1m-1r-1nt denying spades

[wank]

2/1 base. assume 5542 1 openings unless that causes further problems.

 

this style is totally alien to me (i play that 1x-1y-1z promises an unbalanced hand), but i've got a new partner who plays that way.

 

what should i consider? for example it seems pointless to play checkback (2-way) over 1nt in a normal manner.

 

how do people playing this way resolve opener's minor length if 1z doesn't even promise a real suit x?

[Phil]

You can just as easily ask the inverse question:

 

How do you find the 44 spade fit when opener rebids 1N and responder isn't strong enough to investigate?

[blackshoe]

You can just as easily ask the inverse question:

 

How do you find the 44 spade fit when opener rebids 1N and responder isn't strong enough to investigate?

You don't. This is a greater problem at matchpoints then at IMPs, but I don't think it's really that big a deal even at matchpoints.

[wank]

You can just as easily ask the inverse question:

 

How do you find the 44 spade fit when opener rebids 1N and responder isn't strong enough to investigate?

 

i understand the effects of playing that way and sometimes losing the spade fit. i'm not here to convince anyone to play my way. i've just never played the other way in my 28 years of bridge, so there are bound to be subtleties i don't understand, hence this post.

[awm]

The 1nt rebid over 1-red guarantees 4m, since with 3m the rebid would be 1M (or a raise).

 

With an invitational hand you can use a two-way check back method (where 2c..2nt shows interest in openers minor while a direct 2nt denies).

 

In general it becomes much easier to locate 4-4 spade fits, somewhat easier to locate 4-4 fits in openers minor, and harder to locate 5-3 fits in openers minor.

[Vampyr]

So you can open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ with, say, 4=3=3=3? Some of the problems might be eliminated if you played 4-card majors.

[Phil]

You don't. This is a greater problem at matchpoints then at IMPs, but I don't think it's really that big a deal even at matchpoints.

 

In my experience it's a huge deal at MPS.

[blackshoe]

In my experience it's a huge deal at MPS.

Okay. How huge?

[NickRW]

Okay. How huge?

 

Wouldn't like to quantify it myself, but it is in the same order of magnitude as playing weak NT in a strong NT field or vice versa. Sometimes you're going to find (or miss) a 4=4 major fit as a result of your choice. If you play 1m-1r-1N as NOT denying 4 spades you're going to miss 44 fits quite a lot when responder is too weak to make a further move.

[blackshoe]

Wouldn't like to quantify it myself, but it is in the same order of magnitude as playing weak NT in a strong NT field or vice versa. Sometimes you're going to find (or miss) a 4=4 major fit as a result of your choice. If you play 1m-1r-1N as NOT denying 4 spades you're going to miss 44 fits quite a lot when responder is too weak to make a further move.

And when responder is strong enough to move, you greatly improve game and slam bidding. Seems to me it's worth the trade-off.

[1eyedjack]

I think that you gain back a scattering of MPs against opponents who autolead Spades against the 1N rebid, or think it safe to come in with 2S.

[Phil]

And when responder is strong enough to move, you greatly improve game and slam bidding. Seems to me it's worth the trade-off.

 

Game bidding - to a small degree.

 

Slam bidding - this is pretty minimal, since responder can GF and opener can reveal the minor.

[MrAce]

And when responder is strong enough to move, you greatly improve game and slam bidding. Seems to me it's worth the trade-off.

 

He said MPs for a reason, yet you are mentioning the game and slam bidding improvements as if they are priority compared to part scores. It does not look profitable trade off at all to me, at MP.

Weak NT ers at least have the preemptive advantage so it maybe a fair trade off. Opening 1m and then hiding spades looks like the worst among the mentioned 3 styles at MP.

[mikeh]

My experience is that the gains from concealing the spade suit far outweigh the occasional costs of missing the 4=4 fit in spades....by a very wide margin. As one example, that is rarely mentioned by those who don't like the method, it makes the 1N rebid by responder far more honest and safe to pass.

[jallerton]

2/1 base. assume 5542 1 openings unless that causes further problems.

 

this style is totally alien to me (i play that 1x-1y-1z promises an unbalanced hand), but i've got a new partner who plays that way.

 

what should i consider? for example it seems pointless to play checkback (2-way) over 1nt in a normal manner.

 

One thing to consider is 4th suit forcing sequences. You are probably used to a sequence like 1C-1H-1S-2D-2H being typically based on a doubleton (3415s jump now or raise hearts on the previous round). But if Opener is 4324 he is presumably bidding 1S in your new partner's style and now bids 2♥ over 2♦ 4th suit. Similarly 2NT over 2♦ now could be 4234. A further round of bidding is required to differentiate the hand types. (Some will be tempted to rebid 3♣ on a 5-card suit, but I don't think that's best.)

 

Another thing to ask partner what he rebids on a 4(32)4 18-count. Some now agree to show the point count with 2NT but others still prefer to show ther spade suit.

 

how do people playing this way resolve opener's minor length if 1z doesn't even promise a real suit x?

 

In some cases they don't. This is clearly a weakness of the method. I remember watching a USA pair in the Bermuda Bowl a few years ago bidding 1♣-1♥-1♠-3♣-Pass, reaching a silly 3-4 fit with two balanced hands. In BWS, as I recall, this problem is partially solved by rebidding 1NT on 4333 hands (and opening 1♦ with 4) so that 1♣-1♥-1♠ does at least promise at least 4 clubs.

[jdonn]

If you are playing this way then you should definitely play XYZ after a major suit rebid, because that doesn't promise length in the opened minor so there isn't much value in being able to sign off in it.

[helene_t]

You will need an agreement about how to respond to FSF with a hand with no clear direction, such as 4234 with three small diamonds. Maybe 2♠ shows this while 3♠ would be the 5-6 hand?

 

Also, it is good for responder to have a way top show an invitational hand with no clear direction. Maybe you could play XYZ this way that 2♣ followed by 2♥ doesn't suggest more than five hearts, and opener is supposed to bid 2NT or 3♣ with a minimum with a singleton hearts?

[MrAce]

In some cases they don't. This is clearly a weakness of the method.

 

Sometimes it is weakness, sometimes advantage. Everything we show to our pd, we are also showing it to our opponents. Sometimes your style showing an unbalanced hand (4441) or at least 5-4 in rounded suits is used by pd to our benefit, sometimes it turns out being irrelevant piece of information in the decision process of where we end up.

 

But opponents ALWAYS use this piece of info to their benefit. I personally find it much harder to defend vs pairs who opens 1m and rebids 1M with all of 4333 4234 4225 4135 4315 whether they end up playing 2♠ or 3♠ or 4♠ or any number of NTs or any number of club contracts.

 

Having said all of this, ironically I play the style where I rebid NT unless it is unbalanced at IMPs. Mp is a different animal, where missing a borderline game or slam fear is reduced by a lot and every right or wrong move by defenders have a huge effect on the score.

[jallerton]

But opponents ALWAYS use this piece of info to their benefit. I personally find it much harder to defend vs pairs who opens 1m and rebids 1M with all of 4333 4234 4225 4135 4315 whether they end up playing 2♠ or 3♠ or 4♠ or any number of NTs or any number of club contracts.

 

I agree with you about auctions when they end up playing in spades. But when Opener ends up playing in NT, the opposite is true. If the opponents have bid 1♣-1♥-1NT-3NT then the hand is easier to defend if Opener has told us about his (lack of) spade length. Meanwhile if Opener has a balanced hand with 4 spades, you will have longer/more informative auctions to 3NT if Opener has to start with a 1♠ rebid.

[Finch]

A few things are fairly obvious, and I think Jallerton has mentioned many of them:

 

- As responder, don't give preference (or jump preference) to opener's minor. Just bid NT more whether or not you have a stop. In a Walsh style you can raise 1S to 2S after 1C-1D-1S with 3-card support. You can probably do the same after 1c-1h-1s as well on some 3523 10-count (I've seen opponents do this successfully)

- You will miss minor suit fits this way, but partner is usually balanced when he rebids 1S.

 

- As opener, remember that you are usually balanced when you rebid 1S, so be prepared to do more bidding if you aren't, because it will be news to partner

- This affects your bidding over 4th suit (as already pointed out). You also need to know what to rebid on 18-19 balanced.

 

- another thing to do is to play that, say, 1C-1H-1S-2C-2H is not extra values, it just says that opener didn't have real clubs. This allows responder to give preference back to clubs on a hand that really doesn't want to bid 1NT.

 

For more complex agreements, it depends how keen you want to get with responder's rebid structure.