[Bende]

We play a 2-over-1 system with Walsh responses to 1C. Thus we think it makes sense that 1♣-1♦; 1M shows an unbalanced hand. What about 1m-1♥; 1♠? We play that as unbalanced right now but maybe it is better to just bid 1♠ with four and let 1NT deny four spades? Or maybe a 1♠ rebid should show not an unbalanced hand but at least say we have four of the minor (only really affects clubs as we open 1C with 3-3 in the minors)?

What is the typical way of handling this?

[Vampyr]

Bende, on 2013-June-08, 04:19, said:

We play a 2-over-1 system with Walsh responses to 1C. Thus we think it makes sense that 1♣-1♦; 1M shows an unbalanced hand. What about 1m-1♥; 1♠? We play that as unbalanced right now but maybe it is better to just bid 1♠ with four and let 1NT deny four spades? Or maybe a 1♠ rebid should show not an unbalanced hand but at least say we have four of the minor (only really affects clubs as we open 1C with 3-3 in the minors)?

What is the typical way of handling this?

Normally with a balanced hand people bid 1NT and have some mechanism for checking back for support or four of the other major.

[FrancesHinden]

If you are asking what people generally play, it depends what part of the world you are in
Each of your options is commonly played somewhere.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-08, 05:22, said:

If you are asking what people generally play, it depends what part of the world you are in
Each of your options is commonly played somewhere.

Normally with entrenched views that other options are completely wrong.

[aguahombre]

Yes. I am entrenched, and encourage all opponents to continue playing it the other way from the way we play it. It gives us an edge against all except the very experienced partnerships who can actually handle the two-way checkback methods which are necessary when they bypass 1S with a balanced hand, but not necessary if they don't. The edge we keep because they can't play in 2C after opening 1C is small.

[Bende]

Good point, Frances. Is there an expert standard?

[helene_t]

The people who voted for "unbalanced" so far are weak-notrumpers I think. I would vote that way also if I played weak notrump. Getting the 15-17 points across without having to higher than 1nt is attractive. Partner usually has enough values to checkback and if not, I have enough values that 1nt might be makeable so the lost spade fit doesn't give us a minus score most of the time.

Playing strong notrump, I show my spades unless I am 4333.

[Winstonm]

I play strong NT and I bid 1S balanced or not

[nige1]

Bende, on 2013-June-08, 04:19, said:

We play a 2-over-1 system with Walsh responses to 1C. Thus we think it makes sense that 1♣-1♦; 1M shows an unbalanced hand. What about 1m-1♥; 1♠? We play that as unbalanced right now but maybe it is better to just bid 1♠ with four and let 1NT deny four spades? Or maybe a 1♠ rebid should show not an unbalanced hand but at least say we have four of the minor (only really affects clubs as we open 1C with 3-3 in the minors)? What is the typical way of handling this?

In Scotland, a common treatment among 2/1 players is that
1m (Pass) 1B (Pass)
1M
shows 4441 or 5+ m and 4+ M.

[blackshoe]

Most of my partners have heard somewhere that you should always show a four card major if you have one, and cannot understand why I would want to bypass spades to show my balanced hand. Most of them don't play any form of checkback. Strong NT, 2/1 or SA.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2013-June-08, 15:56, said:

The people who voted for "unbalanced" so far are weak-notrumpers I think. I would vote that way also if I played weak notrump. Getting the 15-17 points across without having to higher than 1nt is attractive. Partner usually has enough values to checkback and if not, I have enough values that 1nt might be makeable so the lost spade fit doesn't give us a minus score most of the time.

Playing strong notrump, I show my spades unless I am 4333.

This is very interesting; I play strong NT in 3rd at teams (and my partner is thinking about switching to strong throughout at teams) and I have never really thought about the implications of a 1NT rebid showing a weak NT as opposed to a strong NT.

Also, sorry to go off-topic, but I do not play support doubles, and I wonder if they are sensible when playing a strong NT?

[aguahombre]

I believe those who rebid 1NT have other considerations than the range of their opening NT.

Because of, or in spite of, their opening 1m agreements they feel an urgency to show an unbalanced vs. balanced hand. We don't feel that immediate urgency, and don't really know how many other continuations are affected by that style. We just know that we are content that 1m-1H-1S might or might not be balanced; and it IS forcing upon responder who actually had a response to begin with ---but passable if responder doesn't care that Opener might have a balanced 19 count.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-08, 12:32, said:

Yes. I am entrenched, and encourage all opponents to continue playing it the other way from the way we play it. It gives us an edge against all except the very experienced partnerships who can actually handle the two-way checkback methods which are necessary when they bypass 1S with a balanced hand, but not necessary if they don't. The edge we keep because they can't play in 2C after opening 1C is small.

I don't quite follow this so-called edge in the final sentence. I would have thought that 2C is easier to find after a 1M rebid promises a genuine 1C opener. Not that that is the real benefit of the method, in my view, although now that you bring the subject up I suppose it would add to it. A more pronounced edge is LHO's doubt about the safety of leading Spades v 1NT. But even that isn't really the main point.

helene_t, on 2013-June-08, 15:56, said:

The people who voted for "unbalanced" so far are weak-notrumpers I think.

IMP v MP may also have an influence. Anyway, personally I prefer strong 1N with transfer walsh, and accept the transfer with a weak 1N, but I had to vote according to the constraints of the imposed system, and this is a Natural Systems forum.

[benlessard]

I agree that bypassing S in a weak Nt setup make more sense. However using judgement rather than rules is just better here.

I would really hate having to bid 1NT with 4S and without a stopper in the other minor, wrongsiding 1Nt or 3Nt for little benefit is really not my style, on the other side bidding 1S with a flatish hand and nice stoppers in the unbid suit is also weak bridge IMO.

[FrancesHinden]

Bende, on 2013-June-08, 14:49, said:

Good point, Frances. Is there an expert standard?

Not internationally.
All the good players in England that I can think of, who play a relevant system*, always rebid 1NT with a balanced hand and use 1S for an unbalanced hand.
It's almost universal in Norway to rebid 1S whenever you have 4 (although some of the top players don't)

From what I can tell from reading BW / watching vugraph, there isn't a US standard. There might be a geography effect in the US, but I don't know enough about where players are from.

*e.g. not T-Walsh which is becoming quite popular

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-08, 12:32, said:

Yes. I am entrenched, and encourage all opponents to continue playing it the other way from the way we play it. It gives us an edge against all except the very experienced partnerships who can actually handle the two-way checkback methods which are necessary when they bypass 1S with a balanced hand, but not necessary if they don't. The edge we keep because they can't play in 2C after opening 1C is small.

The "edge" you have because they can't play in 2C is negative: it's much easier to play in clubs if 1C - 1suit - 1S shows an unbalanced hand, because responder knows you have real clubs.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-08, 19:20, said:

Also, sorry to go off-topic, but I do not play support doubles, and I wonder if they are sensible when playing a strong NT?

Support doubles are not sensible playing a weak NT. They make much more sense playing strong NT.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-08, 19:20, said:

This is very interesting; I play strong NT in 3rd at teams (and my partner is thinking about switching to strong throughout at teams) and I have never really thought about the implications of a 1NT rebid showing a weak NT as opposed to a strong NT.

Your partner is thinking of switching to strong NT but you are not? Does he play the hands that much worse than you?

Quote

Also, sorry to go off-topic, but I do not play support doubles, and I wonder if they are sensible when playing a strong NT?

Playing weak NT, support doubles are not sensible (double is needed to cover some strong NT type hands).

Playing strong NT, support doubles are sensible but not a must.

[jallerton]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-08, 12:32, said:

Yes. I am entrenched, and encourage all opponents to continue playing it the other way from the way we play it. It gives us an edge against all except the very experienced partnerships who can actually handle the two-way checkback methods which are necessary when they bypass 1S with a balanced hand, but not necessary if they don't. The edge we keep because they can't play in 2C after opening 1C is small.

It's not necessary to be in a very experienced partnership. You just need to have discussed your continuations after a 1NT rebid. The main downside of rebidding 1NT is when Responder is 4-4 in the majors and not strong enough to bid on over 1NT. (This is a less frequent loss playing weak NT; playing weak NT opening Helene is right that it's much more important to be able to show your hand type (shape and extra values) immediately.)

The downside of bidding 1♠ with the balanced hands is that it makes is harder to find he length of a club fit. I remember watching a USA pair playing in the Bermuda Bowl a few years ago. They bid 1♣-1♥-1♠-3♣-Pass and they were playing in a 3-4 ♣ fit with two balanced hands.

Suppose that the auction goes 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦ (4th suit forcing). If a 2♥ bid now by Opener can be 4=3=3=3, 4=3=2=4, 4=3=1=5 or 4=2=2=5 (or even 4=2=3=4 with no ♦ stop), you've got a lot to unscramble.

[MickyB]

In his Bridgematters interview, Chip Martel said it was clear to rebid 1NT when playing weak NT. I think he went as far as saying he'd give up weak NT if he had to rebid 1S on balanced hands with four cards. I agree - when you have some extras, but not enough to comfortably commit to 2NT, you want to show your strength ASAP - which is why I play a strong(ish) 1NT opening in the first place!

Playing strong NT, it is closer, but I am still firmly in the camp that rebids 1NT.

- On unbalanced hands, I am much better placed, both in terms of reaching 2C/3C when it is right, and 4SF auctions as described by jallerton.
- On balanced hands with four spades, there are swings and roundabouts. Rebidding 1NT limits my hand better and makes it easier to reach 2H.
- On balanced hands without four spades, the losses are small - eg 4S5H invite is likely to get higher in my style.

I've intentionally ignored information leakage to defenders because that is very hard to quantify.

After 1m:1H, 1NT, I think it is important to have a way to show 5H4S weak, although most pairs seem not to now two-way checkback has superceded simple checkback.

If you open 1C on all weak NTs, I think it is clear to rebid 1NT on these hands; I would hate to play that 1C:1H, 1S could be a 4-3-4-2 12-count or a 4-1-3-5 12-count.