4-5-2-2 Hands-- opener's rebid after INT forcing response

[pescetom]

IMO, it's fine to pass the semi-forcing notrump when you have 11-13, but if you pass with 14-15, it's too easy to miss game when pard bid a semi-forcing notrump planning to invite in notrump or hearts (with three card support).

 

With 11-13, pass. With 14-15, bid the 2 card suit.

Agreed, I think that can be taken for granted.

 

 

The semi-forcing (pass) approach works well, until your partner is planning to make a limit raise over your bid. In the limit raise case, bottom board is guaranteed.

You can't play the same agreements as with 1NT forcing and then just pass, you have to rethink which hand types you put through 1NT and which you handle in other ways (for example, 2NT).

[maartenxq]

I do not care whether 1 NT is forcing or not, but with the present hand I pass, what game could we be missing, especially if p with 4+ ♥ must find another bid.

 

Maarten Baltussen

[pigpenz]

Play Flannery or use 2 club response as "could be short"

I thought in Max Hardys books 2clubs is the bid you make or you pass, I have seen some play that 2diamonds gaurantees four

[KingCovert]

I think everyone has covered all the best suggestions at this point. PASS and 2♣ are your only bids here. There's pretty much no ♥ suit that I'd ever rebid here. Why isn't partner 2155? Not sure why we want to play 5-1 trump fits on some hands. If you want to play a 5-card majors, 2/1, and therefore the most overloaded bid in bridge the 2/1 Forcing NT (doesn't have to be forcing... but it's still overloaded as hell). Well... every system has it's tradeoffs and you've found one of the many in 2/1. You're forced to make ugly rebids sometimes that really don't describe your shape. It's the fatal flaw of 2/1, it sells out so heavily to 5-card majors that it's an extremely hard system to safely pattern out in.

 

You can play Flannery if you really want. As someone who doesn't play weak twos, 6 card preempts at the 3-level are just not a problem. You had just better understand the correct holdings and situations to preempt with/in.

[mikeh]

Not only do I play that one rebids 2C with 4=5=2=2 but I play that one rebids 2C with 3=5=3=2! The 'bad' hand is 4=5=3=1, and there I may bid either 2C or 2D, 'lying' by one card. Partner alerts 2C as 'could be 2': systemically we play that it could be two so the ACBL alert rule, quoted above, means that we need to alert.

 

Now, in fairness, we also play BART over 2C (I use three different versions depending on who I am playing with). I strongly recommend BART for any serious player using 1N as a forcing or semi-forcing response to 1M.

 

The main downside of the forcing 1N is that one can no longer play in 1N. One can solve that by playing semi-forcing, but then one has to do something else with the limit raise hands that most 2/1 players deal with through 1N (classically in 2/1 one bid 1N then bid 3M with a 3 card limit raise).

 

The other, lesser, downside is that one will have trouble stopping in 2C when opener has real club length and responder has 4 but is unwilling to risk a 4-2 or 4-3 fit. However, in practice, the number of hands on which this happens, ad leads to a poor result, is extremely small. I speak from more than 25 years of experience with this method.

 

Bart is an exceptional bidding tool, although many who don't use it misunderstand its value, and so I would encourage advancing players to combine using Bart with rebidding 2C over the 1N, to show 2+ cards. The main use of Bart is to allow responder to differentiate between hands that are truly invitational and hands that cannot pass and yet have less than invitational values.

 

I used to play Flannery, and dislike it. Yes, it gets the hand across early, but it preempts the auction and makes slam bidding less effective than is usually the case after 1H. Meanwhile, it solves what is really not much of a problem (especially if one has good methods after 1H 1N) at the cost of losing 2D.

 

I played the Kaplan inversion for a while many years ago. As with most gadgets, there were some advantages but on balance I didn't like it. The worst is that 1H 1N is forcing, showing spades. Often the auction would otherwise have gone 1H 1S 1N....and we can't get there after the spade-showing 1N. Other times, we do get to 3N, but wrong-sided. Plus opener's rebid over 1N aren't designed for accurate bidding. 1H 1S 2C: I show 5-4 or better in standard. In the inversion, 1H 1N 2C: who knows what my clubs look like?

 

 

I realize that we all like to feel that we understand bidding. Most of us don't, or at least not very well. There is an arena in which bidding ideas are tested: high-level tournament play. Bad ideas rarely survive for long. You don't see much flannery or Kaplan inversions in high-level bridge. You do find quite a few expert pairs using the 2C rebid as 2+ and using a form of Bart over it.

 

Here's a hint: if you are using an approach that has been around for many, many years, and find that very few, if any, top pairs, playing a generally similar basic approach, are playing it, the odds are that you're using a gadget that is beyond its best before date. It may well have been extremely powerful in its day, but new and better mousetraps have been invented since then.

 

I am with Vampyr in feeling that 2D is a very useful opening bid, natural and weak. I play it in my two most serious partnerships and have never regretted it. In one of them we did, for a while, play 2D as a weak weak 2M, and 2M as constructive, but found that the weak 2D was a better use (plus when one holds a weak 2D hand, it is painful to be unable to open 2D. If one passes, one may never catch up, and if one bids 3D, one may be too high). Now, everything in a detailed bidding scheme is connected, and we use 2-way drury responses to a 3rd and 4th seat major, which means that we can't bid 2D with the weak 2D hand that was forced to pass. If we played one-way drury, being unable to open 2D on say AQ10xxx and a side King wouldn't be so bad, since some of the time we get to respond 2D to our partner's 1M.

 

This interconnected nature of bidding is very important to remember when deciding whether to adopt a particular gadget. Always ask: what problems does this solve (the easy question) and what problems does it create (the hard but more important question).

[Cthulhu D]

 

I played the Kaplan inversion for a while many years ago. As with most gadgets, there were some advantages but on balance I didn't like it. The worst is that 1H 1N is forcing, showing spades. Often the auction would otherwise have gone 1H 1S 1N....and we can't get there after the spade-showing 1N. Other times, we do get to 3N, but wrong-sided. Plus opener's rebid over 1N aren't designed for accurate bidding. 1H 1S 2C: I show 5-4 or better in standard. In the inversion, 1H 1N 2C: who knows what my clubs look like?

 

 

Why don't people play 1H-1NT as as inv or less with spades? It seems to solve the hands you most commonly have, let you get out in 1NT the highest % of the time, find all 4-4 fits, in return for making auctions with 5 spades and a game force a bit cramped, though not that cramped really. Rebids after 1H-1S are something like

 

1NT: Min balanced or diamonds - This bid is awkward, I hope you're playing a 14-16 NT!

2C: Clubs

2D: Hearts

2H: 4 spades 5 hearts

2S: Natural reverse

 

and then it mostly works. I guess all the changes you're making to standard might be a bit ugly here, but it lets 1NT be not forcing under every circumstance.

 

Then here you can get your hand across perfectly: 1H-1S-2H and responder knows 100% what's up and has plenty of time to stop gracefully. Also most hands go 1H-1S-1NT-pass out.

 

 

I am with Vampyr in feeling that 2D is a very useful opening bid, natural and weak. I play it in my two most serious partnerships and have never regretted it. In one of them we did, for a while, play 2D as a weak weak 2M, and 2M as constructive, but found that the weak 2D was a better use (plus when one holds a weak 2D hand, it is painful to be unable to open 2D. If one passes, one may never catch up, and if one bids 3D, one may be too high). Now, everything in a detailed bidding scheme is connected, and we use 2-way drury responses to a 3rd and 4th seat major, which means that we can't bid 2D with the weak 2D hand that was forced to pass. If we played one-way drury, being unable to open 2D on say AQ10xxx and a side King wouldn't be so bad, since some of the time we get to respond 2D to our partner's 1M.

 

If your jurisdiction allows it, you can also put the weak long diamonds hand into 2C and then just play 2D flannery if you want.

[Zelandakh]

There is an arena in which bidding ideas are tested: high-level tournament play. Bad ideas rarely survive for long. You don't see much flannery or Kaplan inversions in high-level bridge.

There is a version of Kaplan Inversion that has effectively been tested at that level without being extensively played. It is to use the same structure as over a 1♠ opening, making a 1♠ response the Forcing NT and 1NT becomes game forcing with spades. Whether that is an improvement over the normal form of KI is not really for me to say but it has to be sound if the normal 1♠ structure is good.

 

As far as 2 bids go, I believe there has been some evidence produced that 2♠ > 2♦ > 2♥ in terms of effectiveness generally and that to some extent that relationship holds regardless of how those bids are played. So count me in the group of those that hold 2♦ in high esteem.

[Cthulhu D]

As far as 2 bids go, I believe there has been some evidence produced that 2♠ > 2♦ > 2♥ in terms of effectiveness generally and that to some extent that relationship holds regardless of how those bids are played. So count me in the group of those that hold 2♦ in high esteem.

 

It's weird that this is heavily contested, because it seems obvious that 2S has the most pre-emptive value, and 2D gives the opponents the most space, but the least direction on where to go, and 2H gives people a clear direction and enough space to explore it at the two level. I really want to work out how to play 2C as a weak pre-empt because I think it would be super effective.

[mikeh]

Why don't people play 1H-1NT as as inv or less with spades? It seems to solve the hands you most commonly have, let you get out in 1NT the highest % of the time, find all 4-4 fits, in return for making auctions with 5 spades and a game force a bit cramped, though not that cramped really. Rebids after 1H-1S are something like

 

1NT: Min balanced or diamonds - This bid is awkward, I hope you're playing a 14-16 NT!

2C: Clubs

2D: Hearts

2H: 4 spades 5 hearts

2S: Natural reverse

 

and then it mostly works. I guess all the changes you're making to standard might be a bit ugly here, but it lets 1NT be not forcing under every circumstance.

 

Then here you can get your hand across perfectly: 1H-1S-2H and responder knows 100% what's up and has plenty of time to stop gracefully. Also most hands go 1H-1S-1NT-pass out.

 

 

 

 

If your jurisdiction allows it, you can also put the weak long diamonds hand into 2C and then just play 2D flannery if you want.

 

Why anyone wants to weaken their 2C structure is beyond me. Why anyone thinks that having to bid, say, 2S over 1H with all gf 5+ spade hands also escapes me. Both seem to me to be solutions in search of a problem. Otherwise known as creating a worse mess than the one that one is purporting to solve

[Cthulhu D]

Why anyone wants to weaken their 2C structure is beyond me. Why anyone thinks that having to bid, say, 2S over 1H with all gf 5+ spade hands also escapes me. Both seem to me to be solutions in search of a problem. Otherwise known as creating a worse mess than the one that one is purporting to solve

 

Taking them separately: With 2C it's because you believe the net benefits are more significant than the net negatives. Would be the same reason you do anything! I do it because I think having a weak 2D in your 2C results in less preemption and the benefits alternative use for 2D is substantial.

 

With the 2nd option, you just bid 1S and see what opener does. If partner bids 1NT you've got tons of space to unfold the hand (we use 2C as a relay here which gives lots of space), and if partner shows his shape you've got the location of 9 cards in his hand and plenty of space to unwind the details.

 

It finds all 4-4 fits, all 5-3 fits and the only time you past 1NT with a 4-3 or 5-2 major fit and less than game forcing strength is if opener is 4=5-(2-2) or 4=5-(3-1). The downside is

[HardVector]

Kaplan Inversion works great, btw, when your 1M openings promise unbalanced hands. When you remove the possibility of having 5332 hands from the equation, then not being able to stop easily in 1n is not a problem. I'm presently playing GUS, and it does that by moving those hands into the 1n opener, so our 1n opening is in the 12-16 range.

[johnu]

But pard *expects* that I might have only two clubs when I rebid 2C after 1H-1NT, so if I take the quoted regulation literally, that sounds to me like it *should* be alerted.

If in your methods you rebid 2♣ (or 2♦?) with other distributions, e.g. 5=3=3=2 or 3=5=3=2, then 2♣ needs to be alerted. If you only rebid 2♣ with specifically 4=5=2=2, then the ACBL is essentially saying that the chance of this happening is low enough that partner should expect 3 or more clubs. IIRC, this has been confirmed at least several times in the ACBL Bulletin.

[johnu]

If these kinds of things still bother you, there are ways to deal with it that involves adding a new convention to your bidding. The Flannery convention solves this problem, but it does it at the expense of whatever you are using the 2d bid for now. Something I recently discovered is the Kaplan Interchange. It involves responder switching the meaning between 1s and 1n after partner opens 1h. If we open 1h-p-? 1s showes 0-4 spades and is treated as if partner had made a forcing 1n bid. If opener has 4 spades, they rebid 1n showing 45?? shape, so you will be able to find 4/4 spade fits. If opener opens 1h-p-? and you bid 1n, that will show 5+ spades and is forcing 1 round. The KI convention is a little hard to get used to, but is very effective.

You can play Kaplan interchange without playing Flannery. In that case, 1♠ shows 0-3 spades and 1NT shows 4+ spades. If you play 1♠ as 0-4 spades, then you will usually miss a 4-4 spade fit when opener has a minimum hand because neither partner is strong enough to introduce spades as a real suit.

 

If you use Flannery and use 1♠ response to 1♥ to show 0-4 spades, you can still have problems finding a spade fit. Opener could have 6+ hearts and 4 spades and be unable to open with Flannery. Flannery players almost always have an upper limit of ~15 or 16 HCP to use the bid. Many players require fairly strong hands to reverse, so there may be a gap between a hand too strong for Flannery, and a hand not strong enough to reverse. You can miss a spade fit if you have a gap hand. You could lower the limits for a reverse into spades so there is no gap, but you would have to make adjustments to cater to lower reverse requirements.

[johnu]

I would never bid a useless 2 card suit ever and bidding spades foloowed by hearts is not misleading about the strength of my hand and accurately describes the hand as a 2 major hand. Do you think everyone accurately bids every single bid. You have to be a little flexible sometimes to avoid misleading partner and opponents. Some of the rubbish I read about how to get around the limitations of 5 card majors is terrible and the attitude especially from people who dont seem to care about misleading their opponents in much worse ways

Opening 1♠ and rebidding hearts shows 5+ spades and 4+ hearts if you are playing a 5 card major system. Responder will not play opener to only have 4 spades and longer hearts. You will frequently end up in spades instead of NT when NT is right, and spades instead of hearts when hearts is right. When you rebid 2♣ after a forcing 1NT, everybody at the table should be aware (maybe not brand new players to tournament bridge, but most beginners learned 5 card majors (in US) and should have been taught to rebid 2♣) that 2♣ can possibly be bid on a doubleton. So who is being mislead?

 

I should have added that once with a rubbish 4522 hand and 11-12 points I opened 2 of the 5 card major, only once though. :)

Everybody takes a flier once in a while. With a fairly random 4-5-2-2 with 11-12 points, there are 3 big problems with opening 2♥.

 

1. Bad or mediocre 5 card suit. May not be a problem if your partner knows you preempt like Marty Bergen, but a problem for most.

2. Enough points for most players to open at the 1 level, and lots of points outside the preempt suit. More defense than offense potential.

3. 4 card side suit in spades. A strong deterrent to opening 2♥ for many players.

 

Any one of the above is a bigger problem than making a forced rebid of 2♣ on a doubleton.

 

Bridge, in my book and most players book is about accurately describing your hand, or as accurately as possible in terms of strength and shape. That sometimes means occasional flexibility in number of cards (maybe 1 sometimes) or number of points ( afew sometimes). You also have to consider losers in assessing the strength of your hand. There is far too uch obsession with points in assessing strength, and not the distribution and nature of the points.

Opening 1♠ with 4-5 in the majors is the exact opposite of describing your shape when partner expects you to have 5+ spades. You talk about occasional flexibility in number of cards. Why is being 1 card short not OK when talking about a rebid in clubs which partner knows has the possibility of being a doubleton, but OK when talking about 1♠ which promises 5 spades playing a 5 card major system. One of the goals of a 5 card major system is finding an 8 card fit as soon as possible and you can't do that if you are only playing 5 card majors some of the time.

 

I will always (with the very occasional psych) accurately describe my hand to partner and opponents unlike many players who happily and regularly bid misleading bids/unusual conventions to mislead the defence and also teach that to beginners. That is not how to teach people to play bridge and make good contracts, or to be fair to the defence.

Are you saying rebidding 2♣ is a bid intended to mislead the defense? Or that it isn't "fair" to the defense? The ACBL (OP is apparently in ACBL territory) disagrees and goes as far to say that rebidding 2♣ specifically on a 4=5=2=2 hand is not even alertable. Other jurisdictions may have different regulations.

 

As far as getting to good contracts, opening the bidding with 1 of a major promising 5+ cards when you only have 4 is much more likely to end up in a bad contract.

[barmar]

But pard *expects* that I might have only two clubs when I rebid 2C after 1H-1NT, so if I take the quoted regulation literally, that sounds to me like it *should* be alerted.

The way I've always interpreted that clause is that it means that partner bids as if you've shown 3+ clubs. For instance, if he has 2 hearts and 5 clubs, he passes or raises clubs (depending on strength) rather than taking a preference to hearts. He doesn't make a special allowance for the possibility that it may be only 2, and you don't have any system to inquire.

[RuflRabbit]

The way I've always interpreted that clause is that it means that partner bids as if you've shown 3+ clubs. For instance, if he has 2 hearts and 5 clubs, he passes or raises clubs (depending on strength) rather than taking a preference to hearts. He doesn't make a special allowance for the possibility that it may be only 2, and you don't have any system to inquire.

 

I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable interpretation, but what if knowing it might be only 2 changes the way you rebid with 2 hearts and exactly 4 clubs? (Whether it should or not is an interesting question, and I might run a simulation, but I think I know the answer.)

[pescetom]

Opening 1♠ and rebidding hearts shows 5+ spades and 4+ hearts if you are playing a 5 card major system. Responder will not play opener to only have 4 spades and longer hearts. You will frequently end up in spades instead of NT when NT is right, and spades instead of hearts when hearts is right.

Exactly.

 

When you rebid 2♣ after a forcing 1NT, everybody at the table should be aware (maybe not brand new players to tournament bridge, but most beginners learned 5 card majors (in US) and should have been taught to rebid 2♣) that 2♣ can possibly be bid on a doubleton. So who is being mislead?

Opponents have a right to know your agreements. How they should be communicated is regulated by the RA, but an agreement to bid a new suit at 2-level with just 2 cards should be communicated in some explicit way IMO.

[HardVector]

You can play Kaplan interchange without playing Flannery. In that case, 1♠ shows 0-3 spades and 1NT shows 4+ spades. If you play 1♠ as 0-4 spades, then you will usually miss a 4-4 spade fit when opener has a minimum hand because neither partner is strong enough to introduce spades as a real suit.

The way I learned KI, is that 1s shows 0-4 spades. After 1s, opener bids 1n with 4 spades, otherwise, they make the bid they would have made if partner had made a 1nt forcing bid.

[thepossum]

How is making a bid that promises nothing more than 2 clubs - are both partner and opponents know this - misleading, but making a bid which promises 5 cards when you have 4 not misleading?

Thats totally ridiculous Stephen, I'm sorry and fails on every test of common sense and logic. Its a two major hand and you are bidding a worthless doubleton rather than show your two majors, purely to miselead the defence or from some misguided rigidity on bidding in bridge. If you are going to allow a doubleton bid in that case then it should be 2D :)

 

Have no issues with breaking rules when it leads to a better result, but in this case I can only think of hands where it makes things worse - all of the ones listed above. But if it works for you, great. Will happily play against it :)

I will happily play my way. You can happily play yours. However I do not like to mislead the defence to that extent :)

 

PS I'm not necessarily saying I would bid my 4 card major first, just that on some hands I would. I judge every individual hands on its individual merits in terms of shape, controls, points, losers etc. My second bid could easily be a pass and I only open a 5 card major in 2/1 on the assumption that a pass would be a legitimate bid in response to 1NT :) So I often pass hands and then join the auction later if I am stuck. When I said I needed my rebids worked out it includes a pass. A pass is a bid in my book :)

[smerriman]

Thats totally ridiculous Stephen, I'm sorry and fails on every test of common sense and logic. Its a two major hand and you are bidding a worthless doubleton rather than show your two majors, purely to miselead the defence or from some misguided rigidity on bidding in bridge. If you are going to allow a doubleton bid in that case then it should be 2D :)

 

So to get things straight, if you open 1N, your partner bids 2C, you will never bid 2D without a real diamond suit? Even though partner and both opponents know that's not what 2D shows?

 

There's literally no difference. A 2D response to stayman does not promise a diamond suit, and a 2C response to a forcing 1N does not promise a club suit.

 

By opening the wrong major, you are lying to your partner, and lying to your opponents (since you seem to think that's so important), and you're going to get a bottom score almost every time (the rest, average at best). If you think the majors are so important, why make a bid that virtually guarantees you'll miss the right major fit, instead of one specifically a standard part of the forcing 1NT system?

 

There's no way you can actually seriously believe what you're saying.

[mikeh]

So to get things straight, if you open 1N, your partner bids 2C, you will never bid 2D without a real diamond suit? Even though partner and both opponents know that's not what 2D shows?

 

There's literally no difference. A 2D response to stayman does not promise a diamond suit, and a 2C response to a forcing 1N does not promise a club suit.

 

By opening the wrong major, you are lying to your partner, and lying to your opponents (since you seem to think that's so important), and you're going to get a bottom score almost every time (the rest, average at best). If you think the majors are so important, why make a bid that virtually guarantees you'll miss the right major fit, instead of one specifically a standard part of the forcing 1NT system?

 

There's no way you can actually seriously believe what you're saying.

Don’t feed the troll.

[thepossum]

So to get things straight, if you open 1N, your partner bids 2C, you will never bid 2D without a real diamond suit? Even though partner and both opponents know that's not what 2D shows?

 

we are not talking about opening 1NT and bidding Stayman. This thread is about rebids to a forcing/semi-forcing no trump with a specific 4522 hand. Stop constantly misrepresenting me and picking an unnecessary fight. I guess I should be used to people on here using all argument fallacies and diversions to try to win an unwinnable argument

 

Who bids Stayman after a forcing NT

 

I used to think you knew something about bridge but your ignorance of the game and when to use Stayman shows you up for someone who doesn't seem to know much at all

[thepossum]

Don’t feed the troll.

 

Interesting comment from someone who observes other people's civilised discussions and just jumps in to make unnecessary and unjustified personal attacks. Please never comment on any of my posts again Hargraves, speaking of bullies and trolls

[masse24]

we are not talking about opening 1NT and bidding Stayman. This thread is about rebids to a forcing/semi-forcing no trump with a specific 4522 hand. Stop constantly misrepresenting me and picking an unnecessary fight. I guess I should be used to people on here using all argument fallacies and diversions to try to win an unwinnable argument

 

Who bids Stayman after a forcing NT

 

I used to think you knew something about bridge but your ignorance of the game and when to use Stayman shows you up for someone who doesn't seem to know much at all

 

He did not suggest to "bid Stayman after a forcing NT."

 

Read again what was written. It's called an analogy. Look it up if you do not know the definition. It's a valid and useful tool when making an argument.

 

There has been no "constantly misrepresenting" and "picking an unnecessary fight." Except by you, when you misrepresented the intent of an analogy being used literally as something you had written.

[mikeh]

Interesting comment from someone who observes other people's civilised discussions and just jumps in to make unnecessary and unjustified personal attacks. Please never comment on any of my posts again Hargraves, speaking of bullies and trolls

Lol