No stop

[wanoff]

Without the overcall, 1NT is easy rebid for strong NT opners but now that opps have overcalled in spades a 1NT bid now would certainly show a spade stop. So my only bid would be 2 diamonds. I don't feel that either clubs or hearts would be a better suit - maybe only a 4-3 fit, and partner could well have 3 diamonds with me.

 

Wishful thinking that.

Partner is likely to have 3+ spades, 4+ hearts, 3+ clubs. Also do you really want to show 6 diamonds ?

[1eyedjack]

You are only showing 6 Diamonds if you have so agreed. I would not recommend making a bid that shows a 6th Diamond. But then I would not recommend entering into an agreement where that is what the bid shows.

 

There are two reasons why it might not be reasonable to insist on a 6th Diamond for the bid.

 

One is that depending on agreements you may have only so far promised 3 of them. It may be sensible not to rebid the suit just to show one extra card, but to require 3 extra may be a bit excessive

 

The other is that partner's double is effectively a forcing bid. Your obligation to have extra length is suspended where you are responding to a force contrasted with volunteering the suit.

 

Partner should not be doubling with Spade length. Tolerance for Diamonds is a reasonable expectation or, failing that, partner has sufficient length in H or C to bid the suit next round.

[Trinidad]

Wishful thinking that.

Partner is likely to have 3+ spades, 4+ hearts, 3+ clubs. Also do you really want to show 6 diamonds ?

Who says that 2♦ shows 6 diamonds?

 

If the 1NT bidders can say that 1NT doesn't show a spade stop, then the 2♦ bidders can say that 2♦ doesn't show a 6 card suit.

 

Personnally, I don't get where the idea comes from that a rebid in a minor shows a six card suit. When I was taught bridge (admittedly in the 20th century) it showed only 5, even in an uncontested auction. If I would get a 1=3=4=5 hand with 14 HCP, I would open 1♣ and rebid:

2♦ over 1♦

2♣ over 1♥/♠/1NT

 

Nowadays people are avoiding a rebid in a minor on a five card suit and they will rebid:

?? over 1♦

2♥ over 1♥

1NT over 1♠

?? over 1NT

 

My teacher told me back then: "If you lie about anything, lie about a minor." That made perfect bridge sense back then and it makes perfect bridge sense in the 21st century too. So, even if you think that 2♦ shows a 6 card suit (which it doesn't), you can lie and say you have 6 when you only hold 5.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Those people who choose a "lie" here are those who require 6 pieces for a 2D rebid AND require a spade stop for a 1NT rebid. That is just a bad combination of agreements.

 

You are either in the "size and shape" camp, with partner on the same page --- or you are in the "must have stop" camp and partner knows you might have only 5D.

 

Neither camp will convince the other to change. I would strongly recommend you lose the combination of agreements mentioned in my first paragraph, since it creates a lie to partner.

[Trinidad]

Agua,

 

Bridge is still a game of making the best bid possible.

 

What are you going to do if you are in the "1NT shows a stop" camp and you hold:

♠J97

♥432

♦AQ75

♣AK7

 

Rebid 2m, because 1NT promises a spade stop? I think that is absurd.

 

Similarly, what are you going to do if you are in the "2♦ shows 6" camp and you hold:

♠32

♥432

♦AKQJT

♣KJ3

 

Bid 1NT, because 2♦ promises 6? I think that is equally absurd.

 

I think that it is good to realize that you do not always have the perfect bid. You try to make the best of it and that is all you can do. If it works out bad, there always is the next board with new chances.

 

Rik

[1eyedjack]

The issue may be related to a modern trend to double 1S on any hand with 4+ Hearts and lacking a forcing bid, where a decade or so ago there was more emphasis on shortage in oppo suit. I still have something of a preference for the old school. But there is a stronger case for 1N if, consistent with the modern trend, Diamond tolerance cannot be assumed with the double.

[iandayre]

Yes, so on game hands the chance of a doubleton spade is reduced. Even ♠Jxx maybe an effective stop.

RP naïve using one of his toys in a new partnership.

 

 

Really? He was naive to think that his supposedly expert partner had read their convention card?

[Trump Echo]

I think Aqua's point is the rebiddable 5 Diamonds gives opener somewhere to go. It would be silly to play both "must have stop" and "must have six to rebid."

[Fluffy]

I think Aqua's point is the rebiddable 5 Diamonds gives opener somewhere to go. It would be silly to play both "must have stop" and "must have six to rebid."

It is silly to play must have stop no matter what as you are also dealt 3343 and also some 4432 with 4 smalls.

 

Also I find it silly to discuss about Promise 6, show 6 or whatever.

 

Promise 6, shows 6 or whatever its just a word game. They can mean the same yet be expressed with different words, and the opposite is also true, they can be expressed with same words yet meand ifferent things for different people. Similar to what happens to take out doubles at high levels (or any level actually), that you can name them whatever you want but the real things is that they will become final some perentage of the time and be pulled the rest, and instead of giving it words you would be better of defyning just an aproximate percentage on how often they should be passed, like 4♠-X = 60-40 take out.

[aguahombre]

I think Aqua's point is the rebiddable 5 Diamonds gives opener somewhere to go. It would be silly to play both "must have stop" and "must have six to rebid."

Thanks echo. That was exactly my point. You either are a size and shape person or you will rebid a mediocre 5-card minor; you shouldn't be both. On some hands you might have problems rebidding, this isn't one of them. Doesn't matter to me at all what some other partnership chooses; but they should not have both 6 and stop, for then they have a problem where they shouldn't have.

[Trump Echo]

Reminds me of something I read a while ago - it was probably on BBO. Various experts were asked what does it take to be an expert?

 

One of them said, the important thing is to be on the same page as your partner. What really struck me was that he said (paraphrasing) "It doesn't really matter what system you use. The important thing is you are both in sync." And the other thing he said was to play every hand as if it was the world championship.

 

I think it's interesting that the robots play rebiddable 5 card suits. And they play a pretty good game, IMO. I don't know who wrote that software, what his play level is, or how they decided that rebiddable 5-card suits makes sense in the new millennium, but the robots seem to handle themselves fairly well (I believe they don't necessarily promise a solid stop in NT but they imply it).

 

I do acknowledge, of course, the game is evolving for the better, and I may someday be convinced that our system could use improvement. And btw, I do own Goren's 1963 bridge book, not that I follow it too closely these days (Fluff - I believe you mentioned you read the book twice early on - in one of your stories...)

[the hog]

Agua,

 

Bridge is still a game of making the best bid possible.

 

What are you going to do if you are in the "1NT shows a stop" camp and you hold:

♠J97

♥432

♦AQ75

♣AK7

 

Rebid 2m, because 1NT promises a spade stop? I think that is absurd.

 

Similarly, what are you going to do if you are in the "2♦ shows 6" camp and you hold:

♠32

♥432

♦AKQJT

♣KJ3

 

Bid 1NT, because 2♦ promises 6? I think that is equally absurd.

 

I think that it is good to realize that you do not always have the perfect bid. You try to make the best of it and that is all you can do. If it works out bad, there always is the next board with new chances.

 

Rik

 

If you hold the first hand and have those agreements your system is unplayable. Change your agreements. This hand is not uncommon.

 

The second hand is a non problem as that hand would be opened 1NT. If not, bridge judgement says treat THAT D suit as a 6 carder.

 

"I think that it is good to realize that you do not always have the perfect bid. You try to make the best of it and that is all you can do. If it works out bad, there always is the next board with new chances."

 

True, but you do not need to cripple yourself either.

[Fluffy]

Similarly, what are you going to do if you are in the "2♦ shows 6" camp and you hold:

♠32

♥432

♦AKQJT

♣KJ3

 

Bid 1NT, because 2♦ promises 6? I think that is equally absurd.

 

Absurd or not that's what I'd do for sure, at least playing MPs, No, its not because I feel ashamed of having "only" 5, its because I wanna play 1NT opposite 8-9 balanced. Allowing partner to bid his 5 card hearts is another plus.

[lrussell]

2♦ - agree with 1eyedjack 110%

(especially the comment about wrong-siding the NT)

[aguahombre]

Whatever your partnership style is for the rebid in this situation --- and is is purely a style issue --- wrong-siding is not in the mix.

 

It could be important if Responder were playing NT and Opener were the one with a stopper to be led through. But, the overcaller is on lead. That is the person we want on lead. Actually we could use right-siding as an argument for the 1NT without a stop.

[Cyberyeti]

Whatever your partnership style is for the rebid in this situation --- and is is purely a style issue --- wrong-siding is not in the mix.

 

It could be important if Responder were playing NT and Opener were the one with a stopper to be led through. But, the overcaller is on lead. That is the person we want on lead. Actually we could use right-siding as an argument for the 1NT without a stop.

 

Not really, you hold xxx, partner has Q10x, do you want the overcaller on lead with AJxxx or is it AKxxx, no you want his partner to resolve this for you on the opening lead.

[aguahombre]

Not really, you hold xxx, partner has Q10x, do you want the overcaller on lead with AJxxx or is it AKxxx, no you want his partner to resolve this for you on the opening lead.

who would you want on opening lead if partner has q doubleton? But like I said, pick a style. Wrong-siding is not really why we would select one over the other.

[gszes]

There are times the "best" description is sorely lacking in some important

aspect. We have all had to bid 1M with a 3 card major (ick) well the same type of

scenario exists with this hand. To go beyond 1n is "unsafe". The 1N bid will not

keep us from making game/slam level contracts and it quite possibly is the last

"safe" place to play.

 

Jumping around in nt assuming opener has a stopper makes little sense since

there is an easy cue bid to verify a stop. A more interesting question might be

just that what would the south hand bid after responder cues at the 2 level:))))

[whereagles]

It need not be "unsafe", but yes, passing 1NT can lead to a few ridiculous contracts if say, you bid 2♦ and find doubler with 3415. Or if you bid 2♣ and doubler has 3433 :)

[ggwhiz]

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

[MrAce]

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

 

LOL

[aguahombre]

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

Well, that clears it up. If you had come in earlier, we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing style and the pros/cons of 1NT vs. 2D.

[ggwhiz]

Well, that clears it up. If you had come in earlier, we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing style and the pros/cons of 1NT vs. 2D.

 

OK, I don't have any pros. :)

 

Partner will play me for a min opener with some spade wastage, misbid, sell out and/or misdefend vs. any more bidding or 1nt ends the auction AND is the right spot.

 

A 2♦ bid is off by 1 crummy spot that pard can read as a possibility of "none of the above" and not being adverse to playing a moyse, a 2♣ bid either gets a preference back to diamonds or has some play.

 

I make 1nt at least a 3 to 1 parlay.

[Fluffy]

Partner will play me for a min opener with some spade wastage, misbid, sell out and/or misdefend vs. any more bidding or 1nt ends the auction AND is the right spot.

This has an easy solution: change your partner to someone who has studied bridge during this century.

[Trinidad]

This has an easy solution: change your partner to someone who has studied bridge during this century.

Sorry, Gonzalo, but this is not the way.

 

Simply put: 1NT is a bad bid. It may be that all other actions are even worse and that 1NT is the least of evils. But you cannot tell me that you are going to be proud when you bid 1NT, LHO bids 3♠, and partner bids 3NT when they cash the first 5 tricks. You cannot act as if this hand is an example hand in a 21st century bridge book of a perfect 1NT rebid when it isn't.

 

I agree with you that a 1NT rebid does not promise a spade stop. Nevertheless, partner is allowed to expect one, since without a spade stop you should be considering alternative rebids. Sometimes you hold a 3343 and there is no alternative. In this case, there are two possible alternatives for 1NT (2♣ and 2♦). Neither of these is flawless, but acting as if 1NT is flawless with the argument that "it is the 21st century bid" is not very helpful.

 

Rik