system partnerships are not interested in having different methods over 1♣ and 1♦, or into complicated 3rd-round followups such as a symmetric relay after the XYZ 2♦. That obviously doesn't apply to some of the regulars on these Forums, of course. :) But if you're just interested in being on the same wavelength as partner, playing an unbalanced spade + simple followups is hard to mess up, and I think that's an underappreciated virtue of a system for casual partnerships.

[awm]

While I agree with Eugene's point that symmetric relay is a lot to ask of most partnerships, my claim was that you have a huge amount of space in the auction 1♦-1♥-1♠. Most people play a cheap game-forcing call in this auction (2♣ 4th suit, or 2♦ XYZ). So when you have this particular sequence and responder is game forcing, you have all the space in the world to sort out fit, stoppers, strength, etc. Slam bidding shouldn't be hard in this auction. Claiming that "my slam bidding is much better because I have eliminated 4342/4243 from my 1♠ rebid" seems kind of unbelievable, since this is a very small number of hand types removed from a sequence where you have a ridiculous amount of space to determine opener's hand type. If we really want to improve slam bidding over 1♦-1♥-1♠, there are other ways to do it (i.e. discuss follow-ups after the game force) without the substantial downsides of bypassing spades to rebid 1NT on balanced hands. This was in response to Mikeh's claim that "better game/slam bidding" was one of the big reasons he likes to bypass spades.

 

In reality I'm not even a big fan of XYZ; I'm just mentioning it as evidence that you have so much space to work out opener's hand in these auctions, that you shouldn't really suffer in game sequences from including balanced hands in the 1♠ rebid. Thus the concern about whether to bid 1♠/1NT shouldn't really be about "getting partner the information he needs to decide about game and slam" because there is plenty of room to make those decisions accurately even when we include the balanced hands in the 1♠ rebid. The concern should be more about "how do we get to better partials when responder is weak" and "how do we make sure that 3NT is declared from the proper side when it is our best contract." Bidding up the line is a clear winner in both those scenarios.

[mikeh]

While I agree with Eugene's point that symmetric relay is a lot to ask of most partnerships, my claim was that you have a huge amount of space in the auction 1♦-1♥-1♠. Most people play a cheap game-forcing call in this auction (2♣ 4th suit, or 2♦ XYZ). So when you have this particular sequence and responder is game forcing, you have all the space in the world to sort out fit, stoppers, strength, etc. Slam bidding shouldn't be hard in this auction. Claiming that "my slam bidding is much better because I have eliminated 4342/4243 from my 1♠ rebid" seems kind of unbelievable, since this is a very small number of hand types removed from a sequence where you have a ridiculous amount of space to determine opener's hand type. If we really want to improve slam bidding over 1♦-1♥-1♠, there are other ways to do it (i.e. discuss follow-ups after the game force) without the substantial downsides of bypassing spades to rebid 1NT on balanced hands. This was in response to Mikeh's claim that "better game/slam bidding" was one of the big reasons he likes to bypass spades.

 

In reality I'm not even a big fan of XYZ; I'm just mentioning it as evidence that you have so much space to work out opener's hand in these auctions, that you shouldn't really suffer in game sequences from including balanced hands in the 1♠ rebid. Thus the concern about whether to bid 1♠/1NT shouldn't really be about "getting partner the information he needs to decide about game and slam" because there is plenty of room to make those decisions accurately even when we include the balanced hands in the 1♠ rebid. The concern should be more about "how do we get to better partials when responder is weak" and "how do we make sure that 3NT is declared from the proper side when it is our best contract." Bidding up the line is a clear winner in both those scenarios.

Adam makes a number of good points, but, as is often the case with proponents of a particular style (I include myself in this by the way) omits matters that weaken his case and overstate matters that strengthen his case.

 

Thus the reference to playing symmetric relay. I have never played with and don't expect to ever play with anyone who uses symmetric relay, so I find it ridiculous, to argue in a General Bridge Discussion forum, that up the line bidding works just fine, thank you, if we all play symmetric relay.

 

I appreciate that Adam has recognized this point.

 

As for finding the right partial, Adam overlooks the worst dilemma for the weak responding hand.... whether to take a preference to 2minor or rebid 1N.

 

Admittedly, the dilemma is far worse after a 1♣ opening, using up the line, than it is over 1♦, but as Eugene pointed out and Adam conceded (I think) few partnerships will go so far as to adopt different styles over 1♣ and 1♦, regardless of the theoretical merits of doing so.

 

And thus any discussion of up the line, even after a 1♦ opening, must deal with responder holding, say, xxx KQxx Jxx Jxx and hearing opener rebid 1♠.

 

If we have to rebid 1N with this hand, we deserve to catch partner with some 4=2=5=2 or 4=2=2=5, depending on the opening call. Now, playing 1N rebid on all balanced hands, responder knows not to rebid 1N over 1♠...if opener opened 1♣. I admit that if opener bid 1♦, the odds are not so clear... but 4=3=5=1/4=1=5=3 and all the 4=6 hands add up, frequency wise, to a far higher likelihood than precisely 4=1=4=4, so at imps there is much to be said for 2♦ anyway.

 

Also, as someone who has played relay, but a different version than the one suggested by Adam, I found that eliminating the balanced holdings from the 1♠ rebid actually made the relays more effective. The hand-types can be refined at a lower level: relays should be designed so that the most common shapes are shown cheaply, while the less-frequent distributional hands are described with more expensive, in terms of bidding space, responses. Relay methods frequently encounter auctions in which relayer has to break the relay because he cannot risk an inconvenient answer as the level increases, so making the initial shape relay more efficient, by reducing the possible patterns, is an important tweak.

 

Of course, the trade off is that the hand patterns contained in the 1N rebid are increased, but they are still relatively few, thus the cost to a relay method of rebidding 1N on all balanced hands is less than the cost, to a similar relay method, of including balanced hands in the very large range of holdings possible following 1♠.

 

Frankly, my view is that this debate is akin to the discussions about whether opener should rebid 1N in auctions such as 1♥ 1♠ with holdings such as x AQJxx KQx Jxxx....where I, as a traditionalist, rebid 2♣ and some modernists choose 1N.

 

There are valid arguments on both sides and personal preferences/personal experiences/ and partnership harmony issues are probably more relevant than trying to determine, in any absolute sense, which approach is the better.

[jdonn]

I sort of agree with both of you. Adam made a very good point, while somewhat understating the opposition argument. I just don't place much important on the odd 2m/1NT decision (although with your example hand Mike it's a passing 1♠ decision IMO!)

[helene_t]

Admittedly, the dilemma is far worse after a 1♣ opening, using up the line, than it is over 1♦, but as Eugene pointed out and Adam conceded (I think) few partnerships will go so far as to adopt different styles over 1♣ and 1♦, regardless of the theoretical merits of doing so.

Maybe this is a continent thing, but here, many play different sets of responses to 1♣ and 1♦, for example transfer responses or 1♦ negative. Maybe related to the popular treatment that 1♣ can be a doubleton. So I would consider the two minor suit openings in isolation,

And thus any discussion of up the line, even after a 1♦ opening, must deal with responder holding, say, xxx KQxx Jxx Jxx and hearing opener rebid 1♠.

Pass wtp? But even if 1♠ is forcing (or we have a similar 9-count), I think 1NT is fine with a jack in the unbid minor. With xxx in the unbid minor, bid 2 of opener's minor. Even if the opening suit is clubs, partner should have four of them as he probably rebids 1NT with 4333 although he would rebid 1♠ with most 4234.

 

That said I like to rebid 1NT opposite an unpassed partner as it makes it easier for him to find out what I have if he is slamish. I really hate auctions starting

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦

2♠

and responder still doesn't have a clue what opener has. Sure, elaborate FSF agreements, or maybe something with T-Walsh and/or XYZ, can solve the problem, but with most partner's my agreements don't go further than whether FSF is GF or not.

[MickyB]

2♥ for me, 1♠ shows unbalanced hand etc, don't want to bid NT with xx in an unbid suit.

 

Rebidding 1NT just seems to make everything simpler. You know immediately which hand is in charge (unbalanced hands tell, balanced hands listen), responder can give preference on a doubleton when he so desires, and opener's third bid (especially over 4SF) is much better defined.

 

Of course, responder should have a way to show 5H4S NF over the 1NT rebid (but *not* over the 1m opener, where there is a case for a 2H bid to show 5-4 majors with five *spades*).

[MickyB]

The "information to the opponents" thing is mostly an illusion too. Sure, there are auctions where bypassing 1♠ hides opener's four-card spade suit from the opposition. But there are also auctions where responder has to show a four-card spade suit that he could've hidden on the way to game, because opener might still have a fit. For example, say responder has four spades and opener doesn't. Up-the-line bidding you get 1♦-1♥-1NT-3NT and no one knows about responder's spades. Bypassing you get 1♦-1♥-1NT and now responder has to bid checkback to see if opener has four spades, and you end up handing a huge amount of information to the defense (often not just that responder has four spades and opener doesn't, but frequently also extra information about opener's heart and/or diamond length). So you're just trading one auction being more informative for another auction being less so.

Depends on methods - it's not exactly hard to come up with a method that doesn't disclose holdings in suits that responder isn't interested in.

 

The concern should be more about "how do we get to better partials when responder is weak" and "how do we make sure that 3NT is declared from the proper side when it is our best contract." Bidding up the line is a clear winner in both those scenarios.

 

Wow. Strongly disagree on the "better partials" score - missing the occasional 4-4 spade fit to play in 1NT when both hands are balanced is hardly the end of the world. In contrast, showing the general nature of your hand (balanced or not) allows you to judge much better whether to play in opener's suit, responder's suit or no-trumps. Take a hand like xx QJxxx Qx Axxx - if opener rebids 1♠, you'd much rather play in a red suit rather than 1NT (which may well also wrong-side) - but how are you to work out which one?

 

(1) After 1♦-1♥-1♠, 2♦ is game force. You have space to relay out opener's entire shape, even if 4243/4324 hands are permitted.

 

If opener is balanced, you probably want responder to be the one showing shape.

[awm]

Hmm. People seem to be assuming that a 4-6 hand is passing 1NT after 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT. Honestly this approach would not occur to me. Nor would I pass with a 4-3-5-1.

 

So the only time when it matters is when opener has 4153/4252/4144. So the "bad" 4144 shape is happening on 1/3 of the relevant hands. Looking at Mikeh and MickyB's examples...

 

One time in three (of the relevant times) opener has 4144. This leads you to play a 4-3 diamond fit with the three hand being 3433 (Mikeh example) or a 4-2 diamond fit (MickyB example). Really quite awful.

 

The other two times in three, Mikeh reaches a 5-3 diamond fit. But is this really some great prize? After all, responder's values are mostly in hearts (KQxx) opposite opener's singleton or doubleton. I suspect that these hands will often play better in 1NT than in 2♦ anyway. MickyB reaches a 5-2 diamond fit on these (responder holding QJxxx opposite opener's hearts). I don't even really see why this is better, much less enough to compensate for the very poor contracts reached opposite the 4144.

[Free]

~snip~

Then I read this post:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=7310&st=0

 

~snip~

 

New resolution: I will always rebid 1♠ unless 4333 Justin-like lol!. Comparing the responses in this post with the 2005 posts, it is interesting to see that opinions are fairly evenly divided and that Justin, Mike on one side and Hog on the other have not changed their views.

I know in the past I said bypass, these days I pretty much always bid 1♠, without clear conviction I must say. I just feel happier about this approach, that's all...