xyz, 2/1 if it matters...

[rduran1216]

holding a 4333 13 count, after the auction 1c p 1H p ?

 

Does it matter if values are scattered, or is this always a 1s/1nt call?

[inquiry]

holding a 4333 13 count, after the auction 1c p 1H p ?

 

Does it matter if values are scattered, or is this always a 1s/1nt call?

 

I rebid 1NT with this shape, count. Always would seem to be the word I would apply to my choice.

[chasetb]

99% of the time I will rebid 1NT. The other 1% of the time, I have 12 or all 13 of my HCP in Clubs and Spades.

[rduran1216]

how do u cope with missing a 4-4 spade fit when partner has a 44xx minimum?

[inquiry]

how do u cope with missing a 4-4 spade fit when partner has a 44xx minimum?

 

I play in 1NT.

[Yu18772]

how do u cope with missing a 4-4 spade fit when partner has a 44xx minimum?

 

I think if you rebid 1NT that means you decided that 4-4 spade fit is not something you are looking for, the choice between 1NT and 1S is exactly that decision.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

[rhm]

I would bid 1NT only if the honor structure is notrump oriented and it looks notrump should be played from my side. My diamond holding may be vulnerable.

Most of the time I bid 1♠ and can not remember ever having a problem with it and I rather prefer to find my 4-4 fits in spades than in clubs.

Forcing restrictions on the cheapest available bid to reduce its occurrence is a sure sign of a flawed system design.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikestar13]

Missing the 4-4 spade fit is the price you pay for getting a lead into your 4 card spade suit when you don't have a fit. On probability grounds, I think the latter is more likely. Also 1NT is more likely to buy the contract than 2♠ when you do find the spade fit with a less than invitational values. Another advantage, using this style, the 1♠ rebid promises a real club suit.

[fromageGB]

Playing matchpoints I would rather find the spade fit, so it would be a weak spade holding that enticed me to bid 1NT.

 

In fact transfer walsh in the spade/NT inversion style probably has the best way on this hand. 1♣ 1♦! 1♥!, then if responder has 4 spades he bids 1NT for you to bid 2♠, or else bids 1♠! for you to bid 1NT.

[fromageGB]

... Also 1NT is more likely to buy the contract than 2♠ when you do find the spade fit with a less than invitational values.

Not sure I agree here. When both opponents have passed, a bid of 3m over 2♠ is not likely.

[Phil]

The world will not end if we play 1N with a 44 spade fit with one hand 4333.

[Mbodell]

This is clearly a partnership style issue. I think it is probably more important that you know partner's style than what it is. That said, I'm in the 100% 1nt camp.

[Zelandakh]

I think if you rebid 1NT that means you decided that 4-4 spade fit is not something you are looking for, the choice between 1NT and 1S is exactly that decision.

Not really. The decision is between rebidding to show hand type and showing suits "up the line" irrespective of hand type. For those rebidding 1NT, a 1♠ rebid would show real clubs and an unbalanced hand. While this is a potential loss opposite a minimum 44xx, most players believe that the overall gains from this approach more than compensate. Much of the time 4333 opposite 44xx will play for the same number of tricks in NT as spades anyway.

[fromageGB]

Not really. The decision is between rebidding to show hand type and showing suits "up the line" irrespective of hand type. For those rebidding 1NT, a 1♠ rebid would show real clubs and an unbalanced hand. While this is a potential loss opposite a minimum 44xx, most players believe that the overall gains from this approach more than compensate. Much of the time 4333 opposite 44xx will play for the same number of tricks in NT as spades anyway.

While there can be benefits in having the ability to show an unbalanced hand, I think your last sentence may not hold true. Opponents have an 8 card fit to lead, and unless partner is strong in general values, I would expect a spade contract to score better. You may be 4333, but partner will be ruffing the second or third round.

[mikl_plkcc]

I always rebid 1♠ in order not to miss 4-4 ♠ fits. In my system, bidding 1NT denies the ability to bid 1 of a major up-the-line.

[kenrexford]

Not really. The decision is between rebidding to show hand type and showing suits "up the line" irrespective of hand type. For those rebidding 1NT, a 1♠ rebid would show real clubs and an unbalanced hand. While this is a potential loss opposite a minimum 44xx, most players believe that the overall gains from this approach more than compensate. Much of the time 4333 opposite 44xx will play for the same number of tricks in NT as spades anyway.

 

Underlining this point. When you rebid 1NT with this type of a hand, you gain when you do bid 1♠ by promising clubs. Bidding 1♠ with this hand leaves clubs unknown. Granted, there may be something to be said for focusing on the potential spade fit rather than focusing on assuring that clubs are known to be real, but some (like me) want to focus general hand pattern and real clubs more.

[rhm]

Not really. The decision is between rebidding to show hand type and showing suits "up the line" irrespective of hand type. For those rebidding 1NT, a 1♠ rebid would show real clubs and an unbalanced hand. While this is a potential loss opposite a minimum 44xx, most players believe that the overall gains from this approach more than compensate. Much of the time 4333 opposite 44xx will play for the same number of tricks in NT as spades anyway.

Underlining this point. When you rebid 1NT with this type of a hand, you gain when you do bid 1♠ by promising clubs. Bidding 1♠ with this hand leaves clubs unknown. Granted, there may be something to be said for focusing on the potential spade fit rather than focusing on assuring that clubs are known to be real, but some (like me) want to focus general hand pattern and real clubs more.

The losses are obvious.

Whenever you have a 4-4 ♠ fit and responder has less than 11 HCP you are a heavy favorite to play the wrong part-score. This is frequent and looks to me like folly.

There are even a few hands where responder will pass 1NT, yet responder would invite over 1♠ and opener would accept and reach a good ♠ game.

 

The claimed gains are much harder to visualize. Yes, responder may have an easier rebid, when he knows that 1♠ promises ♣s and in rare cases he might choose the superior ♣ partial.

But apart from that, the claimed gains look to me infrequent and elusive. It would really be nice to get some illustrative deals from the proponents for this approach. I never see them.

In general if responder is weak it is far more likely that the additional information assigned to the 1♠ rebid will help good opponents in bidding and in the play.

 

To make it very clear, it is not that I consider clubs and hand pattern unimportant. But why should the cheapest bid in a major at the one level be narrowed down?

There is life after 1♠ to show real clubs and all that. There are after all gadgets like XYZ, which give opener plenty of room to describe his hand further should a strong responder need to know.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

The losses are obvious.

Whenever you have a 4-4 ♠ fit and responder has less than 11 HCP you are a heavy favorite to play the wrong part-score. This is frequent and looks to me like folly.

In my experience it's not that frequent. On the hands where we have a fit and the points are evenly divided, the opponents will often have bid something already.

 

But apart from that, the claimed gains look to me infrequent and elusive. It would really be nice to get some illustrative deals from the proponents for this approach. I never see them.

Equally nobody ever provides real-life deals that support bidding 1♠. I suspect that the gains of both methods are fairly infrequent.

 

There is life after 1♠ to show real clubs and all that. There are after all gadgets like XYZ, which give opener plenty of room to describe his hand further should a strong responder need to know.

That in itself is a cost. If bidding 1♠ on balanced hands means that you have to use 2♣ as artificial, you can no longer use it as a natural bid.

[cherdano]

Forcing restrictions on the cheapest available bid to reduce its occurrence is a sure sign of a flawed system design.

 

FWIW, sentences like this are why I usually never read your posts on bidding topics. There are other goals in an auction than exchanging a maximum amount of information.

[rhm]

FWIW, sentences like this are why I usually never read your posts on bidding topics. There are other goals in an auction than exchanging a maximum amount of information.

What are they please in a constructive auction?

Maybe you can be a bit more specific and more to the point of the goals of this particular sequence.

Cant is a very poor substitute for arguments.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

What are they please in a constructive auction?

Maybe you can be a bit more specific and more to the point of the goals of this particular sequence.

Cant is a very poor substitute for arguments.

 

Rainer Herrmann

I probably speak for few on this point, but as I personally would bid 1S in the discussed sequence with 3145 pattern often, the bid is not as restricted as you might think. But, my main objection is that you have somewhat of a fallacy. If we had a GF sequence, for example, then you have a point. But, with limited options, you have to split space effectively.

 

For instance, using your logic, one could say that 1NT should show balanced with precisely two spades, rebidding 1S with 3 spades and balanced, to increase the frequency of 1S bids. If two bids are available, and only two, you want 50% in each, not 80-20, because you lack space for the unwind. One might conclude (as do I) that your approach under-loads 1NT and overloads 1S, with insufficient space to unwind 1S effectively.

 

So, if someone finds your bidding theory postings not worthwhile because of a view that your analysis can be oversimplified at best to wrong at worst, I understand why, with this discussion being an example.

[cherdano]

What are they please in a constructive auction?

Maybe you can be a bit more specific and more to the point of the goals of this particular sequence.

Cant is a very poor substitute for arguments.

 

If sequence A and sequence B reach the same contract, then obviously the sequence that gives out less information is superior.

In this particular sequence when opener has 4333 and responder doesn't have 5/6 hearts, then NT is quite likely the best or an adequate strain. Bidding 1NT over 1H will get there with minimum information leakage.

 

I thought all this to be obvious, and that we are just disagreeing about the trade-offs to be made.

[rhm]

In my experience it's not that frequent. On the hands where we have a fit and the points are evenly divided, the opponents will often have bid something already.

Given that declarer's distribution is given my simulations show that after a 1♥ response you will have a 4-4 fit in spades 20% of the time, when responder would pass 1NT.

I consider this frequent. Yes opponents will have a minor suit fit. What are they supposed to bid, particularly when their fit is in clubs?

 

Equally nobody ever provides real-life deals that support bidding 1♠. I suspect that the gains of both methods are fairly infrequent.

Come on. I only asked for deals to illustrate the advantage, not for real-life examples. Random simulations are good enough.

My simulations show an advantage for ♠ contracts, when responder will pass 1NT when a 4-4 fit in spades exists, on average of more than 1.5 tricks.

This is a very big difference, but no specific distribution is frequent, even 4♠=3=3=3 with 12-14 HCP is rare.

 

Just the first example of one of my simulations. I can provide many more.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sak72hqj4dq64c875&w=s9865ha83dajct643&n=sqj43hk976dkt83c9&e=stht52d9752cakqj2]399|300[/hv]

 

Trick difference:3

 

That in itself is a cost. If bidding 1♠ on balanced hands means that you have to use 2♣ as artificial, you can no longer use it as a natural bid.

Of course any convention has a cost. XYZ is no exception. But the general consensus seems to be that opponents are unlikely to let you play 2♣ anyway when that would be a good contract.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

In this particular sequence when opener has 4333 and responder doesn't have 5/6 hearts, then NT is quite likely the best or an adequate strain. Bidding 1NT over 1H will get there with minimum information leakage.

My objection is the use of the word "adequate". 2♠ usually gets more matchpoints than 1NT when there is a 4-4 fit, and while 1NT is "adequate", 2♠ is "better". At IMPS there is not much at stake here, and the side benefits of the implications when you do bid spades according to your methods may be more important. However, at matchpoints, give me the higher scoring contract any day.

 

Another advantage of finding the spade fit (if there is one) is that when 1NT is passed round to the protective position, it is easier to find a say 2♦ fit/sacrifice than it is when 2♠ is passed round. I think at part-score levels, being in a major has the advantage here.

[fromageGB]

Sorry, I don't object to the use of the word "adequate", that is a good description when coupled with the connotation "but not the best".