[billw55]

---

and west's rebid is ... ?

[pooltuna]

a heavy 1NT

[jjbrr]

I'd try 2NT. We have 11 with KQx of ♣. Seems like enough to invite.

[jjbrr]

Also if 1♠ promises an unbalancedish hand, partner is either going to have ♦ length or he will raise ♥ next, so I'm not too worried about my ♦ holding. And Jx is certainly better than xx.

[Hanoi5]

I was toying with the idea of bidding 2♦ as partner might have the reds reversed, but then I guess partner can pattern out just the same with 3♥ over 2NT, so that's better. And of course there's also the fact that 2♦ is FG and we don't exactly hold that.

[the hog]

2NT for me.

[quiddity]

If opener promises an unbalanced hand I would bid 3♣ (especially if he would always open 1♦ with 4144).

[Phil]

Good advertisement for 1♠ to show an unbalanced hand. Then, 3♣ is a sensible value bid.

I don't know what I would do. 2N is right on values, but with Jx in the unbid suit, and no trick source, I don't like it.

3♣ is also OK, but it seems excessive when we might have a 4-3 fit.

Put me down for 1N at MPs and 3♣ at IMPs. I'm going to go wash my hands now.

[Cyberyeti]

This is why American bidding is a complete mystery to me, as this is a 2♦ wtp from where I am.

[mike777]

1nt given OP but

Prefer to open east hand with 1nt and live with the issues with offshape 1nt openings.
Note most of my hcp are in my unbid suits.

[the hog]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-21, 16:48, said:

This is why American bidding is a complete mystery to me, as this is a 2♦ wtp from where I am.

2D 4sf? Many, not just US players play 4sf as a gf.

[matmat]

Are we allowed to use random conventions here? how about some xyz?

2♣-2♦
2♥-3NT

I'm not a giant fan of bypassing 1♠ after a 1♥ response, though it is playable and would help with a rebid here.

[Phil]

Judging from some comments, did the thread change? What exactly do people think opener's opening bid is?

[Siegmund]

One reason among many that I prefer 2D FSF to be 1 round rather than game. Have never understood why people even considered FSF(game) to be playable.

If you impose 2D FSF(game) and invitational jumps on me, I am endplayed into jumping to 3C on this, but I am not happy about it. I have real sympathy for the heavy-1NT folk. (And none at all for the argument that the 1C opener is likely to have diamonds covered, as an excuse for things like jumping to 2NT.)

[han]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-21, 14:29, said:

Also if 1♠ promises an unbalancedish hand, partner is either going to have ♦ length or he will raise ♥ next, so I'm not too worried about my ♦ holding. And Jx is certainly better than xx.

This post is a mysterie to me, can't partner have a 4-2-2-5 shape? If partner promises an unbalanced hand, doesn't that make 2NT less attractive?

I agree with Phil, if partner promises an unbalanced hand then 3C is best.

[mgoetze]

Phil, on 2011-June-21, 16:42, said:

Good advertisement for

... playing something artificial like XYZ after this sequence.

Siegmund, on 2011-June-21, 19:51, said:

One reason among many that I prefer 2D FSF to be 1 round rather than game. Have never understood why people even considered FSF(game) to be playable.

I used to think FSF(1r) might be a valid alternative. Then I played it once with a partner who always plays it. I bid 4th suit, she makes some nondescript bid, and we get to the wrong spot. Afterwards I notice she has a completely obvious higher bid for patterning out and ask her why she didn't bid that. She says she was afraid of getting too high. Have hated FSF(1r) ever since.

[mike777]

again 1s was not alerted so i think we cannot assume 1s is unbal.

btw in general 1s is not unbal in walsh/.

However I do think we need to know if pard can often be 10 or 11.

Hence my 1nt here.


--------------


I still prefer 1nt offshape opening by pard.

[P_Marlowe]

It is either 2NT or 3C, depends on the agreements in place.

If you have agreed, that 1S showes an unbal. hand, you know opener has 5 clubs,
so you have a fit and inv. values => 3C.

If 1S can still be based on a weak NT type hand, show the bal. nature of your hand
=> 2NT.

Given the fact, that you have lots of Jacks and no Aces, you can downgrade teh hand
to 10 HCP, i.e. below inv. strength, in which case your choices are 1NT or 2C.
I would not do it, but a case can be made, and if partner mentiones the reason, why he
decided to downgrade, this will be ok with me.

Also if you regular open light, than this is also a reason to bid only 1NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Yes - just read the suggestion to bid 2D, FSF - if you happen to play FSF as inv.+
this is certainly a hand for this bid.

[mike777]

yes my partners are often:


AKxx...x...xxx....Axxxx or worse.

Hence the need to open 1nt w ith that hand or reply 1nt with responders hand.

OTOH if pard is going to often have 14-16 with that shape I better bid more.

[helene_t]

Siegmund, on 2011-June-21, 19:51, said:

One reason among many that I prefer 2D FSF to be 1 round rather than game. Have never understood why people even considered FSF(game) to be playable.

One problem with playing 2♦ as "invitational or stronger" is that if opener rebids 3♣ to show a sixth club we don't know if he has extra values or not. I suppose one could play 3♦ by opener now as showing extra values and not the right shape for a 3NT, 3♥ or 3♠ bid. Another problem is that if 2♥ by opener is nonforcing he would have to bid 3♥ with extra values and three hearts. That is a lot of space to take away without clarifying whether he has a diamond stop or not. Or with a diamond stopper, six clubs and slight extras he would have to bid 3NT, not showing the extra club length.

I suppose one could play FSF as forcing for only one round in the specific sequence
1♦-1♥
1♠-2♣*
with the agreement that it is forcing to 2NT and that responder can make a second relay by bidding the first step over a 2♦ or 2♥ response to FSF. But it is a lot of hassle compared to the simple agreement that FSF is always a GF. And in this specific sequence it is probably simpler to play XYZ, especially if you already play XYZ over a 1NT rebid.