Frank Stewart's ACBL column

[Dirk Kuijt]

This is from Frank Stewart's column in the ACBL Bulletin, "My Bridge and Yours". I quote part of his column.

 

A simple case of anticipation is planning a rebid when you open the bidding.  A good player knows that he will do over any response.

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ 85 ♥ KJ9 ♦ AJ93 ♣ AJ93

 

Expert opinion would be split on what to open.  I would not consider treating this balanced hand as two-suiter, so I would open 1♣, intending to raise a red-suit response or bid 1NT over 1♠.  Many good players would open 1♦.  (If the diamonds were strikingly strong, I might also.)

 

In some competitive situations, a 1♦ opening may work well:

 

West          East

♠ 753    ♠J2

♥ AJ93    ♥ 742

♦ QT8      ♦AK64

♣KT4      ♣AQ73

 

West      North    East    South

                        1♣    2♠

Dbl          pass    3♦    pass

5♣      Dbl      All pass

 

East-West had a mix-up.  East thought he was placing the contract when he bid 3♦; West thought East had reversed and held at least five clubs and extra strength.  A 1♦ opening would have let East-West stop at 3♦, but the 1♣ opening wasn't at fault.  Blame the result on South's preempt, a slightly unprepared negative double by West and the fact that East-West hadn't discussed this sequence.

 

This is all that Stewart has to say about this hand, or what to open with 4-4 in the minors.

 

A few weeks back, there was a long series of exchanges on this forum about whether the sequence 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass);2♦ showed extra values or not. I believe I'm right in saying that the current consensus (as opposed to 10 or more years ago) is that this sequence is a reverse, showing 4-5 or more in the minors and considerable extra values.

 

So, I have several questions for those with more experience than mine.

 

1. Is this sequence analogous to the 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass);2♦ one, so the 3♦ bid shows a reversing hand, and considerable extras? (My intuition is yes, that if you accept the lower sequence as showing extras then the higher one must also.)

 

2. Does Stewart's analysis sound right? Obviously, East-West should have discussed this sequence. However, he doesn't say what it should mean. I don't think the negative double was 'slightly unprepared'; even if West was 4-4 in the reds, so that he was totally prepared for the other suits by any standards, the mismatch between what values East thought he was showing and what West thought East was showing would still lead to trouble. And, I really laugh out loud at blaming South's 2♠ bid. If a small preempt that like can blow a big hole in our methods, then we need to do something to our methods. In this case, I guess that I do blame the 1♣ bid.

 

3. What do you open with 4-4 in the minors?

[neilkaz]

I open 1♦ here for the reasons discussed in the previous discussion here which convinced me that 1♦ is best.

[jjbrr]

I'd open 1♦ because I don't see any reason cater to the worst possible auction for this hand. Sometimes it doesn't matter what we open, but sometimes it matters that partner can expect 4♦ from us usually.

 

I admit I don't like it when partner tries to be a genius on hands where there's no reason to expect that needing to be a genius is necessary.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 lots of North American players, make this the over whelming majority,

would treat a 2D rebid by opener in the seq.

1C - (1S) - X - (Pass)

2D

as a reverse, since the Neg. X showed only hearts, which would imply,

that 3D is a splinter agreeing hearts.

The discussion was heated, what a surprise.

For me 2D would not be reverse.

The 2D reverse meaning got also support from strong european players,

..., I dont bellong to the group "strong european" players, so yu may say

most strong players on this forum would subscribe to this.

#2 Sure, there was a misunderstanding about the meaning of 3D, and which

hand qualify for a neg. X, although the situation IS diferent after 1S.

And 5C was stupid in the auction, since 3D in the auction Steward discussed

does certainly not promise add. strength.

#3 1D, and the suit quality does not play a role.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[nige1]

IMO: With 4-4 in the minors, playing natural methods, you should open 1♣. Playing SAYC, however, you should open 1♦ because 1♣ encompasses 4333, 3433 and 4423 shapes; whereas 1♦ shows 4+ cards unless 4432.

[gnasher]

My preferred solution to the problem in general is for opener to rebid notrumps when he has a balanced hand, even with no spade stop. So after 1♣ (1♠) dbl, he bids 1NT and after 1♣ (2♠) dbl he bids 2NT. That solves this problem, but sometimes creates another one.

 

With this particular hand, I might have replied 2♥ to the negative double.

[blackshoe]

<pedant>A reverse is a specific sequence of bids, to wit, where the rebid is at the two level in a higher ranking suit than the suit bid originally. So 1C-(1S)-X-(P)-2D is a reverse, whatever strength it shows.</pedant>

[P_Marlowe]

<pedant>A reverse is a specific sequence of bids, to wit, where the rebid is at the two level in a higher ranking suit than the suit bid originally. So 1C-(1S)-X-(P)-2D is a reverse, whatever strength it shows.</pedant>

<pedant> unless it is a raise. </pedant>

 

Sry, could not resist.

[Gerben42]

I think Stewart was making a mistake when opening 1♣ playing 5-card majors on this hand:

 

♠ 85

♥ KJ9

♦ AJ93

♣ AJ93

 

Also his analysis in the column is not correct. You cannot blame a simple 2♠ preempt for your result, the negative Dbl was quite normal.

 

Playing 5-card majors, I would also suspect there is no need for discussion of the sequence, as West bid correctly and East didn't pick the right opening bid.

 

In Acol, which seems to be Nige1's system, the philosophy is a complete different one and now East's bidding is correct and West messed up.

 

So I conclude that West was playing 5-card majors but East was playing 4-card majors.

[gnasher]

<pedant>A reverse is a specific sequence of bids, to wit, where the rebid is at the two level in a higher ranking suit than the suit bid originally. So 1C-(1S)-X-(P)-2D is a reverse, whatever strength it shows.</pedant>

<nitpick>Are you saying that this

  1♣ pass 1♠ 3♥

  4♦

is not a reverse?</nitpick>

[AnJoe]

How many times do I have to say it?

A reverse is not a system. You don't "play reverses."

A reverse is inherent in the bidding.

You can disregard the implication of a reverse but you are going to get too high on many hands when you do. Period.

 

joan

[billw55]

I don't understand why this auction should show a reverse, i.e. great strength. What is opener supposed to do with a perfectly ordinary minimum such as, say, xxx Qx AQxx KJxx? OK gnasher, if he rebids NT routinely without a stopper, how will responder know whether can raise to 3 or not? Is there then a relay bid that asks: did you mean it or just kidding? And if the answer is just kidding, then what - now we are a level higher still with no fit. Unless of course we have a fit in diamonds .. in which case why not just bid that to start with?

 

It seems to me that responder has almost demanded an unbid suit, so why should bidding one show a bunch of extras that opener usually doesn't have?

[gnasher]

I don't understand why this auction should show a reverse, i.e. great strength. 

Suppose that opener bids 2♦, but responder prefers clubs to diamonds. Responder will have to bid 3♣. That's why reverses traditionally promise extra values.

 

For it to be OK for opener to bid 2♦, one of two conditions must be met:

(1) Responder promises either diamonds, or the values and shape to play in 3♣.

(2) Responder only promises hearts, but opener promises the values and shape to play in 3♣.

 

Most of us prefer (2). If you prefer (1), fine - it just means that your negative doubles aren't the same as my negative doubles.

 

Part of the problem is that everybody uses the same term, "negative double", regardless of which of these two styles they play.

 

What is opener supposed to do with a perfectly ordinary minimum such as, say, xxx Qx AQxx KJxx?

There are three options:

- Open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ facing the negative double

- Play a style of negative doubles where responder shows preparedness to hear 2♦ on a minimum.

- Agree that a 1NT rebid doesn't promise a stop.

 

OK gnasher, if he rebids NT routinely without a stopper, how will responder know whether can raise to 3 or not?  Is there then a relay bid that asks: did you mean it or just kidding?

If I make a bid that shows a balanced hand without promising or denying a spade stop, and I have a balanced hand without a spade stop, I don't see why you would describe that as "just kidding".

 

As far as findiing out about stops goes, I would use a bid of the opponent's suit to say "Do you have a stop in the opponent's suit? You may see some parallels with other sequences where an opponent has bid a suit but we haven't yet established whether we have a stop in the suit.

 

And if the answer is just kidding, then what - now we are a level higher still with no fit.  Unless of course we have a fit in diamonds .. in which case why not just bid that to start with?

So responder has the values for game opposite a minimum opening bid. How are you going to stop lower than me?

 

It seems to me that responder has almost demanded an unbid suit, so why should bidding one show a bunch of extras that opener usually doesn't have?

If that's what a negative double means, then of course 2♦ shouldn't show extras. For me, and many others, that isn't what a negative double means.

Edited April 5, 2010 by gnasher

[wank]

the trouble with playing the NT rebid as not promising the stop is that by the time you've resolved that opener doesn't in fact have one, you might find yourself being forced to bail out into 4 of a minor with no serious fit. i realise on the forums noone seems to care about part-score swings, but i do.

 

personally i can't see any downside whatsoever in opening 1D on the 4-4 minor hands and preparing to rebid clubs opposite the double. i presume the 1C openers are playing 1D as unbalanced, but noone's bothered to mention it.

[gnasher]

the trouble with playing the NT rebid as not promising the stop is that by the time you've resolved that opener doesn't in fact have one, you might find yourself being forced to bail out into 4 of a minor with no serious fit.

It hardly ever happens, because one of us usually has a stop anyway. If it does, the only sequence where we might have to play at the four-level is

 

1♣ (1♠)-dbl

1NT-2♠

3♦-4♣

 

(though one could avoid this with a bit of artificiality)

 

Whilst I'm having that unappealing sequence, presumably you're bidding

 

1♦ (1♠)-dbl

2♣-2♠

 

What does your opener do now?

[655321]

i realise on the forums noone seems to care about part-score swings, but i do.

?

[wank]

the trouble with playing the NT rebid as not promising the stop is that by the time you've resolved that opener doesn't in fact have one, you might find yourself being forced to bail out into 4 of a minor with no serious fit.

It hardly ever happens, because one of us usually has a stop anyway. If it does, the only sequence where we might have to play at the four-level is

 

1♣ (1♠)-dbl

1NT-2♠

3♦-4♣

 

(though one could avoid this with a bit of artificiality)

 

Whilst I'm having that unappealing sequence, presumably you're bidding

 

1♦ (1♠)-dbl

2♣-2♠

 

What does your opener do now?

the original auction involves a jump overcall so the prospects for ending up at 4 level with no fit are considerably higher.

 

as for the auction you quoted, i expect i'd be volunteering my 3 card heart support and trying to play a moysian 4H as partner's shown a stronger hand than the cue in your sequence i suspect.

[gnasher]

the original auction involves a jump overcall so the prospects for ending up at 4 level with no fit are considerably higher. 

 

Wouldn't you still be at the four level? Presumably it would go

 

1♦-(2♠)-dbl

3♣- 3♠

 

Are you still "patterning out" with 4♥?

 

as for the auction you quoted, i expect i'd be volunteering my 3 card heart support and trying to play a moysian 4H as partner's shown a stronger hand than the cue in your sequence i suspect.

So far as I can see each responder has shown the values for game opposite a minimum opening.

 

The difference between our two situations is that my responder knows he's opposite a balanced hand with unknown minor-suit lengths, whereas your responder knows he's opposite the minors but doesn't know if opener is balanced or not. That seems more or less a tie to me.

 

You gain a bit on the deals where you know that opener is balanced with a stop (though it's not clear what your opener is going to do on a 3334 shape). However, I can still find out about the stopper situation.

 

I gain on the deals where opener is unbalanced, because my responder knows that he is unbalanced but yours doesn't. Not only that, but sometimes your responder will never be able to find out.

[aguahombre]

First a profound statment of the obvious:

---the choice whether to open 1D or 1C with a bal 4-4 in the minors has been debated ad nauseum. Neither side of the issue is going to convert, but agreeing with partner on which minor to open is vital, because:

 

The choice makes a big difference in many follow-up auctions, including NMF auctions, and other slam sequences --not just competitive situations.

 

I do think that the vast majority of players open 1D. Some of that might be throwback from having once used a forcing club system.

[kfay]

Playing w/ ch00bacca I open 1♣ with 4-4 minors.

 

Obv ch00 is a beast so maybe he's onto something...

[awm]

I'm not sure what the advantage is to opening 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. Assuming that you still open 1♦ with 4♦/2-3♣, it's not like your 1♦ opening promises five or an unbalanced hand or anything, so it doesn't seem like you gain a lot from the negative inferences on the 1♦ open.

 

There are a lot of advantages to opening 1♦ though. These include high level negative double auctions as previously discussed, but also that partner can raise 1♦ (which is almost always four) more freely than 1♣ (which is often three), that 1♦ has more lead-directional value (again because it's almost always four), and that 1♦ works better with 2-way nmf (because you can sign off in diamonds after 1♦-1M-1NT but you can't sign off in clubs at the two-level after 1♣-1M-1NT).

[Jlall]

lol gnasher ownz

[barryallen]

This is from Frank Stewart's column in the ACBL Bulletin, "My Bridge and Yours".  I quote part of his column.

 

 

What do you open with 4-4 in the minors?

What I find difficult to see is a proven case for opening 1♣with 4-4 in the minors? Taking this a stage further, I would have thought there being more of a case to open this with a weak 1NT, rather than 1♣?

[Vampyr]

What I find difficult to see is a proven case for opening 1♣with 4-4 in the minors? Taking this a stage further, I would have thought there being more of a case to open this with a weak 1NT, rather than 1♣?

I think that most of Stewart's readers open a strong NT.

[jdonn]

This is from Frank Stewart's column in the ACBL Bulletin, "My Bridge and Yours".  I quote part of his column.

 

 

What do you open with 4-4 in the minors?

What I find difficult to see is a proven case for opening 1♣with 4-4 in the minors? Taking this a stage further, I would have thought there being more of a case to open this with a weak 1NT, rather than 1♣?

At least I would say it pays to randomize or not be totally predictable. Most often partner won't care much which you have opened, but there are advantages to lead direction, lead deflection, and simply making your hand harder to count if they play it.

 

Also many people have what they consider a much better system (transfer responses for example, though there are simpler examples too) over 1♣ than 1♦.