Awkward MPs decision

[monikrazy]

I think the discussion of pass vs 1nt is interesting, assuming opener will always pass 1n or bid 2c with a 6-card suit. I don't think we should be worried about missing game with a 4333 shape and no aces.

 

Another benefit of passing here is it may encourage ops to balance, and we have the potential to score quite well defending.

[PhantomSac]

I really like bidding 2S here, I think spades will often score better than clubs and I don't want to bid 1N.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 1 NT with a pickup partner (i.e. no discussion/understanding of what hands 1 ♠ will be bid on).

 

Just a thought for the 2 ♠ bidders. Give opener a 4=3=2=4 or 4=2=2=5 hand and 3 rounds of ♦s taps the 4 card ♠ suit. You might still be Ok if ♠ break 3-3. However, against the more likely 4-2 ♠ break, trump control may be lost.

[the hog]

" I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠."

 

They can. They can also choose to play 2S as a mini splinter.

[whereagles]

awkward?? how come? its a no-brainer 1NT...

 

if the auction promises a 5-4 then 2C is preferable, but other than that...

 

by the way, 1S can be played as forcing, but in that case it will be anything from a good 11 HCP to a super 21 HCP. I prefer that 1S is 11-17 and 2S 18-21 (and GF)

[mikeh]

I'm bidding 1 NT with a pickup partner (i.e. no discussion/understanding of what hands 1 ♠ will be bid on).

 

Just a thought for the 2 ♠ bidders. Give opener a 4=3=2=4 or 4=2=2=5 hand and 3 rounds of ♦s taps the 4 card ♠ suit. You might still be Ok if ♠ break 3-3. However, against the more likely 4-2 ♠ break, trump control may be lost.

I expect those who bid 2♠ expect partner to at least consider not ruffing the 3rd diamond: whether they did so would be dependent on the exact hand

[msjennifer]

But, this is the mirror image of why 2C is appealing. If Opener can rely on a 2C bid with this hand, he will not feel required to bid simply because he's unbalanced, which many styles already promised, and will not therefore bid 2C when a massive misfit is more likely.

I strongly disagree with the two club rebid.Playing with a partner,totally a stranger,I will always rebid 1 NT for the reasons I have already given.While practicing today,I purposely gave my partner a hand AJXx,876,Kxx,KQx.Does not one open One Club ?He was least amused when I purposely bid Two Clubs as defended by You.And if you say that with a 4225 with strength in clubs and spades opener will not bid 2 Clubs on my 1 NT,then well good luck to you and your theories !

[mikeh]

" I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠."

 

They can. They can also choose to play 2S as a mini splinter.

ah, yes....the mini-splinter.....yet another solution in search of a problem :D Why didn't I think of that, lol.

[kenrexford]

I strongly disagree with the two club rebid.Playing with a partner,totally a stranger,I will always rebid 1 NT for the reasons I have already given.While practicing today,I purposely gave my partner a hand AJXx,876,Kxx,KQx.Does not one open One Club ?He was least amused when I purposely bid Two Clubs as defended by You.And if you say that with a 4225 with strength in clubs and spades opener will not bid 2 Clubs on my 1 NT,then well good luck to you and your theories !

 

Um, I think you are being hostile without actually reading what I have posted. The example hand you gave is ♠AJxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣KQx. Your first question was whether with this hand partner would open 1♣, as if that is debatable. Obviously, this is a classic 1♣ opening.

 

You then fail to realize that I stated very clearly that there are different theories on rebid. If the rebid style is "always introduce spades," then obviously this is a 1♠ rebid hand, and then obviously 2♣ would be idiotic, as I noted implicitly.

 

However, in another style, which I mentioned as an alternative, you would never rebid 1♠ with this hand, instead opting 1NT. In fact, the only time you would rebid 1♠ is with the 4225 hand you are describing, or 4135, or 4315, or greater imbalance.

 

This explains the comment I made. If 1♠ already promised at worst 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-2-4, and only then if a serious COV in the black suits, Opener rebidding 2♣ would be insanity, rebidding the same hand twice. Requiring that insanity to get to 1♣ because Responder wants to bid 1NT for no good reason other than that he has a balanced hand would be silly.

 

If your partner is a random stranger, you cannot assume that he has the unbalanced hand. But, conversely, he will not assume that you assumed unbalanced either. Hence, without discussion, a 1NT rebid by Responder is obvious, and the "insanity" of "rebidding" the same hand with a 2♣ re-rebid is forced by the lack of discussion. If the rebid style is "spades always," then Opener's rebid of 2♣ with a 4225 hand and a COV in the black suits is not redundant, because 1♠ did not show that hand.

 

Thanks, though, for the wish of good luck!

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

ah, yes....the mini-splinter.....yet another solution in search of a problem :D Why didn't I think of that, lol.

 

Heck, you are also forgetting the mini-mini-splinter of 1♠. If 1♠ is forcing, Opener can play this as artificial. If Responder raises spades, a signoff at 3♥ works. If Responder bids anything else below 2♥, Opener can now support hearts (2♥), thereby showing an 11-12 count with a stiff. Who else can do that?!?!?! Aren't we brilliant!

[Zelandakh]

With a pick-up I am going to rebid 1NT with SAYC, SEF or Forum D agreed or 2♣ with 2/1 or (English) Acol agreed. The most difficult one would be Swiss Acol - I think that probably has to be a 1NT rebid too.

[helene_t]

Why does it matter if we play 2/1 or SAYC/SEF? Do you think 2/1 bidders are more likely to have 4+ clubs on this auction? Btw, wouldn't this sequence show an unbalanced hand in Swiss Acol? It is a weak NT system after all.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, I think 2/1 bidders will usually have an unbalanced hand for 1♠ whereas SAYC, SEF and Forum D are bid up-the-line. Swiss Acol can be done either way and therefore could potentially be a 4=3=3=3 hand. In English Acol you have not only that most (but not all) would not rebid 1♠ with the balanced hand but also the (mild) security of knowing there is a 4th club there should partner happen to be 4=(3-2)=4.

[Trinidad]

Yes, I think 2/1 bidders will usually have an unbalanced hand for 1♠ whereas SAYC, SEF and Forum D are bid up-the-line.

I don't think there is any difference between SAYC and 2/1 in the meaning of the auction 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; 1♠.

 

If the response would have been 1♦ (instead of 1♥), I would expect a portion of the players to suppress a four card major and rebid 1NT with a balanced hand because they might not have firm agreements whether they play Walsh or not. I would guess that Walsh is more popular among 2/1 players than among SAYC players. That might shift the probability for an unbalanced hand slightly in favor of 2/1, if responder bid 1♦.

 

But to suppress the spade suit after 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; you really need to have a separate, explicit agreement with partner in SAYC and in 2/1.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

But to suppress the spade suit after 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass; you really need to have a separate, explicit agreement with partner in SAYC and in 2/1.

Yes, Walsh is not part of SAYC.