A Simple Question

[microcap]

Playing a 13-16 1NT opening (but 2/1 aside from that). You hold [hv=d=s&v=n&s=s7haq75dqj64cakj6]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You open one diamond, partner bids 1 spade. What do you rebid? This is a simple but important philosophical issue I think.

[inquiry]

Not 1NT, never 1NT.. this hand, despite the "misfit" (so far), is way, way too strong for a 1NT REBID. Now if you wanted to open 1NT, I wouldn't object too strongly. I can't imagine anyone but weak notrump openers condiering a 1NT rebid, but here this is in the SAYC/2over1 discussion group, so weak notrump was not an option.

 

The real question is do you evaluate this as a light reverse (in which case you should have opened 1♣ probably) or not. Also, even playing five card majors, you might should have anticipated the possible 1♠ response and considered a little white lie of 1♥. Here the hearts are not strong enough for that one. I would just bid 2♣, because this hand is not as good as it's 17 hcp indicate until we find a fit.

 

 

Ben

[Elianna]

Wow, my ability to add is awful. I got a different HCP (which I'm not going to say what it was). I will admit, I was the (hopefully only) 1NT bidder, but now I change my mind to 2♣, agreeing with Ben.

 

The good news is, I know how to use excel files to tabulate things (if you don't know what I'm talking about, see Master Solvers thread in the Interesting Bridge Hands forum), the bad news is, they won't allow me to use a calculator at a bridge table.

 

Good thing I don't teach math or anything crazy like that.

[microcap]

Oops my bad--as usual, we were playing our 13-16 NT, so a 1NT rebid would show 17-18 HCP. Sorry for leaving that out.

[Elianna]

Oops my bad--as usual, we were playing our 13-16 NT, so a 1NT rebid would show 17-18 HCP. Sorry for leaving that out.

Ok, now I feel justified in my 1NT bid, but it's still close to 2c. But I'll still reinstate my vote. And I won't say anymore because I'm too tired to be understandable and not babbly. :)

[Walddk]

2♣. A 1444 hand can't be bid accurately if the response is the likely 1♠. Even those who bid 4-card suits up the line would open 1♦, planning on rebidding 2♣. Telling a lie regarding your length in the minors is not a major crime.

 

If anyone rebids 1NT on the hand, I recommend that she contacts Wayne (cascade) immediately and applies for private lessons.

 

Roland

[cf_John0]

Not 1NT,then 2C.

But there should have more options,such as 2NT.

[Double !]

I would open the hand 1♦, but that's not so important.

I play a homegrown 13-16 1NT system where a 1NT rebid also shows 12-16, either an absolute mini 12-13, or 12-15/16 with a flaw such as stiff in partner's suit. Openings in minors are sound, usually show 5+ in the suit, openings in majors might be lighter. The consequence is that initial responses tend to be slightly sounder, as well.

 

Two cools things about this approach are that bidding is often quite natural, more so than 2/1 or sayc (except for our 2D opener). If 1m is opened, one usually has either at least a 4-card suit, usually 5+ cards in a bid minor or else extra values, and (IMPORTANT) that 1m opening is rarely a balanced minimum. Yeah, it is an imperfect system, be the first to admit it, and it has some problem hands like really good balanced 16s, but it is a lot of fun to play and, so far, have done just as well with this as with 2/1. I like the 13-16NT because it is harder to compete against, or so I think.

 

So, with the hand in question, i would not rebid 1NT playing my way, but have no objection to rebidding 1NT 17-18 with a singleton in partner's suit, provided the possibility has been discussed and opps are alerted to the possibility. This is a hard hand to assess and bid because a lot of it's value depdns on partner's internal structure and distro. 2C rebid is fine because i get to hear P's rebid, possibly still at the 2 level, and I can still "catch up" from the 2C rebid if need be.

[awm]

I'd vote for 1NT here. Especially playing a "weak" notrump it's normally good to show the values as quickly as possible. A 2♣ rebid puts a lot of pressure on partner to bid again; while of course 2♣ carries a wide range of values partner may be tempted to pass with 1-3 or 1-4 in the minors holding values that could make game.

 

It will also be very hard to reach hearts after a 2♣ rebid. The nightmare hand is partner holding 5-5 in the majors and a weak hand. Even if partner has good cards it is not totally clear that a heart bid on some continuations is natural rather than a stopper-ask.

 

The only downsides of 1nt are that partner might rebid a five card spade suit (2NT would seem to describe this hand), or that partner might leap to game in a six card spade suit (but that game might even be right, and with six BAD spades I would expect partner to bid differently).

[Chamaco]

In your agreements, is 2C forcing or NF ?

 

It seems 2C is being played by an more and more players as 1R forcing, but the oldfashioned ("standard"?) meaning is "nonforcing"

[MickyB]

I am struggling to see the point of playing 2♣ as F1 on this sequence! Unless I was playing in a partnership that I was confident could find a fit in the fourth suit, I'd rebid 2♥.

 

Ok I just tried to vote for that and failed lol

[microcap]

2♣ is Non Forcing in our system if that helps any

[Walddk]

2♣ is Non Forcing in our system if that helps any

Of course 2♣ is non forcing. How can you force without making a jump shift or reversing into 2♥ when responder didn't promise more than 6 hcp?

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

2♥.... or maybe 2♣, but I guess 2♥ most of the time.

[luis]

2♣ relcutant. I hate the problem!

[inquiry]

2♣ is Non Forcing in our system if that helps any

Of course 2♣ is non forcing. How can you force without making a jump shift or reversing into 2♥ when responder didn't promise more than 6 hcp?

 

Roland

You can make it forcing by AGREEMENT with your parnter. You say, partner, a new minor by opener on round two is "forcing".

 

Now, I play new minor by opener as "forcing" with Misho. I put this in quotes only because it isn't really forcing but it is essentially never passed. We have never (as of yet) passed this bid, but no doubt the day is comming when we will.

 

Here is why we play it as forcing...

 

1m-1M-2NT = we use as a forcing raise of the major. This narrowly defines 1m-1M-2M and 1m-1M-3M. This also allows a game try (3C by responder rejects) and second game try (3D by opener) below 3 of the suit. It also gets our slam tries started at 2NT-3D, rather than at 4M after a jump to that level.

 

1m-1M-3m = we use as good six card suit and three card support for the major (non-forcing).

 

These two treatments leave us with how to describe a balanced hand too strong for 1NT and too weak for a 2NT opening bid, and how to describe a hand with a siingle suited minor we would like to jump to 3m on without a three card fit for responders major.

 

We get around this with the new minor (by opener) as forcing. We have a variety of rubenshol-esque responses to this, but basically responder (unless very strong) typically gives opener a chance to make his descriptive second bid at the 2NT or 3 of a minor level. 2NT third bid by opener is just what you thinik it should be, but if responder rebids his major over the new minor, that gives opener "permission" to pass with the balanced hand without super three card fit (with four, he would have bid 2NT initially, remember). This auction (1m-1M-2om-2M all pass) has been very good for us, as the field is going 1m=1M-2NT-Pass...and playing in the weak hands long major at the two level has been very good.

 

Of course, if the bidding goes, 1m-1M-2om-something-3m this shows the hand that went 1m-1M-3m at most tables.

 

The downside to this treatment is you can not play precisely 2 of the other minor (at least in theory). But hten, if parnter opens 1NT, you can't play 2C either. This has caused two not-great boards for us, once going dwon two in three clubs doulbed rather than either down one in two clubs or they balance in and make their own partsocre. Once gettig to 3C down one when 2C makes. At mp, this scond one would have really hurt, at imps, it is not good, but the improvement on the other auctions far outweigh this situation.

 

Ben

[mike777]

Oops my bad--as usual, we were playing our 13-16 NT, so a 1NT rebid would show 17-18 HCP.  Sorry for leaving that out.

2C

 

Add reverse flannery "2H" to show weak 4+h, 5+s hands.

From what I have seen from experts a 3c raise by partner will be little more than a courtesy raise to help out on hands such as this.

 

BTW hate this range. What the heck do you do with 11-12 pt hands which you will have much much more often then 17-18? Just give up the preemptive value of striking first blow?

[awm]

2♣. A 1444 hand can't be bid accurately if the response is the likely 1♠. Even those who bid 4-card suits up the line would open 1♦, planning on rebidding 2♣. Telling a lie regarding your length in the minors is not a major crime.

 

If anyone rebids 1NT on the hand, I recommend that she contacts Wayne (cascade) immediately and applies for private lessons.

 

Roland

This seems pretty extreme -- while the majority is for 2♣, several people have commented that this is a hard problem and 2♥ and 1NT are both getting some support. I can accept that bidding 1NT is not your style, but I think suggesting that anyone who bids 1NT needs lessons is a bit extreme.

 

The way I look at it, 1nt distorts your shape by one card. But it describes your exact values, keeps 1nt in play as a possible contract, and allows the use of what are probably very accurate checkback methods. On the other hand, 2♣ also distorts your shape by one card (partner will assume 5-4 minors and you just might end up in 3♦ on a 4-3), does nothing to convey the values (range of 11-18), and forces you to use much less accurate bidding methods.

 

Okay, I see 2♣ is Roland's choice, maybe even the standard choice (although with the notrump ranges given this is far from a standard system). But suggesting it's the only choice seems a tad offensive.

[PriorKnowledge]

1) I open the hand 1C, not 1D

2) I rebid 2H over 1S

 

1) I open 1C to more easily find a fit in either minor or hearts, since I am strong enough to consider a slam opposite a healthy responder. I think you will find that opening 1C on strong minor 4-4's allows you to find more minor suit slams that you otherwise end in 3N.

 

2) After the bidding 1C 1S, a 2H rebid is a lie as it shows a 54. If you must lie, lie about length rather than strength and lie about a minor rather than a major.

 

If you rebid 1N, you invite a disaster if responder next bids 4S.

[Guest Jlall]

Interesting, Adam thinks 2C is a distortion of your shape yet mentions nothing about 1N being a distortion of shape! I do not think of 2C as a distortion but see 1N as one.

 

Adam also mentions "very accurate checkback methods." Are they so accurate that one can show 1444 after rebidding 1N? wow. If you bid 2C and partner bids, say, 2H or 2D, you can bid hearts next showing most likely 1444 and possibly 0454. Seems like you can show your shape better if you bid 2C.

 

Adam mentioned earlier about potentially missing hearts. The only time this will happen is if partner passes 2C. Some shapes: 5413, 5503, 5512, 5404. All of which to pass he needs very minimum hands (he will usually bid 2N on the first shape with 10 points, 3H on the second and third hands with 9-10ish, and 3C on the last shape with 8 points). The chance of missing hearts is real, but also small.

 

Much more likely is that if you bid 1N, you will get to some spade contract that you should not be in.

 

This being said I think 1N is a reasonable bid, but lets at least be realistic when weighing the pros and cons.

[Walddk]

2♣. A 1444 hand can't be bid accurately if the response is the likely 1♠. Even those who bid 4-card suits up the line would open 1♦, planning on rebidding 2♣. Telling a lie regarding your length in the minors is not a major crime.

 

If anyone rebids 1NT on the hand, I recommend that she contacts Wayne (cascade) immediately and applies for private lessons.

 

Roland

This seems pretty extreme -- while the majority is for 2♣, several people have commented that this is a hard problem and 2♥ and 1NT are both getting some support. I can accept that bidding 1NT is not your style, but I think suggesting that anyone who bids 1NT needs lessons is a bit extreme.

 

The way I look at it, 1nt distorts your shape by one card. But it describes your exact values, keeps 1nt in play as a possible contract, and allows the use of what are probably very accurate checkback methods. On the other hand, 2♣ also distorts your shape by one card (partner will assume 5-4 minors and you just might end up in 3♦ on a 4-3), does nothing to convey the values (range of 11-18), and forces you to use much less accurate bidding methods.

 

Okay, I see 2♣ is Roland's choice, maybe even the standard choice (although with the notrump ranges given this is far from a standard system). But suggesting it's the only choice seems a tad offensive.

I am neither extreme nor offensive, but try to read the initial post again. On this deal we are playing 13-16 NT, so a 1NT rebid would show 11-12. Please tell me how that rebid can ever be an option?

 

1. I have a 17 count.

2. I don't have a balanced hand.

 

Posters who suggest 1NT must have forgotten that in this case we do not play 15-17 NT. Are you really serious about rebidding 1NT now? Showing 11-12 when you have 17? If you do I really mean what I said in my first post:

 

You need private lessons on bidding immediately. This is not offensive at all, on the contrary. I live up to my signature about being nice. I am merely trying to make you improve your bidding instead of telling partner:

 

"I know my 1NT rebid shows 11-12 balanced, but it could perhaps also be a 17 count with 1444. Do something intelligent".

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

Um, Roland, microcap wrote:

 

"Oops my bad--as usual, we were playing our 13-16 NT, so a 1NT rebid would show 17-18 HCP. Sorry for leaving that out."

 

Apparently they pass 11-12 balanced hands.

 

I would bid rebid 2C, but 1NT isn't that bad.

 

Peter

[Elianna]

Actually, Roland, Microcap stated (see his second post) that for them, a 1NT rebid shows 17-18.

 

May I suggest that you read the posts more closely before dispensing vitriol.

[Walddk]

I don't go through all posts before I respond to what is essential: The first one. I don't want to be influenced by suggestions from others, since I will give my opinion. That's why I wasn't aware of the correction. My apologies.

 

That being said, I think it's a bad idea if you read all posts before you reply. In another thread it is being suggested that we establish a Masters Solvers Forum. It is hardly appropriate if you know what other panelists think before you post your choice.

 

Roland

[Elianna]

In that forum, it's going to be locked for a time, so that people can give an answer without seeing what others say.

 

May I suggest that it's a good policy then to simply state what one would bid, without insulting others, then read the posts and insult people if one still feels the need? (And this is not just addressed at any specific person, as I have noticed previous arguments of this type in other threads).