A basic rebid problem

[Antrax]

Matchpoints, EW vul.

♠AK

♥K84

♦832

♣KT864

 

I deal and open 1♣, LHO overcalls 1♦ and partner bids 1♠, which in our style shows 5. RHO passes. What do I bid?

What if partner's 1♠ shows only four?

[mike777]

Matchpoints, EW vul.

♠AK

♥K84

♦832

♣KT864

 

I deal and open 1♣, LHO overcalls 1♦ and partner bids 1♠, which in our style shows 5. RHO passes. What do I bid?

What if partner's 1♠ shows only four?

 

 

I open 1nt.........solves so many issues

 

If I must open 1c then i rebid 1nt really easy

[Antrax]

We play 15-17. No ♦ stopper is not a real concern?

[mike777]

We play 15-17. No ♦ stopper is not a real concern?

 

 

NO

 

 

LETS NOT CREATE PROBLEMS OUT OF COMMON HANDS

 

again I open 1nt ten minutes ago.

[aguahombre]

NO

 

 

LETS NOT CREATE PROBLEMS OUT OF COMMON HANDS

 

again I open 1nt ten minutes ago.

Let's don't create upgrades because they would make the current problem non-existent. Saying 13 is 15 does not make it true.

[Cyberyeti]

Let's don't create upgrades because they would make the current problem non-existent. Saying 13 is 15 does not make it true.

No, he's suggesting playing a weak no trump makes this a non problem. Without getting into the weak/strong no trump debate, you have 16 with no stop less often than 13 with no stop so this is a problem you have less in the weak no trump auction. You may have a problem in 3N more often when lefty leads his suit however.

 

If I played a strong no trump, I would agree that the 1N rebid doesn't show a stop here.

 

I feel I've met a number of pairs where a slow 1N doesn't show a stop :(

[Antrax]

I had a problem on this common hand, that's what the thread is about. I'm going to assume 15-17 1NT openings aren't inherently broken, and stay with them for the time being. If this hand is worth an upgrade to 15, please explain why. Assuming it's not, what DOES 1NT promise here? Minimum values, no support, balanced shape and that's it? How can responder know when to take the NT out and when not to?

[jmcw]

I had a problem on this common hand, that's what the thread is about. I'm going to assume 15-17 1NT openings aren't inherently broken, and stay with them for the time being. If this hand is worth an upgrade to 15, please explain why. Assuming it's not, what DOES 1NT promise here? Minimum values, no support, balanced shape and that's it? How can responder know when to take the NT out and when not to?

 

It's no where near 15/17, there is nothing to upgrade.

 

You have 3 choices for a rebid

 

1NT

2♣

2♠

 

Problem is they all suck,...that's life. No safety bids available in bridge.

[gwnn]

1NT doesn't show a stop in these situations (these situations = 1mi-(something)-(something)-pass). It's a good thing to know because otherwise you will often be stuck

[Cyberyeti]

I had a problem on this common hand, that's what the thread is about. I'm going to assume 15-17 1NT openings aren't inherently broken, and stay with them for the time being. If this hand is worth an upgrade to 15, please explain why. Assuming it's not, what DOES 1NT promise here? Minimum values, no support, balanced shape and that's it? How can responder know when to take the NT out and when not to?

It promises whatever you and partner agree it promises, and I'd recommend agreeing that it didn't promise a stop, ie what it promised without the overcall. With a pickup, anybody's guess.

[aguahombre]

As to the question about knowing when to take it out: with normal weak responding values just take it out to 2 of a suit if you would have without the diamond overcall. It is only the one-level...no fear.

 

If going for game in notrump without a stop yourself, you might consider giving partner another shot at showing one if available. On this auction, I don't think jumping to 3 diamonds is needed for anything else. NMF is available for other hand types.

[pooltuna]

2♣ is the only real choice alternative to pass and 1NT

[bd71]

As to the question about knowing when to take it out: with normal weak responding values just take it out to 2 of a suit if you would have without the diamond overcall. It is only the one-level...no fear.

 

If going for game in notrump without a stop yourself, you might consider giving partner another shot at showing one if available. On this auction, I don't think jumping to 3 diamonds is needed for anything else. NMF is available for other hand types.

 

1. Not sure I understand what partner's options are for showing a ♦ stopper; are you saying that's what a jump to 3♦ should show? Why not just a 2♦ bid? Or would any return to NT by responder be showing a ♦ stopper?

 

2. I would not have thought that NMF is "on" here, after interference. Is this standard? Regardless of whether it's standard, is it best to play that NMF is on after this typs of interference?

[kenrexford]

Your style offers a solution.

 

With a balanced hand and no diamond stopper, 2♠ is a reasonable contract. Had you been playing the touted weak 1NT, ostensibly you would be in 2♠ without interference anyway.

 

If RHO had raised diamonds, you could perhaps have made a support double to show two spades (because partner has five).

 

Without the interference, maybe the cue should show true support and the simple raise a doubleton without a stopper?

 

1♣-(1♦)-1MAJ(5+)-P-

?

 

2♦ = 3+ major support; might bid again with game interest

2MAJOR = 2-card "support" without stopper

 

Alternatively, it might be better to invert these, with the cue showing 2-card support, to allow this auction:

 

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-P-

2♦!-P-2♥(natural)-P-

P-P

 

Opener might also use the cue as "2-card support, could be 18-19 without sufficient diamond stoppers."

[jmcw]

Your style offers a solution......

..........

2♦ = 3+ major support; might bid again with game interest

2MAJOR = 2-card "support" without stopper

 

Alternatively, it might be better to invert these, with the cue showing 2-card support, to allow this auction:

 

1♣-(1♦)-1♠-P-

2♦!-P-2♥(natural)-P-

P-P

 

Opener might also use the cue as "2-card support, could be 18-19 without sufficient diamond stoppers."

 

Interesting solution. Now we have a cuebid to show no real support and no stopper. Would that be an "inverted cue".

[kenrexford]

Interesting solution. Now we have a cuebid to show no real support and no stopper. Would that be an "inverted cue".

 

Actually, it is not that strange of a concept. A cue as "no clear direction" makes intuitive sense to me.

[ArtK78]

I would rebid 2♣. Given the option of strongly implying a diamond stopper (if not promising one) by rebidding 1NT, supporting spades on AK or rebidding KT864 on a balanced hand, I choose the lesser (least?) lie of the club rebid.

 

The following hand is a better case for a 1NT rebid without a stopper:

 

♠AK

♥K842

♦832

♣KT86

 

Here, your choices are supporting spades on AK tight or rebidding 1NT without any semblance of a diamond stop. The lesser lie would be 1NT. However, if the spade bid promises 5 cards (as OP states), I would probably raise spades.

[neilkaz]

NO

 

 

LETS NOT CREATE PROBLEMS OUT OF COMMON HANDS

 

again I open 1nt ten minutes ago.

 

As you obviously are aware, much of the world doesn't play weak NT. So..as to not create a problem with a common hand, I just rebid, as has been discussed here many times, 1NT to show my weak NT opener and worry about sorting out a ♦ stop later if PD moves towards game.

 

I want a third spade to rebid 2S and noting AK tight can lead to transportation issues if PD can't get back to his hand. I'd rebid a very good 5 card club suit, but not this sort of suit.

[Phil]

Agree with Ken. (edit - except this strange vague cue idea)

 

If, "in your style", 1♠ shows four, which is what most of the world plays, and we held AKx, K8, xxx, KTxxx, I think we'd all say this is a wtp 2♠ call.

 

Now, granted, when partner promises four, there's a better chances he holds five (versus when he promises five, hoping for six). Still, there's no reason why the 5-2 shouldn't play well.

 

I don't go out of my way to bid a stopperless 1N when there are better options available.

[jmcw]

Actually, it is not that strange of a concept. A cue as "no clear direction" makes intuitive sense to me.

 

No intent to suggest it was strange. I actually think it has genuine merit.

[nigel_k]

2♠.

 

A stopperless 1NT is possible and I would do it if my spades were worse. But with blocked spades and no tricks elsewhere I don't want to play 1NT if there is a choice. And I don't understand why 2♣ would be expected to be better than 2♠.

[ggwhiz]

I'm stuck with 2♣. Not that I like it but partner will understand more so than when they blast into 3nt as they run ♦ or 4♠ if I raise when it's wrong.

 

The pass by rho might suggest a bust or a ♠ stack and further bidding by lho OR pard can steer us in the right direction.

[mikeh]

Interesting solution. Now we have a cuebid to show no real support and no stopper. Would that be an "inverted cue".

 

As with many ad hoc 'solutions' the notion of using 2♦ as a cue on this hand type is half-baked.

 

1. Consider that 1N or 2♣ will often be the best spot when, as here, we rate to have lots of diamond losers and no major suit fit. How do we get to either spot after 2♦?Now, the alternatives seem to be to rebid a dubious 5 cards suit or, my choice, to rebid 1N, and either might turn out poorly, but we have a far better chance of landing on our feet, when partner is weak, by guessing one or the other than by assuring we get overboard via 2♦. And when partner would move over 1N or 2♣, we have taken away his ability to cue 2♦ himself, and on other hand-types, it's tough to see how our constructive auctions are improved by this use of 2♦.

 

2. Even if one could be persuaded that 2♦ will actually enable us to bid more accurately, in the long run, what do we do with the hands on which we would previously have bid 2♦? And for every 'solution' offered for those hands, what do we do with the hands that such solutions would otherwise have shown? It is a common error to adopt a new treatment that seems to solve a problem and then find that the solution has created all kinds of problems for hands that were previously easy to bid.

[kenrexford]

As with many ad hoc 'solutions' the notion of using 2♦ as a cue on this hand type is half-baked.

 

1. Consider that 1N or 2♣ will often be the best spot when, as here, we rate to have lots of diamond losers and no major suit fit. How do we get to either spot after 2♦?Now, the alternatives seem to be to rebid a dubious 5 cards suit or, my choice, to rebid 1N, and either might turn out poorly, but we have a far better chance of landing on our feet, when partner is weak, by guessing one or the other than by assuring we get overboard via 2♦. And when partner would move over 1N or 2♣, we have taken away his ability to cue 2♦ himself, and on other hand-types, it's tough to see how our constructive auctions are improved by this use of 2♦.

 

2. Even if one could be persuaded that 2♦ will actually enable us to bid more accurately, in the long run, what do we do with the hands on which we would previously have bid 2♦? And for every 'solution' offered for those hands, what do we do with the hands that such solutions would otherwise have shown? It is a common error to adopt a new treatment that seems to solve a problem and then find that the solution has created all kinds of problems for hands that were previously easy to bid.

 

Actually, my idea is neither ad hoc nor half-baked. It comes to some degree from my years of experience with Montreal Relay, an approach where the 1M response is always showing 5+.

 

In thinking through these sequences, and the parallel to the actual post offered, it has long occurred to me that there would be a lot of merit to showing immediate support cheaply and doubleton support expensively. I mean, IF you assume that conversion from 1NT to two of the major with five is frequent enough to force always doing this, in a sense, you start to develop some interesting concepts.

 

Consider, for example, this uncontested auction:

 

1♣-P-1♥(5+)-P-?

 

If Opener rebids 1NT to show typically a light balanced hand without support, this means a doubleton heart. If you would also bid spades on route to 1NT (debated elsewhere), the pattern ends up precisely 3235 most of the time. Opposite that, Responder might want to place the contract in 2♣ occasionally, and may want to pass, but 2♥ if often the call.

 

What if, however, 2♥ showed this exact hand and 1NT showed a 3-card or greater heart fit. Using that approach, you gain the ability to invite games without bypassing 2♥, which is a good thing.

 

Now, I am not saying that this is the ideal approach. My point is in response to your assumption that my analysis came out of thin air in response to a problem posed without aforethought. I have actually been brainstorming along these lines already. And, when assessing whether Montreal Relay, for instance, has or lacks merit against Walsh (which I also like very much and play with many partners), thinking through implications of auctions and possible tweaks is part of sound theory. Bart, for example, improves forcing 1NT but would not likely occur to someone who never played forcing 1NT. So also, treatments unique to 5-card major responses to a club opening might not occur to people who do not use them but might be well-considered by those who do or have for years.

 

Your objections seem to be incredibly vague comments and questions, so I have little ability to really respond to them with particulars. But, one of the objections is worth responding to. You asked what Responder does with the hand where he would normally bid 2♦ after Opener bids 1NT. I'm not sure what this means. If it usually would ask about diamond stoppers, that message has already been given, so the problem is gone. If it would normally ask something about spades, that message has also already been given. So, I don't understand that vague objection.

[han]

Generally with this shape I would bid 1NT, with or without a stopper. 2C is possible on a strong 5-card suit.

 

Now that partner has shown 5 spades (a seemingly impossible agreement!) and we have AK and no diamonds stopper, 2S seems better though.

 

I very much like 2D to show a strong hand. Useful agreement.