Opener's rebid playing 2/1 GF

[luke warm]

On the other hand, unless pard is playing Mafia (majors always first in answering), which by the way is an excellent method that I almost always follow, partner may well have a spade suit along with longer clubs.

if i had a 2/1 gf hand with 4 spades and 5 clubs, i'd *never* bid the spades first... to me it's more important to establish the game force...

[Chamaco]

playing 2/1, 2s shows extra, that is what i want to tell pd. So 2S is my bid. It is reverse, but not confined to 16+, but good 14+.

But 2H waiting, playing 2/1 *does not deny* extras.

 

The extra showing bid is not only meant to show the extra, but also to show honors concentration.

Bidding 2H now you can still show extras later, if you have them.

 

Here, the hand is non-minimum but nothing to be proud of, with singleton in pard's suit: a waiting bid is enough, not denying extras, and not showing a mediocre spade suit.

If pard's rebid will show soething else, the hand can still drive to slam (especially if we find non-club fit), but opposite a 2C response, right now there is no room for reevaluation of the hand, with potentially lots of wastage in clubs in resoponder's hand.

 

Point count is not the key to 2/1 rebid, but rather concenbtration of honors and showing key features, and right now the hand has not any feature which seem to be worth showing (I wd not call a QTxx suit as a feature to show :) ).

[flytoox]

playing 2/1, 2s shows extra, that is what i want to tell pd. So 2S is my bid. It is reverse, but not confined to 16+, but good 14+.

But 2H waiting, playing 2/1 *does not deny* extras.

 

The extra showing bid is not only meant to show the extra, but also to show honors concentration.

Bidding 2H now you can still show extras later, if you have them.

 

Here, the hand is non-minimum but nothing to be proud of, with singleton in pard's suit: a waiting bid is enough, not denying extras, and not showing a mediocre spade suit.

If pard's rebid will show soething else, the hand can still drive to slam (especially if we find non-club fit), but opposite a 2C response, right now there is no room for reevaluation of the hand, with potentially lots of wastage in clubs in resoponder's hand.

 

Point count is not the key to 2/1 rebid, but rather concenbtration of honors and showing key features, and right now the hand has not any feature which seem to be worth showing (I wd not call a QTxx suit as a feature to show :) ).

That Rebid 2H doesnt deny extra doesnt mean you should rebid 2H. Rebiding 2H should be avoided whenever possible. Here it is possible. In 2/1, rebidding your major after pd's 2/1 response is kind of catch-all bid. So you should avoid it whenever possible. Here you have good hand, not only high card points, but good control. So bid 2s.

 

As you mentioned, I also follow mike lawrence's advice. I believe he will rebid 2S not 2H.

[luke warm]

nah, he'd probably open 2D, as would a whole host of high caliber player :)

 

*lmao*

[HeartA]

Point count is not the key to 2/1 rebid, but rather concenbtration of honors and showing key features, and right now the hand has not any feature which seem to be worth showing (I wd not call a QTxx suit as a feature to show  :) ).

After my partner rebid 2H, because "concenbtration of honors and showing key features" is the key, I should rebid 3♣, holding ♠K9xx, ♥Kx, ♦x, ♣AKQxxx.

 

Where are we going then?

 

BTW, what is RKC for?

[Chamaco]

That Rebid 2H doesnt deny extra doesnt mean you should rebid 2H. Rebiding 2H should be avoided whenever possible.

 

This also works the other way around: just becasue you have the distribution to bid 2S and values close to it, it does mean you have to bid it, if you have a decent alternative that avoids the pitfalls of bidding a lousy suit.

 

In my opinion, if opener has any alternative rebid, he should avoid mentioning a suit without honors concentration above 2 of his major ("pseudoreverse"). This should be higher priority than showing some 3 hcp extras: of course, if the hcp exceed 16/17 hcp, then there is a need to show immediately the extras some way, but usually in that case you have either a GOOD second suit to show or a GOOD suit to jump rebid, or some NT descriptive bid.

 

With this pattern, it is not that fundamental to discriminate a 12/13 from a 15 count. It is plausible, possible, but not essential. It would be good to do it IF YOU HAD A GOOD SUIT TO SHOW.

It is much more important to show the GOOD features of the hand, either distributional or in honors concentration.

 

2/1 sequences should rather focus on bidding features rather than hcp, and here opener's hand has only one (unbiddable at this point) feature: the good diamond controls.

 

Mentioning a second suit above 2 of a major should show good values there. There may be cases where there is no good alternative, but here there is a good alternative, the 2H waiting bid, which won't lead partner to believe we have good values in spades, and it does not deny extras. These requirements fit with the example hand so I do not see any problems with them. :)

[Chamaco]

After my partner rebid 2H, because "concenbtration of honors and showing key features" is the key, I should rebid 3♣, holding ♠K9xx, ♥Kx, ♦x, ♣AKQxxx.

 

Where are we going then?

After my partner rebid 2H, because "concenbtration of honors and showing key features" is the key, I should rebid 3♣, holding ♠K9xx, ♥Kx, ♦x, ♣AKQxxx.

 

Nope, I bid 2S and if pard does not support, I bid 4C as a slam try.

Quite easy, IMO

 

BTW, what is RKC for?

 

I play kickback, so it wd be spades, but it is just a matter of pship agreement.

[Chamaco]

Now that apparently the various approaches to opener's rebid seem to have been explained by the posters, it would be interesting to know if there was a specific reason (e.g. inherent to the story of this hand) why Ben started the poll :blink:

[the hog]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

[inquiry]

Now that apparently the various approaches to opener's rebid seem to have been explained by the posters, it would be interesting to know if there was a specific reason (e.g. inherent to the story of this hand) why Ben started the poll  :)

This is a kind of hand that has always interested me. Everyone knows how to make first bids, and even most first rebids... but diverge often on later bids. But here is one where I thought there would be a lot of reasons for alternative bids.

 

And I was wondering if the world has "improved" (read match my choice). since this question (hand and auction) was originally published in the july 1988 master solver chargers bridge world. In 1988, the results of the MSC was (first number was number of expert votes, percentage is the percentage of readers votes who wrote in)

 

2S = 12, 33%

2D = 8, 21%

2H = 4, 32%

2N = 4, 13%

 

So in 1988, and now, the most popular vote was 2S. Surprizingly, the right vote (that is my vote) was second with the experts thne (2D), but not too popular with the readers. Then, 2H and 2S were very close among the readers but the experts. Here, in our poll, 2H is almost an after thought.

 

If you play 2S DOES NOT PROMISE extra value (hence, no "precison" part of the question, 2S rebid seems fine). Otherwise, I have to agree with RON and say that if you rebid 2S on this hand, you (and the 12 expert voters in 1988), don't know how to bid. BTW, someone suggested that Mike Lawarence would rebid 2S with this hand. Maybe today, but in 1988 he rebid 2H's on this one.

 

I agree with the group of experts who, in 1988 said 2D.. People like Larry Cohen, who said "2D, Seems to leave more room than 2S. We can still get into spades if partner has them." And Carl Hudecek who said "2D. Caters to a lot of auctions and does not overstate the heart suit". Maybe R. Wolff said it best, "2D. Least of evils."

 

I throw 2NT out, singleton club. I throw out 2S, as I save it for a hand with better spades or more strength. So that leaves 2H and 2D. I agree with Mauro that 2H neither promises nor denies extra values, but this hand has GREAT diamond values and I can bid 2D to show something there and wait for parnter to clarify his holding. I would love to hear a 2H or 2S rebid over 2D. I can also handle 3C, 2NT and 3D rebid without having overstated my hand with a reverse on my second bid. To me, 2D seems clear...but the results of htis poll shows me, as always, I am out of that silly iceberg by myself again. I thought more people (aka readers) would go to 2D now... it was 21% in 1988... today it is 3%, and that 3% is me. Oh well.

 

For the 2H bidders, you are right. To me 2H is much better bid than 2S. If the club and diamond suits were reversed, and partner had responded 2D (I now have a singleton diamond, and 3 clubs to AKx), I would rebid 2H knowing that was the right bid.

 

Ben

[Chamaco]

I agree with the group of experts who, in 1988 said 2D.. People like Larry Cohen, who said "2D, Seems to leave more room than 2S. We can still get into spades if partner has them." And Carl Hudecek who said "2D. Caters to a lot of auctions and does not overstate the heart suit". Maybe R. Wolff said it best, "2D. Least of evils."

I agree that 2D is a reasonable bid, IMO much better than 2S.

 

As I said, I think opener's rebid should be geared towards describing teh FEATURES of the hand, and not necesarily an extra hcp or 2 , if this has to be done by showing a QTxx suit.

 

Here, as I wrote in one of the posts, the only feature is the great diamonds controls, so yes, if I have to distort a little the hand, I'd rather bid 2D with AKx.

 

BTW, if the clubs and diamonds were reversed (the example just given by Ben), I would support partner's clubs (assuming 2C guarantees 5 C) by bidding 3 clubs (not 2H), which show non-minimum hand, and at least Hxx or xxxx support

[luke warm]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

ron, this is even more interesting given ben's revealing of the '88 bridge world poll... does it mean that, in your opinion, the majority of the world class players who took part do not know how to judge a bridge hand?

 

btw ben, the percentages don't make sense unless i'm looking at it wrong.. there appear to be 28 total votes cast... if this is so

 

12 of 28 (43%) voted for 2S (you show 33%)

8 of 28 (29%) voted for 2D (you show 21%)

4 of 28 (14%) voted for 2NT (13), and

4 of 28 (14%) voted for 2H (you show 32%)

 

have i missed something in my calculations?

[flytoox]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

 

This kind claim doesnt make much sense.

[inquiry]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

ron, this is even more interesting given ben's revealing of the '88 bridge world poll... does it mean that, in your opinion, the majority of the world class players who took part do not know how to judge a bridge hand?

 

btw ben, the percentages don't make sense unless i'm looking at it wrong.. there appear to be 28 total votes cast... if this is so

 

12 of 28 (43%) voted for 2S (you show 33%)

8 of 28 (29%) voted for 2D (you show 21%)

4 of 28 (14%) voted for 2NT (13), and

4 of 28 (14%) voted for 2H (you show 32%)

 

have i missed something in my calculations?

Your mistake is you didn't read the first part...

 

The numbers are actual votes by the panel of experts.. the percentages are unrealated to the expert votes. The percentages is what readers did.... (not the panel). I provided both panel's view (circa 1988), and what the general reader was doing.

[the hog]

Yep. This 6 loser hand is not worth a reverse, unless you are playing that 2S shows no extras. (This is a treatment that has no merit whatsoever by the way). Can live with 2D, but prefer not to manufacture suits. Bidding has improved out of sight in the last 10 years, so I would be very surprised if the majority of 2/1 players on the expert panel bid anything other than 2H today.

 

This is not a debate about Mafia methods, but as an aside, I agree with Nikos in that the Mafia philosophy is excellent. (You should look at it Jimmy.) However even after 2C you will not miss a S fit eg

 

1H 2C 2H 2S now 3S shows a better hand than 4S in the context of the bidding to date

 

Without 4S responder can bid a gf waiting 2N bid, or bid 3D with 4 cards there or, (if 3C is still a gf), bid that. wtp?

[the hog]

Clear cut 2H. 2S bidders do not know how to evaluate a hand.

 

This kind claim doesnt make much sense.

Neither does this comment.

[luke warm]

~snip~ Bidding has improved out of sight in the last 10 years, so I would be very surprised if the majority of 2/1 players on the expert panel bid anything other than 2H today.

 

This is not a debate about Mafia methods, but as an aside, I agree with Nikos in that the Mafia philosophy is excellent. (You should look at it Jimmy.) ~snip~

i agree that *systemic* bidding may have improved, but i don't agree that judgement (ie, hand evaluation) has improved that much from '88 to now... and i know for a fact i've seen ben (and henri and many other players i respect) bid a 5 card m while holding a 4 card M and a game force hand... i don't know exactly *why*, i only know why i'd do it in certain situations - to set the game force, establish forcing pass situations, etc...

 

as for mafia, i used to play that way, and still do in most situations... not all though

 

The numbers are actual votes by the panel of experts.. the percentages are unrealated to the expert votes. The percentages is what readers did.... (not the panel). I provided both panel's view (circa 1988), and what the general reader was doing.

ok, thx... in that case, the judgement of a fairly large percentage of supposedly world class players voted 2S... as in all such discussions, i can't make any statements of bidding superiority with certitude... we all make, often, arguments from authority... we all have players we look to as being our authority figures (for example, ron rightly respects klinger even tho he might not agree with him 100% of the time.. some are walsh disciples, others lawrence, still others bergen)... since it would take a very high placement in more than one sectional, regional, and/or national for me to consider myself an expert, i probablly have more authority figures than most

 

iow, if enough world class players (even from back 'in the day' circa 1988) judge a certain bid to be superior, i might have to begrudgingly rethink my precudices/opinions

[junyi_zhu]

Now that apparently the various approaches to opener's rebid seem to have been explained by the posters, it would be interesting to know if there was a specific reason (e.g. inherent to the story of this hand) why Ben started the poll  B)

This is a kind of hand that has always interested me. Everyone knows how to make first bids, and even most first rebids... but diverge often on later bids. But here is one where I thought there would be a lot of reasons for alternative bids.

 

And I was wondering if the world has "improved" (read match my choice). since this question (hand and auction) was originally published in the july 1988 master solver chargers bridge world. In 1988, the results of the MSC was (first number was number of expert votes, percentage is the percentage of readers votes who wrote in)

 

2S = 12, 33%

2D = 8, 21%

2H = 4, 32%

2N = 4, 13%

 

So in 1988, and now, the most popular vote was 2S. Surprizingly, the right vote (that is my vote) was second with the experts thne (2D), but not too popular with the readers. Then, 2H and 2S were very close among the readers but the experts. Here, in our poll, 2H is almost an after thought.

 

If you play 2S DOES NOT PROMISE extra value (hence, no "precison" part of the question, 2S rebid seems fine). Otherwise, I have to agree with RON and say that if you rebid 2S on this hand, you (and the 12 expert voters in 1988), don't know how to bid. BTW, someone suggested that Mike Lawarence would rebid 2S with this hand. Maybe today, but in 1988 he rebid 2H's on this one.

 

I agree with the group of experts who, in 1988 said 2D.. People like Larry Cohen, who said "2D, Seems to leave more room than 2S. We can still get into spades if partner has them." And Carl Hudecek who said "2D. Caters to a lot of auctions and does not overstate the heart suit". Maybe R. Wolff said it best, "2D. Least of evils."

 

I throw 2NT out, singleton club. I throw out 2S, as I save it for a hand with better spades or more strength. So that leaves 2H and 2D. I agree with Mauro that 2H neither promises nor denies extra values, but this hand has GREAT diamond values and I can bid 2D to show something there and wait for parnter to clarify his holding. I would love to hear a 2H or 2S rebid over 2D. I can also handle 3C, 2NT and 3D rebid without having overstated my hand with a reverse on my second bid. To me, 2D seems clear...but the results of htis poll shows me, as always, I am out of that silly iceberg by myself again. I thought more people (aka readers) would go to 2D now... it was 21% in 1988... today it is 3%, and that 3% is me. Oh well.

 

For the 2H bidders, you are right. To me 2H is much better bid than 2S. If the club and diamond suits were reversed, and partner had responded 2D (I now have a singleton diamond, and 3 clubs to AKx), I would rebid 2H knowing that was the right bid.

 

Ben

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.

2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds,

strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT

which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.

The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as

standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much

bid your hand naturally.

Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.

Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show

4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,

you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by

the raise.

 

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D

in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

 

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

 

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.

so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,

2N shows spades and extra value. So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),

all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

 

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

[inquiry]

The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as

standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much

bid your hand naturally.

Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion.

Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show

4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,

you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by

the raise.

 

So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D

in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited.

 

However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D!

 

Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems.

so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length,

2N shows spades and extra value. So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness),

all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid.

 

Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't.  2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds, strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT

which actually is not as horrible as many assumed.

 

Yes, the panel played 2-over-1 game forcing. This was a MasterSolver problem, using Bridge World Standard. To quote the editor "You might think this is a pretty straight foward 2-over-1, or Eastern scientific, or BWS bidding problem, or non-problem. Wrong!

 

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid. A number of other panelist consider it second best to their choice. I wonder how many will agree with you that it THE WORST BID EVER. You must live a perfect bridge life if you find this the worst ever.

 

As for reversing the meaning of 2D and 2H? Seems unnecessary to me..... allows them to double 2di for lead, or for other competitive purposes. But to each his own.

 

Ben

[EricK]

I am a 2♥ bidder.

 

I do have a nice hand, but the singleton ♣ is a negative factor, and the ♠ suit is weak. So I don't like the reverse into 2♠ or the off-shape 2NT.

 

I can understand why 2♦ might be popular, but I don't like it. In general, you don't need both players trying to describe their hand to their partner. It is enough that one player does. Here, if I rebid 2♦ partner will think I am taking on the describing role, so I don't want that bid to be a lie. If I rebid a waiting 2♥, partner will continue describing his hand to me. That is exactly what I want to happen.

 

If we were not playing 2/1, I think 2♦ would a lot more going for it.

 

Eric

[Chamaco]

Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show

4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you,

you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by

the raise.

 

Showing strength should not be a terrible problem.

I think that nowadays most serious 2/1 pairs use serious or frivolous 3NT in order to be able to discriminate fitting hands (in a major) with/without slam interest.

 

At least I do, despite not considering myself a serious player :rolleyes:

 

So in this case after 2H waiting and pard's 3H raise, I'd have no problem bidding serious 3NT, which shows slam interest with concern for the spade suit.

If pard does not signoff (therefoe showing spades control), I'll RKCB.

 

---------------------

One more issue:

you refer to splintering in clubs if pard bids 2Spades after 2H waiting.

 

is it common to splinter in pard's 2/1 suit ?

 

I would play it as a honor cuebid (stiff Q or better), showing a filler for pard's source of tricks. I do believe that it is much more useful to be able to show fillers than shortness in pard's suit.

BTW I think jumping to 4C would tend to show concern for diamonds, which is the last of our worries here.

 

So I'd rather support spades with 3S and follow up within the serious 3NT/LTTC framework.

[luke warm]

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid.

ben, who were the ones who bid 2S?

[whereagles]

I fail to see what's wrong with a simple 2H. Isn't it normal to bid 2H on 5-4 hands that aren't strong enough to reverse? (Like this one, lol) Why should one have to lie about diamonds when a 2H bid is perfectly within the sytem?

 

Besides, if pard has a 4-5 in the minors, he may take your 2D bid too seriously and drive to a diamond slam on the moysian fit:

 

QTxx.......Kx

AQ9xx.....Kx

AKx.........Qxxx

x.............AKxxx

 

which would be an ok slam, IF you had held a spade less and a diamond more.

[joker_gib]

2♥ for me (waiting, does not deny extra's), not enough for a reverse !

 

(note : 2/1 is not GF in my system !)

[inquiry]

I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman,  Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid.

ben, who were the ones who bid 2S?

Bidding 2H in the poll was... Biily Eisenberg, Michael Lawrence, Eric kokish, and Jeff Rubens... a very nice, although small collection. Kit Woolsey, the director and who doesn't vote, did give very strong arguements for 2H and against 2S. His arguements against 2D was that it misdescribed shape...that was it.

 

BTW, the 2S bidders were almost apologetic with their votes...

 

Among the two spade bidders was one of my favorites, Marshall Miles who would have preferred to open flannery. John Criger said of 2S... "A littel light for a reverse..but... shouldn't significantly hurt our chances of reaching the right contract." Peter Pender, who rebid 2S said, "I have extras, if not full reversing values, so why not bid naturally"