[awm]

bluecalm, on Aug 26 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

I agree with your critique of 2♣. It's just hopeless if opener could be 5-4+ in majors and is afraid you may even have 17.

The same arguments (despite limiting strength as 2♦ is a bit more limited) goes for 2♦ call though. You may still play in 5-1 fit at 2level having 8 or 9 hearts on the side or in 5-2♦ diamond fit at 3 level when you belong in spade 5-2/5-3 partial or in NT partial.

Personally I would bid 1NT. But I think this is a matter of style.

When partner has an invite or better opposite the 2♦ rebid, we should not have any issues. Partner won't be in a rush to raise on two (especially if he knows we bid this way), partner can bid 2♥ naturally without forcing game, etc. In contrast, the 2♣ rebid can run into trouble even opposite invitational values (i.e. partner raises clubs on four, or rebids 2NT with four hearts and we miss the fit).

The 2♦ rebid is also more limited in strength, so there isn't much temptation to raise on sub-invitational hands like there might be with 2♣.

It's true that the 2♦ rebid can land you in a six-card fit (most likely opposite 5413 or 5314). But the other options can have this effect too -- 2♣ rebid has problems opposite the same hands, whereas the 1NT rebid has problems if you expect partner to often rebid five-card spade suits.

[kenrexford]

If 2♣ is frequently the bid with 1453 pattern, partnerships tend to cater to that pattern with the ensuing sequences. Observations regarding the likely result of the call based on what Responder would do and mean by his bids in the context of a different style, where 1NT is frequently bid with a stiff in Responder's major, are a tad misleading as arguments against rebidding 2♣.

In other words, the greater risks are not what are mentioned but rather in playing an inferior 5-2 diamond fit rather than a nice 5-3 club fit, playing at too high a level, or playing notrump when 3♣ is better.

Similarly, the solution of rebidding 1NT with a stiff major carries it's own risks and downsides, obviously, and guaranteeing a doubleton for partner has an obvious advantage.

Rebidding 2♣ with this hand also has the advantage of occasionally playing a superior 2♣ contract instead of 2♦ with a 5-1 "fit" or 2♠ with the same sterling fit.

[jdonn]

billw55, on Aug 26 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

This is a big reason I like bridge. You can ask a really basic question about an ordinary everyday hand and a routine auction, and get three different answers, from good players. I wish I had thought to put 2♣ as an option, dangit that I can't edit a poll.

2♣ definitely deserves to be an option and 2♥ doesn't. Actually this hand seems carefully chosen to make all choices palatable.

Over time I have rebid 1NT with a singleton a lot. The 5-1 fit argument against it doesn't persuade me at all since it's not that common and might even be a good contract. My worse results from 1NT have been playing 1NT with the lead coming through in partner's suit. With this shape if I weren't going to rebid 1NT I would probably choose 2♦ on this hand because the ten means a 5-1 fit won't be a disaster, but I suspect I would more often choose 2♣ ahead of 2♦.

[awm]

Rebidding 2♣ makes it very hard to reach a 4-4 heart fit, even opposite an invite. It also lands you in 3♣ on a 4-3 fit opposite an invite. Of course, you could agree that the 2♣ rebid is "often a three-card suit" and partner is supposed to rebid 2NT with an invite even holding four clubs, but I suspect this will lose you more boards (all the times when opener actually does have four clubs) than it gains (the 1453s).

Certainly there are times when a 2♦ rebid is disastrous too, but I submit that these only occur when responder has less than invitational values and passes the 2♦ rebid on a singleton. Obviously this is possible, but 2♣ rebid additionally has all these losses on invitational hand types which don't seem to happen over 2♦.

Rebidding 1NT is arguably the worst action if you expect partner to always remove to a five-card spade suit of indifferent quality. Partner holding five spades is really common here, much more common than a singleton diamond (in fact all the singleton diamond hands also include five spades, whereas the opposite is not nearly true). Of course, those of us who like a 1NT rebid play a style where partner is not expected to remove it to a five-card spade suit very often, which has its own advantages and disadvantages (if you raise with three, you play a lot of 4-3 spade fits in 2♠ and play a lot of 5-2 spade fits in 1NT, which is not clearly bad but creates a number of swings compared to the "never raise on three with balanced hand" approach).

[kenrexford]

I doubt anyone has spent the time to work out all of the permutations as to which approach is ideal, and it is likely really damned close.

You end up with different schools of thought, in the end, I suppose. I happen to be of the "don't raise with three unless 5431" school, and the "don't bid 1NT if unbalanced" school, which leads to the semi-obvious 2♣ call for me.

For others, 1NT or 2♦ might be reasonable.

Good thing we all play 3-3, 5-1, and 4-2 fits well, eh?

[billw55]

jdonn, on Aug 26 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

billw55, on Aug 26 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

This is a big reason I like bridge.  You can ask a really basic question about an ordinary everyday hand and a routine auction, and get three different answers, from good players.  I wish I had thought to put 2♣ as an option, dangit that I can't edit a poll.

2♣ definitely deserves to be an option and 2♥ doesn't. Actually this hand seems carefully chosen to make all choices palatable.

I can't quite tell if you are wondering whether I constructed the hand. In fact it occurred in actual play. It struck me as very ordinary.

Yes, I did choose it for a forum poll precisely because the decisions seem close. Aren't those the best ones for forums?

[nigel_k]

I try pretty hard to avoid rebidding 1NT with a singleton. I'll do it with a singleton honour if nothing else fits, but on this hand type and with a small singleton I would normally bid 2♦, or sometimes 2♣ if the diamonds are poor. Here 2♦ is fine.

[jdonn]

awm, on Aug 26 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Certainly there are times when a 2♦ rebid is disastrous too, but I submit that these only occur when responder has less than invitational values and passes the 2♦ rebid on a singleton.

There are other times rebidding diamonds is bad. Maybe partner raises on a doubleton with his invitational hand. Maybe he is 4126.

Quote

(in fact all the singleton diamond hands also include five spades, whereas the opposite is not nearly true)

That's not true at all. 4 spades, 5+ clubs, and less than a GF or less than an invitation depending on your system (less than a GF for me).

[the hog]

1 NT for me. I hate the 2C bid. Much prefer 2D to 2C if partner objects to me bidding 1NT with a singleton.
This is a good hand for 4 card Major, canape systems.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in the end this is basically a matter of partnership agreement and personal
style, I would go with 2D, and you can weaken the diamond suit a lot before
I would change, but I dont hate 1NT, I would never bid 2C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

Imo 1NT and 2♣ are close. 2♣ should definitely be an option in case you really don't want to rebid 1NT with a singleton. The problem with rebidding 2♣ is that it may be hard to find a 4-4 ♥ fit. I've done it in the past, but it was scary.

[Mbodell]

Definitely a style question. I prefer that 1nt promises 2 cards in all suits, 2♣ promises 4 cards, 2♦ promises 6, 2♥ promises at least a well placed A more, and 2♠ promises 4 cards.

That doesn't cover all possible hand shapes, so that leaves you to figure out the best lie on this hand. For me, it is treating KJTxx as a 6 card suit and bidding 2♦ (and this is the one I lie about the most, the 6 card minor). Make it KJT of clubs and Kxxxx of diamonds and 2♣ appeals (although I haven't really tried this call before). I'd want a stiff honor in spades before I considered 1nt.

I know a lot of people play that you nearly always raise with 3 card support and 1nt shows 1 or 2 cards in the suit, but that isn't my style. YMMV

[gordontd]

helene_t, on Aug 26 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

Absolutely not 2♦! Playing Acol (1NT rebid shows extras) this is a wtp 2♣ rebid. OK some very old textbooks would say you have to open 1♥ to avoid the rebid problem.

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

[Oof Arted]

Gerben42, on Aug 26 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

Yell at me but I'm going to bid 2♦. At least my intermediates are good. Give me Kxxxx and I'm really stuck.

put me in the same nuthouse as i prefer to show partner my hand holding a minimum count

[JLOGIC]

awm, on Aug 26 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

It seems very clear to me that either of 2♦ or 1NT is better than 2♣.

How is it so clear that 2D is better than 2C? Most of your arguments against 2C are also arguments against 2D. For instance:

-2C risks playing a 4-3 fit at the 3 level opposite an invite. Well, 2D risks playing a 5-2 diamond fit at the 3 level opposite an invite.

It's true a 5-2 fit will probably be a little bit better than a 4-3 fit, but this is a case against bidding 2D with 5 also.

-2C risks playing a 3-3 fit when partner is 5413 despite a 4-4 heart fit. Well, 2D risks playing a 5-1 fit.

Again, it's true that a 5-1 fit is probably better than a 3-3 fit, but all 6 card fits kind of suck! And to one up you, ill point out that 2D risks playing a 5-0 fit (5305 etc), whereas 2C will never reach a 3-2 fit.

-2C makes it very hard to find a 4-4 heart fit even if partner is invite plus.

What? Partner invites or 4sf's, and we bid THREE HEARTS, showing 4 hearts. Very complicated. This is the exact same way we show 4 hearts after bidding 2D. I don't understand your point at all here.

-2C does not substantially limit the hands strength.

That is a good argument until you think about it. 2D on average has more playing strength than 2C because we are showing a 6 card suit. While 2C can have more HCP, partner is usually keeping the bidding open with a false preference and not worrying about the top of our range in terms of HCP since we'll bid again on those hands. The hands where he cannot false preference and must invite light will almost always have a good club fit, or a stiff diamond. In both of those cases I'm happier playing 3C than 2D in general. Yes, there was a hand posted where partner was 5224 and just good enough to invite and only had 4 clubs, and it was just weak enough to pass 2D. But my point remains the same.

So while 2C is less limiting in HCP, it also projects less playing strength on average, and usually gets a false preference to keep the bidding open if partner is catering to us having a lot of HCP, or a light raise with short diamonds where 2D wouldn't be very good anyways.

-Will often reach a light 3C because partner is compelled to raise. Well, the same is true by bidding 2D, partner will be compelled to raise soemtimes and we will get to 3 where bidding 2C would have just gotten a 2D bid from partner.

This is exactly the same as the point before though, but imo 2D will get a lot of light raises on hands where we could have just played 2D had we bid 2C, whereas the hands where 2C gets a light raise often 3C is better than 2D anyways since partner will have short diamonds. Again, when we show 6 diamonds partner will try for game with a hand like Axxxx Kxxx Qx xx whereas over 2C he would just bid 2D.

Part of the reason for trying for game light with 2 diamonds is because he expects us to have a source of tricks in 3N, and part of it is to keep the alive in case we have a major suit fit.

But this seems like a stupid way to evaluate which is better, listing some downsides of bidding 2C and then saying obviously 2D or 1N is better.

I could just as easily only list the downsides of 2D or 1N and nothing else, and come to the conclusion that 2C is clearly superior.

It is "obvious" to me that 2C will get us to better partials on average. Partner is not passing with only 1 more club than diamond, and will often have 3 more clubs than diamonds (1-4 in the minors, 1-5 in the minors, 2-5 in the minors etc). If he has 2 more clubs than diamonds, diamonds will rate to play better, but I do not think of the difference as huge (certainly not as big as getting to the longer fit when we have one).

It is also "obvious" to me that if partner is going to invite/game force, bidding 2C then 3H is a much better description of our hand than 2D then 3H, because partner knows much more about our shape (short spades for sure, 4 hearts for sure, basically we can be narrowed to 1453, 1444, 0454).

While it is not obvious to me which of 2C or 2D will induce a light raise more often, much of the time that we do get raised from 2C to 3C, 3C is still preferable to 2D, whereas getting raised from 2D to 3D when we could have played 2D will always lead to an inferior contract.

But then again I feel that I have had this exact conversation with gnasher. Here is the thread:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...68&hl=1453&st=0

[JLOGIC]

awm, on Aug 26 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

When partner has an invite or better opposite the 2♦ rebid, we should not have any issues. Partner won't be in a rush to raise on two (especially if he knows we bid this way), partner can bid 2♥ naturally without forcing game, etc. In contrast, the 2♣ rebid can run into trouble even opposite invitational values (i.e. partner raises clubs on four, or rebids 2NT with four hearts and we miss the fit).

You assume that 2H is GF over 2C, but natural and game invitational+ over 2D. I'm not sure why this is assumed but there is no reason for it to be this way necessarily.

I'm not even sure how one would bid over a natural and invitational+ 2H. Is 2S forcing? Is 3H forcing? If you have to jump to 4H with a max and 4 hearts, then that means 2H shows 4+ hearts (really natural!). How does one bid intelligently with a GF without 5 hearts over 2D if that is the case, always bidding an artificial 3C? That seems to needlessly eat up a lot of room.

If 2H is just artificial/semi-artificial and GF which bidding logic would dictate is necessary over 2D, then your argument about finding hearts easier over 2D than 2C doesn't really hold up

[helene_t]

gordontd, on Aug 27 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

Yes, but IMHO that is just because the authors think that it's easier to teach beginners that repeating a suit just shows 5 instead of making complicated rules for when it shows 5 and when it shows 6.

JLOGIC said:

-2C makes it very hard to find a 4-4 heart fit even if partner is invite plus.

What? Partner invites or 4sf's, and we bid THREE HEARTS, showing 4 hearts.

The problem is that maybe we play a style in which responder can show four hearts with an invitational hand if we rebid 2♦, while FSF requires GF strength.

[JLOGIC]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

gordontd, on Aug 27 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

Yes, but IMHO that is just because the authors think that it's easier to teach beginners that repeating a suit just shows 5 instead of making complicated rules for when it shows 5 and when it shows 6.

JLOGIC said:

-2C makes it very hard to find a 4-4 heart fit even if partner is invite plus.

What? Partner invites or 4sf's, and we bid THREE HEARTS, showing 4 hearts.

The problem is that maybe we play a style in which responder can show four hearts with an invitational hand if we rebid 2♦, while FSF requires GF strength.

Yes I realized that when I read his later post and hopefully addressed it, I think it's a pretty arbitrary agreement to have. I guess if you play 2H as not GF and also as natural showing 4+ hearts then bidding 2D is better, but I don't know why one would play that.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

gordontd, on Aug 27 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

Yes, but IMHO that is just because the authors think that it's easier to teach beginners that repeating a suit just shows 5 instead of making complicated rules for when it shows 5 and when it shows 6.

I think that the reason is more related to the fact that the hand would be outside the range for a 1NT rebid when a 1NT opener is 12-14.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Aug 27 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 27 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

gordontd, on Aug 27 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

Yes, but IMHO that is just because the authors think that it's easier to teach beginners that repeating a suit just shows 5 instead of making complicated rules for when it shows 5 and when it shows 6.

I think that the reason is more related to the fact that the hand would be outside the range for a 1NT rebid when a 1NT opener is 12-14.

That's why a 1NT rebid isn't an option. Then the two options that remain are 2♣ and 2♦.