6-4 rebid

[broze]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat82dj52cakqt85&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

What's your rebid and how close is it - i.e. what would you change about the hand to change your bid? Do you have specific agreements with your partner about light/shapely reverses?

 

Sorry - somehow I failed to create a poll.

[Mbodell]

I try 2h. If you moves a heart to diamond I'd try 3c. If you changed the heart A to the Q I'd try 2c. If you made all my hearts spades I'd bid 4c.

[whereagles]

Reversing is appealing, but the void is worrisome. Think I'll be a bit conservative and bid 2♣.

 

who knows, maybe pard can bid 2♥ himself, after which the hand becomes really good.

[Fluffy]

2♣, you switch spades and diamonds and I Will bid 2♥

[wank]

2h. i don't care about the spade void when i've got 7 likely tricks.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat82dj52cakqt85&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

What's your rebid and how close is it - i.e. what would you change about the hand to change your bid? Do you have specific agreements with your partner about light/shapely reverses?

 

Sorry - somehow I failed to create a poll.

 

 

2c no problem yet. Sometimes I have a max.

 

It helps a bit if you play reverse flannery when pard will not have 5s and 4h very often.

[neilkaz]

2♣, you switch spades and diamonds and I Will bid 2♥

Yes, exactly the same for me.

[Cyberyeti]

Never 2♣, can live with 3♣ or 2♥, I'd probably bid 2♥, it is a 7 playing trick hand so I'm happy with the playing strength.

[mikeh]

2♣. No rule against having a maximum, even tho most on the forum seem to bid as if it is illegal

[Cyberyeti]

2♣. No rule against having a maximum, even tho most on the forum seem to bid as if it is illegal

 

Do you bid on with hands like J109xx, xxx, AKx, xx or do you just accept you miss 3N on these ?

 

I suspect some of the differences here may come from the fact that I can have x, Qxxx, xx, AKxxxx for the 2♣ rebid but I suspect many from North America can't, so I like to be able to pass on some vaguely OK hands.

 

I also can't have a real monster for a 2♥/3♣ rebid, as I have a different bid for those, so the upper range is limited to about 7.5 playing tricks.

[whereagles]

well, bidding isn't an exact science... while dodging bullets on misfits, you will certainly miss some good games

[wanoff]

Obviously 2♥. You don't want to look silly when partner has 2 tricks and passes 2♣.

Normally my reverse is 17+ and F1 but you can't always have the perfect hand.

[wanoff]

Reversing is appealing, but the void is worrisome. Think I'll be a bit conservative and bid 2♣.

 

who knows, maybe pard can bid 2♥ himself, after which the hand becomes really good.

 

2♥ from partner is forcing. I'd be worried about hands where they might not bid again.

[the hog]

2c. I am never reversing into 2h with this hand with a s void after pd has bid spades.

[Trump Echo]

2♥

[whereagles]

2♥ from partner is forcing.

 

Depends. Some define 1st step (here 2D) as the forcing bid.

[mikeh]

Do you bid on with hands like J109xx, xxx, AKx, xx or do you just accept you miss 3N on these ?

 

I suspect some of the differences here may come from the fact that I can have x, Qxxx, xx, AKxxxx for the 2♣ rebid but I suspect many from North America can't, so I like to be able to pass on some vaguely OK hands.

 

I also can't have a real monster for a 2♥/3♣ rebid, as I have a different bid for those, so the upper range is limited to about 7.5 playing tricks.

here we go again

 

A poster poses a question about bidding, in the natural bidding forum. You post your answer and then it turns out that your answer is based on an undisclosed, undescribed, idiosyncratic non-standard method. Why do you do this? Why not answer the OP question in the context in which it is asked, and, if appropriate, add that it is possible to deal with these hands using specialized methods?

 

Any method that advocates opening 1♣ on some Qxxx AKxxxx hand may well be 'effective' in the limited sense that it is almost as difficult to play against as it is to play.....but unless it is within the context of severely limited opening bid ranges, such as a big club or big diamond method, it will prove to be impossible to use in a constructive fashion, which is why EHAA never caught on with good players.

[helene_t]

A poster poses a question about bidding, in the natural bidding forum. You post your answer and then it turns out that your answer is based on an undisclosed, undescribed, idiosyncratic non-standard method. Why do you do this?

OP is from the UK like Cyberyeti. Over here is is not very unusual to open 1♣ on x-Qxxx-xx-AKxxxx. It's a fine rule-of-19 hand which is the criterion many pairs put on their CC. I wouldn't personally open that hand in most partnerships but it is very close.

 

"Natural bidding" is not necessarily the same as standard North-American bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

OP is from the UK like Cyberyeti. Over here is is not very unusual to open 1♣ on x-Qxxx-xx-AKxxxx. It's a fine rule-of-19 hand which is the criterion many pairs put on their CC. I wouldn't personally open that hand in most partnerships but it is very close.

 

"Natural bidding" is not necessarily the same as standard North-American bidding.

 

Exactly, I happen to think that anything that involves opening 1♣ on a doubleton has no place in a natural bidding forum, but since it's done in large parts of the world, I live with it. I did note that the OP was from the UK before posting what I did.

 

It's also not at all rare here to have an opening bid for an 8 playing trick hand with clubs (2♣ or 2♦ as 8 playing tricks in either minor or 8 playing tricks in any suit or to have the strong two as part of a multi 2♦), hence the maximum of 7.5 tricks for a 3♣ rebid. This is extremely common in club bridge although less so as you go up in standard.

 

Others (much less commonly)do what we do using an artificial rebid, GGG uses 2♠, we use another weak NT arrangement where a 1N rebid is wide range with no gap to the 2N opener, so a 2N rebid is art GF.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 2 ♣.

 

Partner's 1 ♠ portends a possible misfit, so I'm going slow in any case.

 

Secondly, I recall many years ago, a bridge columnist saying that it's a lot easier to add values later in the bidding than to convince partner you have less than originally shown. I play strong reverses, so the hand shown although about a max minimum isn't good enough for my reversing with it.

[bdegrande]

3♣. If you are even considering 2♥, then 2♣ can't be an option, and the void in partner's suit is a very good reason not to make a light shape reverse.

[the hog]

3♣. If you are even considering 2♥, then 2♣ can't be an option, and the void in partner's suit is a very good reason not to make a light shape reverse.

 

So if responder is 5+4 in the Ms you lose your heart fit, as 3H now would be stopper showing/asking.

3C and 2H carry the same weight and as I posted earlier, I consider both of them to be wrong.

[luckyloser]

this is a matter of style. knowing what partner expects is critical. if, for instance, you reverse with this hand and your partner is a BBO-robot you will end up in 7nt opposite many hands that just qualify for game.

[Cyberyeti]

this is a matter of style. knowing what partner expects is critical. if, for instance, you reverse with this hand and your partner is a BBO-robot you will end up in 7nt opposite many hands that just qualify for game.

 

This is true, but a hand that might make a grand opposite the right flattish 12 count (xxxxx, KQxx, AK, xx) and might well make one opposite a non extreme 9 count xxxxx, KQxx, A, xxx) surely is more than a 2♣ rebid.

[Zelandakh]

I suspect some of the differences here may come from <snip>

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context. If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above). If you play light reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 2♥ and that is closer with perhaps a small preference for 2♥. If you play reverses between those extremes the choice is again between 2♣ and 2♥ but now the pendulum possibly swings back towards 2♣ (but still very close and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

 

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening? And would system (ie whether the weak systemic opening would be 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣) affect that choice? I am assuming everyone would upgrade this hand into a 15+ 1♣ opening if playing one of those systems...