Unbalanced 1D-1S rebid with 1444

[Kungsgeten]

Our 1♦ opening shows 11-19 hcp with 4+♦ in an unbalanced hand (so natural, but we may have longer clubs if 11-16). Many use the 1NT rebid as something artificial when playing an unbalanced 1♦, so do we. After 1♦-1♠ we play:

 

1NT = Gazzilli variant: 6+♦ 11-14 or 15-17 with 3♠ or 16+ hands which can't bid anything else.

2♣ = 4+♣, 11-16. Could be 5-4 either way.

2♦ = 4♥, 11-15

2♥ = 3♠, 11-14 or 18-19

2♠ = 4 card support, min (about 11-13).

2NT = 4 card support, 16+

3♣ = 5-5 minors, 14-16

3♦ = 6+♦, 15-17

3♠ = 4 card support, about 14-15

 

The most problematic hand is when opener has the 1-4-4-4 pattern. How do you treat these in a system where 1NT is artificial? We currently rebid 2♦, but 2♣ might be better (but we do not play Reverse Flannery by responder). We usually like playing in 5-2 fits better than 4-3 fits, so a problem after 1♦-1♠; 2♦ is when responder have 3♥ and 2♦.

[nullve]

The most problematic hand is when opener has the 1-4-4-4 pattern. How do you treat these in a system where 1NT is artificial?

Very easy in my system, where

 

1♣ = "nat. or bal.", incl. 4144, excl. 1444

...1♦ = "4+ H"

......1♠ = "S" (incl. 4144)

...1♥ = "4+ S"

1♦ = "nat. unbal.", incl. 1444, excl. 4144

...1♥ = "4+ S"

......1♠ = "H" (incl. 1444)

...1♠ = "4+ H",

 

but also in (hypothetical) systems where

 

1♣ = "nat. or bal.", incl. 1444, excl. 4144

...1♦ = "4+ S"

......1♠ = "H" (incl. 1444)

...1♥ = "4+ H"

1♦ = "nat. unbal.", incl. 4144, excl. 1444

...1♥ = "4+ H"

......1♠ = "S" (incl. 4144)

...1♠ = "4+ S".

 

I don't know how to solve the problem entirely if both 1444 and 4144 are in 1♦, as in Swedish/Polish Club, but I've seen some nice suggestions on this forum, such as straube's 3-suited 2♣ rebid over 1♦-1♠.

[straube]

How about rebid 2C and then after a correction to 2D you rebid 2H? This leaves 1D-1S, 2C-2H as 4SF and lets you play 2C. It doesn't let you play 2D but as you've noted, 2D may not be a great spot.

[Phil]

We open this pattern 1C and accept the transfer. This keeps 1D 5+ unless exactly 4=4=4=1.

[straube]

How about rebid 2C and then after a correction to 2D you rebid 2H? This leaves 1D-1S, 2C-2H as 4SF and lets you play 2C. It doesn't let you play 2D but as you've noted, 2D may not be a great spot.

 

Withdrawing my suggestion. If you used rev Flannery you would pick up your heart fits. Whether you use rev Flannery or not, 1D-1S, 2C with 1444 and leaving a 2D correction seems best to me. Responder is much more likely to have either minor suit than hearts.

[nullve]

We open this pattern 1C and accept the transfer.

Then what does 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ show in your system?

[Phil]

Then what does 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ show in your system?

 

Typically a weak NT. Havent played a 51 fit yer but its possible.

[helene_t]

When Csaba and I played one of Adam's strong club system, we took Adam's advice to play the 1NT rebid as showing six diamonds, which gave responderthe chance to check-back while still being able to stop in 2♦.

 

But I think I would prefer to play 1NT as semi-natural: minimum with 13(45) or 1444, maybe even 04(45)

[fromageGB]

I think it depends on the meaning of the 1♠ response, and in your methods you seem to want to squeeze in too many descriptions. Playing 1♠ natural with some partners, I prefer 1NT to be "natural" and show the 3-suiter (like Helene's).

 

However, it may be useful to consider - when responder has a less than invitational hand and bids a natural 1♥ - that when you have a 3-suiter short in hearts you can describe it such that if there is a spade fit, responder can stop in 2♠. Similarly if he responds a natural 1♠ you should be able to describe a 3-suiter short in spades (your current problem) such that if he also has hearts he can play in 2♥.

 

(Opener with long diamonds, or both minors, is not a problem.)

 

Considering that, it seems that whichever major a less-than-invitational responder actually bids, you can always find a fit in the other. Therefore, how about looking at the idea of responder bidding hearts with either or both majors? This frees the 1♠ response to be inv+ hands, and with this you have more room to be able to explore.

 

Could it be of help to you, if you can free the 1♠ reply in this way? Obviously your continuations over both 1♥/1♠ would be considerably altered, but you may be able to do what you want.

 

My preferred methods are simpler, but use this approach.

[Zelandakh]

The most problematic hand is when opener has the 1-4-4-4 pattern. How do you treat these in a system where 1NT is artificial?

My system does not use an immediate 1NT response as a relay but the delayed rebid version is a GF relay. For that method,

 

1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ (min) - 1NT

==

2♣ = 4+ clubs (9+ minor cards or 1444)

2♦ = 6+ diamonds, one-suited

2♥ = 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts

2♠ = 6+ diamonds, 5 hearts

2NT = 4441

3♣+ = 4450 + zoom

 

Hands with 4 spades and <4 hearts rebid 1NT rather than 1♠ so these do not need to be considered. This is a key advantage of reaching the 1NT relay via 1♥.

 

On your Gazilli variant, have you considered using 1NT to show "clubs or extras" and 2♣ for hearts? That would allow you to use an almost identical structure to 1M Gazilli, which would help to simplify things.

[Kungsgeten]

My system does not use an immediate 1NT response as a relay but the delayed rebid version is a GF relay. For that method,

 

1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ (min) - 1NT

==

2♣ = 4+ clubs (9+ minor cards or 1444)

2♦ = 6+ diamonds, one-suited

2♥ = 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts

2♠ = 6+ diamonds, 5 hearts

2NT = 4441

3♣+ = 4450 + zoom

 

Hands with 4 spades and <4 hearts rebid 1NT rather than 1♠ so these do not need to be considered. This is a key advantage of reaching the 1NT relay via 1♥.

 

On your Gazilli variant, have you considered using 1NT to show "clubs or extras" and 2♣ for hearts? That would allow you to use an almost identical structure to 1M Gazilli, which would help to simplify things.

 

I don't quite understand your post Zel. Do you play 1D-1H as a relay? We used to play 1H as hearts or GF relay, but now use the 1M responses as natural (we play 1D-2C as GF relay).

 

In any case: using 1NT as clubs or extras could perhaps work, but what should be responder's forcing bid (2C I guess)? When you can have 5-4 minors either way I think we need to be able to stop in 2m (at least it feels that way). We actually do not play Gazzilli over our 1M openings, so no simplification there :)

[Kungsgeten]

I think it depends on the meaning of the 1♠ response, and in your methods you seem to want to squeeze in too many descriptions. Playing 1♠ natural with some partners, I prefer 1NT to be "natural" and show the 3-suiter (like Helene's).

 

However, it may be useful to consider - when responder has a less than invitational hand and bids a natural 1♥ - that when you have a 3-suiter short in hearts you can describe it such that if there is a spade fit, responder can stop in 2♠. Similarly if he responds a natural 1♠ you should be able to describe a 3-suiter short in spades (your current problem) such that if he also has hearts he can play in 2♥.

 

(Opener with long diamonds, or both minors, is not a problem.)

 

Considering that, it seems that whichever major a less-than-invitational responder actually bids, you can always find a fit in the other. Therefore, how about looking at the idea of responder bidding hearts with either or both majors? This frees the 1♠ response to be inv+ hands, and with this you have more room to be able to explore.

 

Could it be of help to you, if you can free the 1♠ reply in this way? Obviously your continuations over both 1♥/1♠ would be considerably altered, but you may be able to do what you want.

 

My preferred methods are simpler, but use this approach.

 

The meaning of our 1♠ response is natural: 4+ spades F1. Do you mean its overloaded because we do not play Reverse Flannery? With our current structure I think the 1-4-4-4 opener vs a 1♠ response is the only sequence I feel uncomfortable with. I guess we could play Reverse Flannery, but I feel that the gains are pretty small using our rebid structure. A problem with responding 1H with 4H and 5S I guess is when opener has three spades and less than four hearts.

[fromageGB]

I mean your 1♦ 1♠ handling is overloaded because you can get your given options into a multi-1NT, but there is no room for including the 3-suiter short in spades into it. That hand has to bid 1NT because (even if you are happy to make it multi and hence rule out a possible 1NT contract) you need responder to be able to choose a 2C/2D/2H contract. You can include this and drop one of your other options such as showing 3 spades, but that swaps the problem.

 

If you are happy with responder with either major responding 1H, and the problem is just opener having 3 card support for only one major, then you could adopt a 1♠ response as specifically 54xx or 45xx. (I use that bid for responder having extra strength (responder Gazzilli) whereas you do it the other way round with opener Gazzilli for extra strength.)

 

Perhaps something like this :

(f = forcing, nf = not forcing)

(Opener's "strong" = Gazzilli, "weak" = less than that; and responder's "strong" = Gazzilli positive (probably GF))

 

1♥ f = either major, or both majors 44xx

1♠ f = both majors 54xx or 45xx

 

After 1♦ 1♠ ...

1NT f = denies 4 card major, any strong (gazzilli) without , or just diamonds, or diamonds + 3 cards in one major

2♣ nf = both minors

2♦ f = 33xx

2♥ nf = 4 hearts 11-14

2♠ nf = 4 spades 11-14

3M nf = 4 cards 15/16

2NT = 4 cards either major 17+

 

After 1♦ 1♠, 1NT ...

2♣ f = 45xx

2♦ nf = 54xx

2♥ f = 54xx

 

After 1♦ 1♠, 1NT 2♣ ...

2♦ nf = weak, denies 3 hearts

2♥ nf = weak, 3 hearts

2♠+ f = any strong

 

After 1♦ 1♠, 1NT 2♦ ...

pass = to play, denies 3 spades

2♥ f = any strong

2♠ nf = 3 spades

[straube]

 

Perhaps something like this

 

1♥ f = either major, or both majors 44xx

1♠ f = both majors 54xx or 45xx

 

Just tallied 20 hands and got 20 heart responses and zero spade responses with this. Most often responder is going to have one major and not the other and it's better to be able to show at least one right away.

 

Still think Rev Flannery solves the posted problem here.

[fromageGB]

Still think Rev Flannery solves the posted problem here.

And reverse flannery is, I read, a sequence of 1♦ 2♥ for the first two bids? That really helps responder pick a minor to play in 2m when opener has xx55 both minors, as is quite common with an unbalanced diamond.

 

I agree with you about bid frequency, though utilising a particular sequence for an otherwise awkward hand is not a bad idea.

 

Another objection to reverse flannery in conjunction with an unbalanced diamond is that opener's possible shapes are restricted, and methods that allow opener to describe his shape to let responder pick the contract are better than taking up bidding space to let responder show his shape. It may have more validity with a traditional better minor.

[benlessard]

Using a strong club where 1D can be 4D+5C this is what we do.

 

1D-1S

??

 

1NT= 4C or 6D

2C= 5C

2D 5D+4H

2H = !S raise

 

1NT followed by 2H 1444,0454,0445

 

before that we used

 

2C= 5C

2D=6D

1NT = 4C or 4H but its inferior.

 

IMO not being able to play 1NT didnt cost us too much compared to being able to play in the best minor.

 

5422/??33/??23 vs ??45/??54/??64 are quite frequent.

[straube]

And reverse flannery is, I read, a sequence of 1♦ 2♥ for the first two bids? That really helps responder pick a minor to play in 2m when opener has xx55 both minors, as is quite common with an unbalanced diamond.

 

So I looked at 30 unbalanced hands. I did include 5D4M22 hands btw.

 

For 27 hands I found that Reverse Flannery lead to at least a 7-cd fit. Obviously many of these were 8 or even 9-cd fits. Three hands were potential problems.

 

1) 2 void A8432 AKQJ763

 

2) 3 Q6 AKT9432 A82

 

3) K KJ KT732 Q7532 (responder had AQ864 Q8762 85 T)

 

The first two hands seem easy 3C and 3D bids respectively. For the third hand I'd hand in mind to pass 2H with 1255 and tough it out in likely 4-2 heart fit on the chance of being in a 5-2 fit...and that's what was dealt here.

 

Rev Flannery obviously works better if 1D includes balanced hands , but it seems to work here, too. It also solves lots of bidding problems, including leaving 1D-1S, X-2H as an artificial ask of some sort.

[straube]

Using a strong club where 1D can be 4D+5C this is what we do.

 

1D-1S

??

 

1NT= 4C or 6D

2C= 5C

2D 5D+4H

2H = !S raise

 

1NT followed by 2H 1444,0454,0445

 

before that we used

 

2C= 5C

2D=6D

1NT = 4C or 4H but its inferior.

 

IMO not being able to play 1NT didnt cost us too much compared to being able to play in the best minor.

 

5422/??33/??23 vs ??45/??54/??64 are quite frequent.

 

But his 1D opening can be up to 19 hcps while I think you are limited to 14. I think he needs to be able to reverse in hearts and such.

[Zelandakh]

I don't quite understand your post Zel. Do you play 1D-1H as a relay? We used to play 1H as hearts or GF relay, but now use the 1M responses as natural (we play 1D-2C as GF relay).

Yes, 1♥ is an INV+ relay with 1♠, 1NT and 2m being weak responses (1NT showing hearts). Over 1♥, 1♠ is a minimum without 4 spades (except 4441/4450), 1NT shows 4 spades and denies 4 hearts and higher rebids show extras. Then 1NT after 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ is a GF relay. This gets around some overloading issues inherent in using, for example, your 2♣ GF relay without sacrificing the weak responding hands.

 

 

In any case: using 1NT as clubs or extras could perhaps work, but what should be responder's forcing bid (2C I guess)? When you can have 5-4 minors either way I think we need to be able to stop in 2m (at least it feels that way). We actually do not play Gazzilli over our 1M openings, so no simplification there :)

Yes, 2♣ would be the forcing relay, equivalent to 2♦ in regular Gazilli. If you are not using Gazilli already and want the ability to stop in 2m then transfer rebids are probably the way to go. One classical way of organising this is for 1NT to show clubs at least as long as diamonds and 2♣ then shows both minors with longer diamonds.

 

I would tend to agree that reverse Flannery is to be recommended here. I would also suggest searching back through Adam's posts (or contacting him directly) as I seem to recall he already did some work on optimising this sort of system and included a little trick to make everything run smoothly. Straube might also remember as I know he pays close attention to Adam's bidding posts...

[nullve]

Based on what I suggested in a similar thread:

 

1♦-1♠ = 4+ S, not RFR-type

 

1♦-1♠; ?:

 

(With "11-19" interpreted as rules of 20-28 and

 

MIN := rules of 20-22

MED := rules of 23-25

MAX := rules of 26-28)

 

1N = MIN, 2- S / MED, 04(54), 13(54), 1444 or 1453¹

...P = 5-S3-D, < inv

...2♣ = to play opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED

......P = MIN, 4+ C

......2♦ = MIN, 6+D3-C

......2♥+ = MED

...2♦ = to play opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED

......P = MIN

......2♥+ = MED

...2♥ = inv, 6+ S / any GF

......2♠ = MIN (NF)

......2N+ = MED (GF)

...2♠ = 6+ S, weak

...(...)

2♣ = 3 S / * / MAX (any MAX?)

...2♦ = "7+", relay (GF opposite MAX)

......2♥ = MED, 3 S / ?

......2♠ = MIN, 3 S

......2N+ = MAX

...2♥+ = "4-6"

...E.g.:

...2♥ = "4-6", 4 S

......2♠ = 3 S

......2N+ = MAX, either 2- S or 4+ S

...2♠+ = "4-6", 5+² S

2♦ = MED, 2-S6+D4-C

2♥ = MED, 4+ S / * / ?

2♠ = MIN, 4+ S

2N+ = *

(...)

 

* MED, 5D5C hands have to go somewhere.

¹ Idea: MED hands shouldn't be too unbal. if Responder chooses to pass.

² It helps if 2♠ shows exactly 5 S, e.g. because of the failure to make (the equivalent of) a WJS.

 

One design goal has been to avoid 2N/unlawful 3M contracts as far as possible.

[Kungsgeten]

Rev Flannery obviously works better if 1D includes balanced hands , but it seems to work here, too. It also solves lots of bidding problems, including leaving 1D-1S, X-2H as an artificial ask of some sort.

 

I have nothing against reverse flannery, I think its a good convention that do indeed solve bidding problems. I just feel that the majority of those problems aren't a problem in our structure. It would solve the 1-4-4-4 problem and make it easier when responder has 5-5 majors. We currently use the following response structure to 1D:

 

1M = Natural, F1. If GF then usually 5+ major.

1NT = 6+ clubs or 3-3-2-5, less than GF. Non-forcing but seldom passed.

2C = GF relay.

2D = Simple 3+ diamond raise.

2M = Invitational jump shift

2NT = Natural INV

3C = Diamond limit raise.

3D = Mixed raise

3M = Splinter

3N = 3-3-4-3, 13-15

 

In order to play Reverse Flannery we'd have to give up the invitational jump shift, or shuffle the responses somehow. We used to play:

 

1H = Nat or GF relay

1S = Nat F1

1N = Clubs, weak or GF

2C = "Bad" diamond raise or invitational jump shift in a major

2D = Constructive diamond raise

2M = Reverse Flannery

2NT = INV

3C = INV jump shift

3D = Mixed

 

When we changed our 1M structure so that 1M-2C was a GF relay we did the same for the diamond opening, to reduce memory load. The relays aren't quite as good anymore, but the bidding over 1D-1H is better (when responder has hearts).

 

Now with our current 1D-1S structure responder usually do not have a problem with spades and hearts, but you might end up in NT instead of a 4-3 / 5-2 major fit if responder has invitational values, or end up in a minor suit misfit instead of a major suit misfit.

 

1D-1S; 1NT (6+D or strong)---

2C = GF vs strong hand, opener rebids 2D with 6+D (about 11-14) and responder can then bid 2H "third suit GF" (have to bid 2NT or 3D with INV hand and both majors).

2D = Not enough to force game vs strong opener. Opener will bid 2H with the hearts reverse hand (same situation as 1D-1S; 2H, but it is known that responder is weak).

2H = Reverse Flannery hand, weak.

2S = Natural NF.

 

1D-1S; 2C (5-4 minors, 11-15/16, denies 4 hearts)

Pass = Preference.

2D = Preference.

2H = FSF.

2S = Weak.

2NT = INV.

3CD = INV.

 

1D-1S; 2D (4+D and 4H, 11-15. We've found an eventual heart fit.)

 

1D-1S; 2H (3S, 11-14 or 18-19. If we have a heart fit there's also a spade fit.)

[straube]

I like 1D-2S as WJS as well as 1D-2H as WRF because it reduces the load from 1D-1S. As for separating invitational hearts from WJS hearts, I can't always do that at the 2-level, but I certainly can after a 1D-1H, 1S start (I can also after a 1D-1H, 1N start). I have the feeling that 1D-2S as WJS and 1D-2H as WRF would work for you for the same reason it would work for most folks.

 

It's a pity that your 1D-1N can't be your GF relay. Seems like the relays would be entirely different from 1M-2C anyway so maybe not a memory load issue.

 

Could you make 1D-1M, 1N guarantee extras (16+?) or is it really needed as 2-way? If it were always strong I suppose responder could give a weak preference to either minor, rebid hearts weakly (1D-1H, 1N-2H) or bid something higher to GF. After 1D-1M, 1N-2m, opener could invite or correct (to 2D) or make some forcing call. It would be very "clean" if you could show the big hand immediately. Much better branching afterward.

 

I guess 1D-1S, 2D would be undesirable with x Axxx AQxxx xxx and you'd like to show more of your pattern, but with Rev Flannery at least you wouldn't be missing a heart fit. Plus 2H now is artificial GF and 2S would be invitational spades. Or you could rebid 2C with that hand which is what I do (with 14-15 anyway).

 

Btw, how do you handle 4M5D22 patterns? I assume 1N for one range. What about the other?

[awm]

It seems like you could do something where:

 

1d-1s...

 

1nt = 6+d

2c = natural no 4H

2d = 1444 or 0454 or 1453 min

2h = 4H extras

 

1d-1s-1nt-2c = asking, either 4h or any GF

... 2d = no 4H no 3s

... 2h = 4-6

... 2s = 3s-6d not 4H

 

You can get full relays over these if you want.

[paulg]

Before we switched to reverse flannery, we happily rebid 2!d on these hands showing 4!H, 4+!d and less than a reverse. I don't really see anything particularly bad that can happen with this.

[straube]

I like Adam's suggestion. One of the nice things about it is that the 1N rebid isn't 2-way.

 

If I remember right, Adam uses 1D-1S, 2D similarly and then 2H is a correction but the 2S bid asks further shape.