basic rebid situation

[billw55]

♠x

♥AJxx

♦KJTxx

♣Kxx

 

IMPs, none vul, you deal and open 1♦. As predicted partner replies 1♠.

 

Do you prefer 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit, or rebidding a decent 5 card minor?

 

If you choose 1NT, how good would the diamond suit need to be to rebid it?

 

If you choose 2♦, what is the worst 5 card suit you would rebid?

 

If you choose 2♥, what are you smoking?

[vuroth]

I hate 1NT with a singleton, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

[helene_t]

1NT, but second choice is 2♣. Absolutely not 2♦! Playing Acol (1NT rebid shows extras) this is a wtp 2♣ rebid. OK some very old textbooks would say you have to open 1♥ to avoid the rebid problem. In any case, selling this hand as a 1-suiter is not an option. Calling the ♣Kxx a 4-card suit is a smaller lie.

[jjbrr]

im in for 1NT also.

[quiddity]

Also, over 1NT partner can easily show an invite with 4 hearts if he has that hand.

[Phil]

1N is fine. The modern style is to frequently raise partner on 3 and rebid 1N with a singleton. Some off-shape hands like 2452 should also rebid 1N.

 

If you think about it, 1N is the least of evils with the subject hand. 2♦ is awful on this suit, reversing is out with a 12 count, and 2♣ is misleading with a 3 card suit (but its a 2nd choice).

 

Partner should not automatically rebid a five card suit, even though your expected length is about 2.

 

This makes a rebid of 2 of a minor very dependable since it almost always promises 6 cards.

[Gerben42]

Yell at me but I'm going to bid 2♦. At least my intermediates are good. Give me Kxxxx and I'm really stuck.

[billw55]

This is a big reason I like bridge. You can ask a really basic question about an ordinary everyday hand and a routine auction, and get three different answers, from good players. I wish I had thought to put 2♣ as an option, dangit that I can't edit a poll.

[aguahombre]

OK some very old textbooks would say you have to open 1♥ to avoid the rebid problem.

Blowing the dust off Marshall Miles? I found some of his articles packed away with my birth certificate ;)

 

Was it Kokish who actually made the 2C rebid into a convention? I don't know how it works, but would choose 2C anyway and hope things go well thereafter.

[hanp]

Gerben (Polish) and Fluffy (French) bid 2D, a few will bid 2C, most others will bid 1NT. Not a big deal.

[ArtK78]

1NT with a human partner, but 2♦ playing with GIB. GIB always assumes that you have no singletons if you rebid 1NT, so you can get to some very silly 5-1 fits if you rebid 1NT.

 

I don't think I can afford to bid 2♣ playing with GIB, either, although GIB makes short suit bids all the time.

[1eyedjack]

you can get to some very silly 5-1 fits if you rebid 1NT.

Struggling a bit with this. With only a 5 card suit partner will, if bidding again, normally offer some alternative strain. As I would accept any alternative strain I do not expect to play in a 5-1 fit. Perhaps if the auction gets competitive there may be some pressure bids.

[Gerben42]

Gerben (Polish) and Fluffy (French) bid 2D

 

Someone got their flags mixed up ;)

[Fluffy]

you can get to some very silly 5-1 fits if you rebid 1NT.

Struggling a bit with this. With only a 5 card suit partner will, if bidding again, normally offer some alternative strain. As I would accept any alternative strain I do not expect to play in a 5-1 fit. Perhaps if the auction gets competitive there may be some pressure bids.

you are overating basic methods, partner cannot offer diamamons nor clubs as alternative strain unless you play something unnusual (and I think bad)

 

I am happy with 2♦ and I am used of this style wich fails from time to time, not because we play 2♦ too often, but becasue we miss some 5-4 heart fits.

[ArtK78]

you can get to some very silly 5-1 fits if you rebid 1NT.

Struggling a bit with this. With only a 5 card suit partner will, if bidding again, normally offer some alternative strain. As I would accept any alternative strain I do not expect to play in a 5-1 fit. Perhaps if the auction gets competitive there may be some pressure bids.

I said that this was true when playing with Robots on BBO. The Robots assume that a 1NT rebid promises at least 2 cards in every suit, so they often rebid their 5 card major suit to play.

 

Not only did you only quote one sentence out of my post, but you only quoted a part of the sentence. Read the whole sentence. "GIB always assumes that you have no singletons if you rebid 1NT, so ..."

[kenrexford]

2♣ for me.

[bluecalm]

Good thing I play a system in which this problem is solved once and for all. Taking it from Meckwell precision 2♣ can be 4-4,5-5 or 5-3,5-4 either way in minors but thanks to limited openers (up to 15hcp) and responder not having 5♠-4+♥ (cause he bids 2♠/2♥ with that round before) I am in much better situation than all standard bidders or even polish club bidders.

 

The problem with rebidding 2♣ in standard is that you lose very good 4-4♥ partial or even 5-4♥ on bad day.

The problem with rebidding 1NT is that if you do that with stiff partner can't rebid his 5 card ♠ suit and you will lose very good 5-2♠ and 5-3♠ partials on hands when 1NT bidder have normal hand. You also lose good minor suit partials often (5-4 diamonds, 5-3 clubs).

The problem with 2♦ is obvious, it's not really an option for me.

 

Overall my opinion is that in standard'ish systems the best solution is to bid 1NT on those hands, same goes for 1-4-4-4.

Partner should be careful with only 5 spades and should in general not bid 2♠.

[awm]

I'm not really sure I understand the argument for 2♣. This call:

 

(1) Risks playing in a 4-3 club fit, even at the three-level opposite an invite.

(2) Risks playing in a 3-3 club fit when partner has 5413, despite 4-4 hearts.

(3) Makes very hard to find a 4-4 heart fit, even if partner is invite-plus.

(4) Does not substantially limit the hand's strength.

(5) Will often reach a light 3♣ because partner is compelled to raise.

 

In a recent thread in this same forum, we were asked for a rebid on a responder hand of KTxxx xx Jx ATxx after 1♦-1♠-2♣. Some very good players wanted to raise to 3♣ despite the light values. How would you feel as opener after having rebid 2♣ on a three-card suit like the hand we hold here?

 

It seems very clear to me that either of 2♦ or 1NT is better than 2♣.

[bluecalm]

It seems very clear to me that either of 2♦ or 1NT is better than 2♣.

 

I agree with your critique of 2♣. It's just hopeless if opener could be 5-4+ in majors and is afraid you may even have 17.

 

The same arguments (despite limiting strength as 2♦ is a bit more limited) goes for 2♦ call though. You may still play in 5-1 fit at 2level having 8 or 9 hearts on the side or in 5-2♦ diamond fit at 3 level when you belong in spade 5-2/5-3 partial or in NT partial.

[pooltuna]

Yell at me but I'm going to bid 2♦. At least my intermediates are good. Give me Kxxxx and I'm really stuck.

WHAT!!! You stole my call! <_< I just much prefer having 1NT promise at least 2♠s and 2♣s is not an option as I open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ with both xy45 and xy54 minimum openers.

[awm]

I agree with your critique of 2♣. It's just hopeless if opener could be 5-4+ in majors and is afraid you may even have 17.

 

The same arguments (despite limiting strength as 2♦ is a bit more limited) goes for 2♦ call though. You may still play in 5-1 fit at 2level having 8 or 9 hearts on the side or in 5-2♦ diamond fit at 3 level when you belong in spade 5-2/5-3 partial or in NT partial.

Personally I would bid 1NT. But I think this is a matter of style.

 

When partner has an invite or better opposite the 2♦ rebid, we should not have any issues. Partner won't be in a rush to raise on two (especially if he knows we bid this way), partner can bid 2♥ naturally without forcing game, etc. In contrast, the 2♣ rebid can run into trouble even opposite invitational values (i.e. partner raises clubs on four, or rebids 2NT with four hearts and we miss the fit).

 

The 2♦ rebid is also more limited in strength, so there isn't much temptation to raise on sub-invitational hands like there might be with 2♣.

 

It's true that the 2♦ rebid can land you in a six-card fit (most likely opposite 5413 or 5314). But the other options can have this effect too -- 2♣ rebid has problems opposite the same hands, whereas the 1NT rebid has problems if you expect partner to often rebid five-card spade suits.

[kenrexford]

If 2♣ is frequently the bid with 1453 pattern, partnerships tend to cater to that pattern with the ensuing sequences. Observations regarding the likely result of the call based on what Responder would do and mean by his bids in the context of a different style, where 1NT is frequently bid with a stiff in Responder's major, are a tad misleading as arguments against rebidding 2♣.

 

In other words, the greater risks are not what are mentioned but rather in playing an inferior 5-2 diamond fit rather than a nice 5-3 club fit, playing at too high a level, or playing notrump when 3♣ is better.

 

Similarly, the solution of rebidding 1NT with a stiff major carries it's own risks and downsides, obviously, and guaranteeing a doubleton for partner has an obvious advantage.

 

Rebidding 2♣ with this hand also has the advantage of occasionally playing a superior 2♣ contract instead of 2♦ with a 5-1 "fit" or 2♠ with the same sterling fit.

[jdonn]

This is a big reason I like bridge. You can ask a really basic question about an ordinary everyday hand and a routine auction, and get three different answers, from good players. I wish I had thought to put 2♣ as an option, dangit that I can't edit a poll.

2♣ definitely deserves to be an option and 2♥ doesn't. Actually this hand seems carefully chosen to make all choices palatable.

 

Over time I have rebid 1NT with a singleton a lot. The 5-1 fit argument against it doesn't persuade me at all since it's not that common and might even be a good contract. My worse results from 1NT have been playing 1NT with the lead coming through in partner's suit. With this shape if I weren't going to rebid 1NT I would probably choose 2♦ on this hand because the ten means a 5-1 fit won't be a disaster, but I suspect I would more often choose 2♣ ahead of 2♦.

[awm]

Rebidding 2♣ makes it very hard to reach a 4-4 heart fit, even opposite an invite. It also lands you in 3♣ on a 4-3 fit opposite an invite. Of course, you could agree that the 2♣ rebid is "often a three-card suit" and partner is supposed to rebid 2NT with an invite even holding four clubs, but I suspect this will lose you more boards (all the times when opener actually does have four clubs) than it gains (the 1453s).

 

Certainly there are times when a 2♦ rebid is disastrous too, but I submit that these only occur when responder has less than invitational values and passes the 2♦ rebid on a singleton. Obviously this is possible, but 2♣ rebid additionally has all these losses on invitational hand types which don't seem to happen over 2♦.

 

Rebidding 1NT is arguably the worst action if you expect partner to always remove to a five-card spade suit of indifferent quality. Partner holding five spades is really common here, much more common than a singleton diamond (in fact all the singleton diamond hands also include five spades, whereas the opposite is not nearly true). Of course, those of us who like a 1NT rebid play a style where partner is not expected to remove it to a five-card spade suit very often, which has its own advantages and disadvantages (if you raise with three, you play a lot of 4-3 spade fits in 2♠ and play a lot of 5-2 spade fits in 1NT, which is not clearly bad but creates a number of swings compared to the "never raise on three with balanced hand" approach).

[kenrexford]

I doubt anyone has spent the time to work out all of the permutations as to which approach is ideal, and it is likely really damned close.

 

You end up with different schools of thought, in the end, I suppose. I happen to be of the "don't raise with three unless 5431" school, and the "don't bid 1NT if unbalanced" school, which leads to the semi-obvious 2♣ call for me.

 

For others, 1NT or 2♦ might be reasonable.

 

Good thing we all play 3-3, 5-1, and 4-2 fits well, eh?