Scrambling from 1NT

[MickyB]

1♦:1♥

1♠:1NT

 

1♦ = natural or 11-13NT 2+♦, no 5-card major

1♥ = 4+♠

1♠ = 11-13 NT 2-3♠. Sometimes 2-4-(5-2) bids this way.

1NT = below invitational values, precisely four spades, no five-card suit

 

What should it mean now if opener rebids 2m?

 

a) Five-card suit

b) 5m4H

c) 3S4H4m

d) 4H4m

e) shouldn't exist

f) other

[kenrexford]

Depends on your philosophy. 2♦ is rather non-interesting and natural. What else with as much as 7♦/4♠ but repeating diamonds?

 

2♣ should be something like 4-0-5-4, but one could decide to have a special treatment for 2♣, such as perhaps (1) 4-3-5-1 or 4-3-6-0 and extras (checkback option), or maybe (2) a stronger hand with four spades and longer diamonds, showing extras but allowing a stop at 2♦ if Responder is bust (self-cue option).

[gwnn]

I think a) is most sensible. At some point it's nice to show your 5-card suit and the 2 level doesn't seem to be too high.

 

I take it all of 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ show unbalanced hands or hands with 4 spades?

Depends on your philosophy. 2♦ is rather non-interesting and natural. What else with as much as 7♦/4♠ but repeating diamonds?

 

2♣ should be something like 4-0-5-4, but one could decide to have a special treatment for 2♣, such as perhaps (1) 4-3-5-1 or 4-3-6-0 and extras (checkback option), or maybe (2) a stronger hand with four spades and longer diamonds, showing extras but allowing a stop at 2♦ if Responder is bust (self-cue option).

Maybe you should re-read the conditions? :)

[aguahombre]

Yeh, Gwnn. It is rare that Ken misses the conditions. I was surprised.

[kenrexford]

Oops! LOL

 

Let me try this again. Responder has shown four spades, and Opener has shown 2-3 spades. The conditions do not explaoin what Opener's option of instead bidding 1NT shows, as gwnn pointed out. I cannot tell whether 1NT (or 2♣ or 2♦ for that matter) promise four hearts or promise a stiff/void in spades, or what anything means. Trying to figure out what calls mean without context of what omitted calls mean is difficult.

 

 

Also, go back even further. The 1♦ call was defined as showing a potential of 2+ diamonds if 11-13 HCP. Does that mean balanced? Does that mean, if 2-card, then specifically 2335? Or, is canape relevant.

 

The reason that this is relevant to me is that we can exclude out (presumably) the "just clubs" hands because with 2-3-3-5 one would presumably pass 1NT. If one does not pass 1NT, then presumably one therefore has an unbalanced balanced hand with diamonds.

 

If this is the case, then I think the conditions have largely reversed from what I thought. It seemed to me when I read this incompletely that 2♣ would typically show 4054, but the natural would seem to be 3154, 3155 or 3164. The plausible other meanings might be (1) 3451 or (2) long diamonds with extras.

[gnasher]

Let me try this again. Responder has shown four spades, and Opener has shown 2-3 spades. The conditions do not explaoin what Opener's option of instead bidding 1NT shows, as gwnn pointed out. I cannot tell whether 1NT (or 2♣ or 2♦ for that matter) promise four hearts or promise a stiff/void in spades, or what anything means. Trying to figure out what calls mean without context of what omitted calls mean is difficult.

 

Also, go back even further. The 1♦ call was defined as showing a potential of 2+ diamonds if 11-13 HCP. Does that mean balanced? Does that mean, if 2-card, then specifically 2335? Or, is canape relevant.

 

I think you should re-re-read the conditions.

[kenrexford]

I think you should re-re-read the conditions.

 

What the heck am I missing now?

 

I cannot see anything that suggests a limitation on the 1♦ opening when not natural other than 11-13 and no 4-card major. Could that mean 4-4-2-3? That's balanced. What about 0-0-2-11? That meets the definition so far. Granted, the 1♠ rebid seems to prove that only 2-0-2-9 is now possible in this bizarro world. It seems like balanced was intended. So, that does not seem to be what I am missing.

 

 

 

If you mean that 2425 ius possible, I would still think that passing is an option.

 

 

 

So, what am I missing now?

[gnasher]

What the heck am I missing now?

 

I cannot see anything that suggests a limitation on the 1♦ opening when not natural other than 11-13 and no 4-card major. Could that mean 4-4-2-3? That's balanced. What about 0-0-2-11? That meets the definition so far. Granted, the 1♠ rebid seems to prove that only 2-0-2-9 is now possible in this bizarro world. It seems like balanced was intended. So, that does not seem to be what I am missing.

I think that "11-13 NT" was shorthand for "an 11-13 notrump opening".

 

Does that mean, if 2-card, then specifically 2335?

I think that "Sometimes 2-4-(5-2) bids this way" means that opener can be 2452 or 2425. A 2452 or 2425 shape contains a douleton spade and is not 2335.

 

 

Anyway, perhaps it would be easier if I just told you what MickyB meant.

 

The 1♦ opening is one of:

(a) An unbalanced hand where the longest suit is diamonds

(b) Any hand that one would treat as 11-13 balanced, except that it excludes hands with a five-card major. This includes all 4333 shapes, all 4432 shapes, all 5332 shapes with clubs, all 5332 shapes with diamonds, and notrump-oriented 5422 shapes with a 5-card minor and a 4-card major. (Mike didn't specify what he would do with a 22(54) or (332)6.)

 

The 1♠ rebid shows any hand of type (b) which doesn't have four spades.

[kenrexford]

If 1♠ promises 11-13 balanced with 2-3 spades, then 2♣ or 2♦ should probably show a COV with 5m-3♠, then.

 

E.g.,

 

2♣ with ♠AQx ♥xx(x) ♦xx(x) ♣AQJxx.

2♦ same but diamonds.

 

Something like that.

[awm]

If responder could have 5 spades I'd agree with Ken, but he can't and the times 4-3 major fit is better than 1nt is a narrow target.

 

My question would be, can responder have 4 hearts? If so it seems important to find 44 heart fits at least when opener is not 3433. This points towards the 4H4m version.

[MickyB]

Ty Gnasher.

 

My question would be, can responder have 4 hearts?

 

Yup.

[JLOGIC]

Without thinking about it too much I thought 4H5m. I feel like getting out of 1N should require a semi extreme hand and that is it (and obviously that's a hand where getting out of 1N will be right very often, if partner doesn't have 4 hearts they will often have 3m, and even if they don't a 5-2 fit is often fine).

[Flameous]

For MP I'd say option e)

 

At IMPs I see uses for both Ken's suggestion and Justin's suggestion. The other minor should always be weak to bid this.

 

Then it just comes down to frequency analysis ;)