Bypassing a Major on a Balanced Hand

[Free]

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AKxx ♥ Axx ♦ xxx ♣ Qxx ♠ Qxxx ♥ KQxx ♦ xx ♣ xxx

 

1♣-1♥

1NT - P

 

And loses 5♦ and at least 2 top ♣ with 2♠ on the table !

 

You can always find hands that fit or do not fit your system  :rolleyes:

no, ♠ and ♥ were divided 5-0 and 5-1 and you went 4 off...

 

Yes, you can always find hands that (don't) fit to any system. But maybe a frequency on this kinds of hands might be very interesting to see that such hands are quite rare.

[Fluffy]

Look at the logic behind this - if you open xxxx xxx xxx xxx with 1C and rebid 1S, as one poster said he does, you have taken 2 bids to tell your partner what? I have 4S. Your bidding says nothing about the shape of your hand or your strength.

Sorry Ron, hate to quote ya, and I am afraid you will punish me for these ;)

 

I have shown: 3+ ♣, 4♠, 0-2♥, adn 12-18 HCP.

I have given partner the option to show 4+♥ and 6+ HCP.

 

What is poor partner to do with a hand where he would normally give preference to 2C, but now cannot because you may not have a C suit. (eg Qxx KJxxx Tx Qxx).

He bids 1NT I guess

 

He rebids 1NT right.

 

and so you play a silly contract maybe going off when 2C is cold.

Wrong, if opener has 5♣ he rebids 2♣ after 1NT unless the suit sucks, or he has KQ10 in ♦ or... you know.

 

 

 

IF you are now afraid of a 4-4 ♣ firt being losed... oh well you already saw what Alain had to tell you about lsoing 4-4♠ fit.

 

Nevertheless, in France, Spain and Belgium also probably I supose, 99% the hands that are played, are scored at MP, where losing a 4-4♠ fit brings you normally and inmediate bottom, so playing a system that may allow us to lose it its something we can't even think of.

[joker_gib]

Nevertheless, in France, Spain and Belgium also probably I supose, 99% the hands that are played, are scored at MP, where losing a 4-4♠ fit brings you normally and inmediate bottom, so playing a system that may allow us to lose it its something we can't even think of.

Yes, that's also the case in Belgium ! ;)

 

And you also have a complete bottom when there is 1NT+1 and 2C = or +1 !! :D

 

Alain

[inquiry]

Look at the logic behind this - if you open xxxx xxx xxx xxx with 1C and rebid 1S, as one poster said he does, you have taken 2 bids to tell your partner what? I have 4S. Your bidding says nothing about the shape of your hand or your strength.

Sorry Ron, hate to quote ya, and I am afraid you will punish me for these ;)

 

I have shown: 3+ ♣, 4♠, 0-2♥, adn 12-18 HCP.

I have given partner the option to show 4+♥ and 6+ HCP.

Well, I am sure ron will not punish you... but I will make a few comments...

 

You say you showed 0-2 Hearts, and yet you have three. So in fact, you have not said 0-2 hearts, you have said 0-3 hearts (and some of the 1S bidders have suggested they can have FOUR hearts (that is clearly not defensible). If you are willing to be 4-3-1-5 with a good hand, then 1S is ok, so that when you next bid 2H, it shows this hand, GREAT. But then, that is unbalanced.

 

Ron then said

What is poor partner to do with a hand where he would normally give preference to 2C, but now cannot because you may not have a C suit. (eg Qxx KJxxx Tx Qxx).

He bids 1NT I guess

To which your replied

He rebids 1NT right.

 

A couple of issues here, many either raised spades or bid 2C with this hand in the companion hand on this topic (I rebid 1NT, but I was in the minority). And if you do bid 1NT, you miss the black suit fit when your partner is REALLY, truely unbalanced.

 

IF you are now afraid of a 4-4 ♣ firt being losed... oh well you already saw what Alain had to tell you about lsoing 4-4♠ fit.

 

Are we really afraid with Qxx KJxxx Tx Qxx of playing 2S in a 4-3 fit when partner is 4-2-2-5 or 4-1-3-5? Our doubleton diamond stops the run of that suit, parrtner five clubs is a source of tricks, and in the later case, a diamond ruff is a potential source of a bonus trick. If you rebid 1NT and they take the first six diamond tricks, either black suit contract will score better. If your partenr is weak with either or those distributions, he will pass 1NT.

 

Nevertheless, in France, Spain and Belgium also probably I supose, 99% the hands that are played, are scored at MP, where losing a 4-4♠ fit brings you normally and inmediate bottom, so playing a system that may allow us to lose it its something we can't even think of.

 

Ok, so you get an immediate bottom, instead of an average when 2S makes 2, and 1NT makes less than 2. On the other hand, you will get an immediate top when 1NT makes the same or more tricks. In addition, whenever your partner DOESN'T have 4S, you ae much better poised, I think, to bid intellegently for the remainder of the auction. I have a question. Is your 1S rebid geared entirely to matchpoints (where immediate bottom is your fear), or do you bid same at imps? I will do a bridgebrowser check of these auctions.

 

Ben

[pclayton]

The logic here is that if 1♠ promises unbalanced, it will simply further bidding on the "big hands"... At imps, it is the big hands that count.

 

So on an auction like

1C-1H-? ,,, ,if you play strong 1NT (I play 14-16), a 1NT rebid shows 11-13. Now partner is well placed to know how high to go. And I can differentiate later between this range if invited. So if the hand belongs in a part score, we may have just missed 2C or 2S, but we did not get overboard. IF we are in the wrong contract, at least 1NT is playable and partner is willing to rebid a five card heart suit so might get into the right contract after all...

 

Likewise if I play weak NT, this shows the strong 1NT opening bid hand. If partner is weak, we are in 1NT like the rest of the field who opened 1NT, and checkback can pick up the four card spade suit or three card heart support.

 

A second win with 1♠ promise unbalanced hand, it prevents the silly 2C contract when responder looking at Qxx KJxxx xx Qxx pulls 1S to 2C and we play in a 3-3 fit if I am 4-3-3-3 with a 5-3 heart fit available, or we play in 2S in 4-3 with 5-3 available, and we avoid 1NT when that is right. And when I DO BID 1S, partner can count on me to have five plus clubs. If I was 4-3-2-4, I would tend to raise hearts if I felt I could nto rebid 1NT. This way, we never get to 3-3 or even 4-3 minor fit. And partner never feels the urge to rebid a ratty five card heart suit over my 1S bid (unlike the strong urge to do so over some 1NT rebids).

 

Of course, I can not get out in 2C, and this influences my decision to bid 1S only with unbalanced hands. If my partner wants to play clubs, we must play 3C (2C is xyz). So the simple preference to 2C is not an option. Thus I REALLY want to unbalanced to bid 1S since doing so forces me to 2H or higher if my partner doesn't rebid 1NT (my 1S is 100% force). Experience has shown with xyz, this 1S rebid REALLY, REALLY has to be unbalanced. And in my opinion, even without xzy, it should be unbalanced at imps. Matchpoints where finding the 4-4 spade fit to play exactly 2S instead of 1NT then bidding it on balanced hands makes more sense. My bidding is styled for imps.

 

Ben

I've mulled this over with the XYZ effects too.

 

I can't bid 1♣ - 1 red - 1 spade - 2♣ without it being invitational, or a signoff in 2♦. So, with the 5 - 9 pointers, I'm endplayed into either 1N or 2♠ - which can be frequently 3 card support. Occasionally 2N pops up as a relay to 3♣, but that hand isn't really a problem.

 

Conclusion? Rebid the semi-balanced hand 1♠, not 1N. If pard has 3 card support, and a little shape, you'll play 2♠ on a 4-3. If partner has a flat hand, with possibly belated club support, he'll bid 1N. Opener with the Walsh shape can run back to 2♣.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing whats wrong with this approach.

[mike777]

with 4333 i will rebid 1N. with 4(32)4 i will rebid 1S about 90 % of the time.

Very interesting threads and posts.

 

Found Justin's most persuasive after much thought. Seems too problematic otherwise when P has invite or weak 5h4s or 4h 4s. Finding that 4-4 spade easy and fast seems to be a bit more important.

 

If p does have the 11-13 hcp balanced hand after 1s seems not that much of an issue. I can use xyz or respond 1nt from my side. We often open 1nt or 2d with 4225 or 4252 or other balanced hands with 14-16 or 18-19 anyway so that will eliminate many 1s rebids.

 

Perhaps one advantage is the hidden spade suit in NT play.

[luke warm]

~snip~

Conclusion? Rebid the semi-balanced hand 1♠, not 1N. If pard has 3 card support, and a little shape, you'll play 2♠ on a 4-3. If partner has a flat hand, with possibly belated club support, he'll bid 1N. Opener with the Walsh shape can run back to 2♣.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing whats wrong with this approach.

there's nothing at all wrong with it, it's a matter of style and preference... for me i've long since decided that it's better for partner to know i have 9 black cards else the occasional 4441... by rebidding 1nt i define my shape and strength.. by rebidding 1S i define my shape... it's that simple

 

not wrong, not right, just preference

[the hog]

Sorry Ron, hate to quote ya, and I am afraid you will punish me for these :lol:

 

No Fluffy! It is only the arrogant who don't/won't read posts or skim them who annoy the hell out of me. Not one person, has apart from yourself has actually attempted to rebut arguments in a logical way.

 

Wrong, if opener has 5♣ he rebids 2♣ after 1NT unless the suit sucks, or he has KQ10 in ♦ or... you know.

 

You would really bid 2C on say AJ to 5 or worse? Well, Fluffy I think that is wrong - you could be facing a weak doubleton C. You also run the risk of responder upgrading a doubleton honour because he thought you really had your bid.

 

Nevertheless, in France, Spain and Belgium also probably I supose, 99% the hands that are played, are scored at MP, where losing a 4-4♠ fit brings you normally and inmediate bottom, so playing a system that may allow us to lose it its something we can't even think of.

 

Well see Ben's response to this. I will say one thing, a lot of -50s vs -90s at the other table will not win you many matches over a period of time, let alone the other sequences that occur when you know that pd is balanced/unbalanced, has Cs/doesn't have C. You guys must have a lot of difficulty bidding minor suit games and slams.

 

Two other observations -

1).if you are so paranoid about missing a 4-4 M suit fit, why not play a 4 card M system?

2). As a square hand facing a square hand frequently makes the same no. of tricks in NT as in a suit, doesn't Ben have a valid point regarding "instant tops and bottoms"?

[fred]

Conclusion? Rebid the semi-balanced hand 1♠, not 1N. If pard has 3 card support, and a little shape, you'll play 2♠ on a 4-3. If partner has a flat hand, with possibly belated club support, he'll bid 1N. Opener with the Walsh shape can run back to 2♣.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing whats wrong with this approach.

I can think of a few things wrong with this approach:

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S, opener will have a hard timing knowing what to do next if he doesn't know how many spades his partner has.

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S-P, sometimes the 4-3 fit will be a completely ridiculous contract.

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-1NT, I think you are suggesting that opener routinely rebids 2C with a minimum hand that contains 5 clubs. That will get you to a 5-1 fit if responder has something like 2551 distribution.

 

I am a believer in using 1C-1H-1S to show an unbalanced hand (ie a hand with at least 5 clubs and 4 spades), but if you play this way and use the XYZ convention in this auction, you are giving up one of the main advantages that your style gains for you (the ability to play in 2C and know that it is right).

 

Although I don't use it myself (I use something else that I think is better), I can understand using XYZ after 1D-1H-1S. I can (barely) stomach the concept of playing this convention after 1C-1H-1S, but only if opener's 1S rebid says nothing about his club length (ie he could have 4333). I would certainly refuse to play XYZ after 1C-1H-1S if the 1S rebid promised an unbalanced hand.

 

Just because I (or anyone else) doesn't like this convention doesn't mean that it is "bad". As I have said before, the most important thing about the bidding system you play is that you and your partner like it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pclayton]

Fred said:

 

I can think of a few things wrong with this approach:

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S, opener will have a hard timing knowing

what to do next if he doesn't know how many spades his partner has.

 

In another post I explained how 2N for us is like an ogust ask, that clarifies responder's # of trump and strength. Opener won't bid on unless he is maximum of course. Part of this approach is that 1♠ is a virtual force.

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-2S-P, sometimes the 4-3 fit will be a completely ridiculous contract.

 

Its situational; it can be a fantastic contract, or it may be slightly worse or better than 1N. Playing xyz, our options are somewhat limited, so we aren't reaching 2♣ directly. But I don't know that our choices aren't any worse than much of the rest of the world that doesn't promise an unbalanced hand.

 

- When the bidding goes 1C-1H-1S-1NT, I think you are suggesting that opener routinely rebids 2C with a minimum hand that contains 5 clubs. That will get you to a 5-1 fit if responder has something like 2551 distribution.

 

Maybe yes maybe no; with a suit oriented 4135, I would expect opener to pull, yes. If opener doesn't pull, the worse that will happen to use is that we play 1N instead of a 5-3 ♣ fit that the unbalanced 1♠ bidders seem to think is the holy grail in these auctions.

 

Playing xyz, I'm not sure that a 2551 pattern by responder would bid 1N anyway; it may be a 2♣ rebid, trying to salvage a red suit contract. Not playing xyz, its about impossible to roll into 2♦.

 

I am a believer in using 1C-1H-1S to show an unbalanced hand (ie a hand with at least 5 clubs and 4 spades), but if you play this way and use the XYZ convention in this auction, you are giving up one of the main advantages that your style gains for you (the ability to play in 2C and know that it is right).

 

As I said, I don't play that it promises an unbalanced hand. I learned xyz directly from Chris Larsen, whose partner, Joe Kivel invented xyz. They don't play that 1c - 1h - 1s promises an unbalanced hand. I asked him this specific question several years ago and he bristled at the idea that 1♠ should show an unbalanced hand.

 

Although I don't use it myself (I use something else that I think is better), I can understand using XYZ after 1D-1H-1S. I can (barely) stomach the concept of playing this convention after 1C-1H-1S, but only if opener's 1S rebid says nothing about his club length (ie he could have 4333). I would certainly refuse to play XYZ after 1C-1H-1S if the 1S rebid promised an unbalanced hand.

 

I think we'd all be curious to know what you do play after 1x - 1y - 1z.

[Fluffy]

" have shown: 3+ ♣, 4♠, 0-2♥, adn 12-18 HCP."

I am sorry, I meant 2-3♥, 0-2♥ is what I alert when I have faield to make a support double, my mistake.

 

 

Now to make it cleaner, rebidding 2♣ after 1♣-1♥-1♠-1NT is just an option you have, not a must, you can freely pass and try to make an overtrick wich will hapen often, or go 4 off as I have seen before when opponents cashed their 10 top tricks before we could cash our 9 top tricks :).

 

 

Be sure our bidding tendencies are influenced by match points, we don't change the system basis whe playing IMPs (ir would be a hard work to do), we stick to it and it works sometimes.

 

"Ok, so you get an immediate bottom, instead of an average when 2S makes 2, and 1NT makes less than 2. On the other hand, you will get an immediate top when 1NT makes the same or more tricks. In addition, whenever your partner DOESN'T have 4S, you ae much better poised, I think, to bid intellegently for the remainder of the auction. I have a question. Is your 1S rebid geared entirely to matchpoints (where immediate bottom is your fear), or do you bid same at imps? I will do a bridgebrowser check of these auctions."

 

Making the same number of tricks on 1NT than 2M when 4-4 fit is avaible is something I believe will happen less than 25% of the times, maybe you can make some stats to show a real percentage, I would be really surprised if it reached 35%.

[Wackojack]

I voted that I wouldn't bypass a 4-card major because:

 

With most of my partners I play Acol based 12-14 no trump and up-the-line 4-card suits with 15-19. This means that all bids are natural and you won't miss a 4-4 major fit (as you would playing a strong no trump opposite 5-8 points). Also you wont miss a 5-3 fit.

 

I have read this and other related threads with interest and note that nearly all contributors do not make allowance for 4-card major systems that bid up the line. I have found the contributions facinating and at least have learned that there are pros and cons in all methods. I don't see the need for checkback and have no idea what xyz is. Mine is the KISS approach as supported by Rebound.

 

In the original problem holding ♠Q86♥kJ853♦104♣Q84 after 1♣1♥,1♠, I would bid 2♣. The worst scenario is partner holding something like ♠Axxx♥Ax,♦Axx♣Axxx. Now partner having only 2 hearts will pass. The contract of 2♣ could turn out to be the best, but it looks like 2♥ is the one most likely to succeed as opponents pass may mean that clubs are not breaking as well as hearts.

[beatrix45]

:)

 

I really hate to bypass a four card major if we are playing five card major suit openers. The extreme case would be a square hand with four small in the major and lots of body in the hand as a whole. A one NT bid after a one diamond opener might be something like:

 

Q109

9832

J108

KJ8

 

Sometimes bidding a weak four bagger at the one level deters the lead of that suit, but equally, my partners will occasionally raise with three trumps and a ruffing value. This can be real bad if I end up playing a trump suit something like:

 

9842 opposite K73 at the two level.

 

Note that if I have enough to make a game try opposite a single raise, this won't be as much of a problem.

 

Trixie