[mdaw]

Hi,

1♦ - 1♠
?

What do you bid in 2/1 with 7 AJ53 K8632 KJ6 and why?
I can see 3 options:
a. 1NT
b. 2♣ (if you choose this one, addictional question is how to not miss 4-4 ♥ suit?)
c. 2♦

Regardz,
David

[jdonn]

Researchers, please dig up some of the old threads on the topic.

[Jlall]

There was a good one where I argued 2C>2D in general, definitely with this suit quality though.

It's all moot because I love 1N!

[pooltuna]

mdaw, on Oct 15 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Hi,

1♦ - 1♠
?

What do you bid in 2/1 with 7 AJ53 K8632 KJ6 and why?
I can see 3 options:
a. 1NT
b. 2♣ (if you choose this one, addictional question is how to not miss 4-4 ♥ suit?)
c. 2♦

Regardz,
David

probably depends on if you are playing MP or IMPS. The importance of 1NT in MP overwhelms the need to hold at least 2♠. 2♣ is not an option for me because I bid all minimal opening hands with 4♦ & 5♣ the same as those with 5♦ and 4♣(with approximately equal suit strength). I open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. Consequently in IMPs I would grumpily choose 2♦

[Jlall]

pooltuna, on Oct 15 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

2♣ is not an option for me because I bid all minimal opening hands with 4♦ & 5♣ the same as those with 5♦ and 4♣(with approximately equal suit strength). I open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. Consequently in IMPs I would grumpily choose 2♦

Fair point, playing precision I also don't rebid 2C with either 5-3 or 6-4 because I expect partner to pass with 1 more club than diamond. I don't think this is a great style in standard because if 2C could be up to 17 or even a bad 18 (or a good 3154 too good for a raise immed) you NEED partner to be able to false preferece freely so that opener gets to make a third bid frequently if he can and game can still be found opp 8-9 counts.

[kenrexford]

Playing an unbalanced diamond solves this problem. You rebid 1NT, showing a stiff spade and 1453 or 1444 pattern.

Playing a regular diamond, I prefer 2♣, personally, when 2♦ looks wrong. A finge benefit of that approach is confidence in partner who often wants to rebid 2♠ to play when he knows I have 2-3 spades.

[mike777]

mdaw, on Oct 15 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Hi,

1♦ - 1♠
?

What do you bid in 2/1 with 7 AJ53 K8632 KJ6 and why?
I can see 3 options:
a. 1NT
b. 2♣ (if you choose this one, addictional question is how to not miss 4-4 ♥ suit?)
c. 2♦

Regardz,
David

Assuming one always opens this hand in your style I think 1nt is the smallest lie.

Prefer 2d to show 6
Prefer 2c to promise 4 or more strength if 3
1nt at least warns pard we are 11-13.

btw playing "reverse flannery" takes care of almost all of the hands with 5s and 4h.

[Lobowolf]

2♣...the missed 4-4 heart fit is pretty rare. The "why" is mostly that I consider it the least of evils. Rebidding a ratty 5-card diamond suit is ugly (and doesn't necessarily avoid missing the heart fit). Rebidding 1NT with the singleton solves the dilemma between the minors, but creates another - does partner with 5 spades rebid them, which could lead you out of an 8- or 9-card fit in one of the minors and into a 5-1 spade fit, or does partner pass the 1NT rebid, when you might have a 5-3 spade fit?

[mike777]

I am surprised by so many bidding 2c.


If 2d=6d and about 10-15 or
2c=4c and about 10-18 it


seems 1nt showing 11-13 is the smallest lie. I assume if we open this lite always, that we also raise with 3s...somewhat often.

OTOH If we can pass this hand, not open, in your style ok.

[655321]

1NT happily, this is not even an evil to be avoided.

A side benefit is that partner will no longer rebid his unsupported 5 card spade suits.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

I am surprised by so many bidding 2c.


If 2d=6d and about 10-15 or
2c=4c and about 10-18 it


seems 1nt showing 11-13 is the smallest lie. I assume if we open this lite always, that we also raise with 3s...somewhat often.

OTOH If we can pass this hand, not open, in your style ok.

Assessing this type of problem on the basis of what is the "biggest lie" is always so misleading, IMO.

Here's what I mean. Being dealt 1-4-5-3 pattern is not that remarkable of a situation. It comes up fairly often. When you hold that pattern, there is a fairly good chance that 1♠ is the response that comes back at you. so, this entire sequence and rebid problem is not that unique.

So, having discussed general principles here, you and partner have ideally decided what to do with this shape. Whatever you have agreed defines what calls mean.

So, if you have decided to rebid 1NT with this pattern in this sequence, then 1NT is not a "lie" because it shows a balanced hand OR this pattern. If you have decided to rebid 2♦ with this hand, then 2♦ shows 6+ unless 1453. If you have decided to rebid 2♣, then the 2♣ rebid shows 3+, normally 4+ unless 1453. You could also have a style where any two of the three above are possible (based on judgment) or even any of the three, in which case all three of these rebids have understood exceptions.

This is nor more a "lie" in any of these three situations that would it be a "lie" to open 1♦ with only three of them when you always have four diamonds unless you have 4-4-3-2 shape. It is a known, expected exception.

The question, then, is whether any of these three exceptions to expectancy is more playable in the long run.

If your style is to open 1♦ with possible canape holdings, such that a courtesy correct is rare, then 2♣ with this hand seems really bad. If your style is to courtesy correct almost routinely, then you might as well bid 2♦ and get there faster or consider 1NT. If your style is flexible as to courtesy corrections, then 2♣ has more appeal.

If your style is assurance on 1NT bids promising balanced, to enable major rebids, then 2♣ or 2♦ has something going for it. If your style is to tend to wing the 1NT contract even with five spades as Responder, then 1NT has more going for it. If your rebid structure after 1NT (checkbacks and such) enables a good unwind of this pattern, then 1NT has more going for it than when the unwind is less sophisticated or when assumptions are built in to enable trump setting bids in Responder's major.

None of this is "lie" based, IMO.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Oct 15 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

I am surprised by so many bidding 2c.


If 2d=6d and about 10-15 or
2c=4c and about 10-18 it


seems 1nt showing 11-13 is the smallest lie. I assume if we open this lite always, that we also raise with 3s...somewhat often.

OTOH If we can pass this hand, not open,  in your style ok.

Assessing this type of problem on the basis of what is the "biggest lie" is always so misleading, IMO.

Here's what I mean. Being dealt 1-4-5-3 pattern is not that remarkable of a situation. It comes up fairly often. When you hold that pattern, there is a fairly good chance that 1♠ is the response that comes back at you. so, this entire sequence and rebid problem is not that unique.

So, having discussed general principles here, you and partner have ideally decided what to do with this shape. Whatever you have agreed defines what calls mean.

So, if you have decided to rebid 1NT with this pattern in this sequence, then 1NT is not a "lie" because it shows a balanced hand OR this pattern. If you have decided to rebid 2♦ with this hand, then 2♦ shows 6+ unless 1453. If you have decided to rebid 2♣, then the 2♣ rebid shows 3+, normally 4+ unless 1453. You could also have a style where any two of the three above are possible (based on judgment) or even any of the three, in which case all three of these rebids have understood exceptions.

This is nor more a "lie" in any of these three situations that would it be a "lie" to open 1♦ with only three of them when you always have four diamonds unless you have 4-4-3-2 shape. It is a known, expected exception.

The question, then, is whether any of these three exceptions to expectancy is more playable in the long run.

If your style is to open 1♦ with possible canape holdings, such that a courtesy correct is rare, then 2♣ with this hand seems really bad. If your style is to courtesy correct almost routinely, then you might as well bid 2♦ and get there faster or consider 1NT. If your style is flexible as to courtesy corrections, then 2♣ has more appeal.

If your style is assurance on 1NT bids promising balanced, to enable major rebids, then 2♣ or 2♦ has something going for it. If your style is to tend to wing the 1NT contract even with five spades as Responder, then 1NT has more going for it. If your rebid structure after 1NT (checkbacks and such) enables a good unwind of this pattern, then 1NT has more going for it than when the unwind is less sophisticated or when assumptions are built in to enable trump setting bids in Responder's major.

None of this is "lie" based, IMO.

Ken...if we have discussed what to rebid with this hand....why post.


I assumed...perhaps in error...we have not discussed.

[jdonn]

Ken it's possible to make the agreements that:
- Rebidding 1NT shows 2 spades.
- Rebidding 2♣ shows 4 clubs.
- Rebidding 2♦ shows 6 diamonds.
- With this shape, you tell what you feel is the smallest lie based on your suit qualities.

Are you saying it's not a lie because you have agreed to lie? I have a feeling your answer will make my head hurt.

[Jlall]

Why is playing 1N with 5-2 and 5-3 spade fits instead of 2S the end of the world? People talk about it like it's some huge disaster to play 1N opposite a range of 1-3 spades rather than 2S opposite a range of 2-3 spades. Worse things have happened!

To me a disaster is playing a 3-3 club fit, or a 5-1 diamond fit at the 2 level while missing a 4-4 heart fit. Heck it's a disaster to me to play 2 of a minor cold for 4H opposite a partner who has 5-5 in the majors and only modest values.

I don't even particularly like playing a 5-2 diamond fit or a 4-3 club fit at the 2 level when I could play 1N and be at the 1 level, or better yet again find my 4-4 heart fit.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

Ken it's possible to make the agreements that:
- Rebidding 1NT shows 2 spades.
- Rebidding 2♣ shows 4 clubs.
- Rebidding 2♦ shows 6 diamonds.
- With this shape, you tell what you feel is the smallest lie based on your suit qualities.

Are you saying it's not a lie because you have agreed to lie? I have a feeling your answer will make my head hurt.

Let me ask it this way:

Let's say that you have agreed to open 1♣ with 3+ clubs, 1♦ with 4+ diamonds, and 5-card majors.

You cannot do that, obviously.

So, something must give. Maybe with 4432 you are allowed to open 1C, 1D, or even one of the majors. But, then yours definitions are not right. Something is off. Maybe 1♣ could be short. Maybe 1♦ could be 3-card. Maybe 1♥ could be 4-4. Something, maybe two options, maybe any of the three.

But, then whichever openings have exceptions should be explained to the opponents as possibly having exceptions if asked, right?

So, imagine the actual situation. Your partnership must logically have some default. Maybe the default is to a specifi bid, maybe to a choice between two options, or maybe any of the three. But, there should, in theory, be an agreement (or no agreement, which is IMO technically equivalent to an agreement that any of the three is possible).

So, if you are ASKED as to what a call shows (1NT, 2♣, or 2♦), then I think full disclosure should include a mention of the possible exception.

If the possible exception is known to exist, and you call it a "lie," then I think you suffer two problems. First, non-disclosure. Second, poor partnership bidding. For, partner should keep that exception or exceptions in mind in the auctions that follow, IMO.

So, your agreement to "tell the smallest lie" is really, IMO, an agreement that 1NT could be bid with a stiff spade, 2♣ promises 3+ but usually 4, and 2♦ shows 5+ but usually 6, with an ability to specifically identify the one instance for the opponents and to yourself.

[Jlall]

ahhhhh so many words on semantics.

[655321]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

Researchers, please dig up some of the old threads on the topic.

Found a couple, gwnn might be able to do better!

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=17623
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26868

[ONEferBRID]

mdaw, on Oct 15 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Hi,

1♦ - 1♠
?

What do you bid in 2/1 with 7 AJ53 K8632 KJ6 and why?
I can see 3 options:
a. 1NT
b. 2♣ (if you choose this one, addictional question is how to not miss 4-4 ♥ suit?)
c. 2♦

Regardz,
David

Coincidently the following hand came up in a small online game.
After 1♣ - 1♠ , sbout twice as many Openers ( 9 vs 4 ) rebid 1NT vs. 2C:

Opener
x
K Q T x
A J x
K J x x x

Responder
K Q T x
J x x
x x x
Q T x

[gwnn]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=26868

gah didn't see that 655321 beat me to it!

edit:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=19461
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=27887
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=33174

[the hog]

Easy 1NT bid for me. I hate 2C as it is not a "small lie". Also why take the risk of missing a H suit on weak responding hands?