[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-09, 04:46, said:

Support doubles are not sensible playing a weak NT.

Well, yes, I knew that!

jallerton, on 2013-June-09, 04:54, said:

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

Actually, his proposal is that we both switch to strong NT

[nige1]

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.

Several Scottish 2/1 experts play strong notrurmp and 2-way check-back but they open a minor and rebid a major only with unbalanced hands.

[wangzhi123]

good discussion！i agree that 1s is unbanced and h is singleton！partner can receive the details！if h hold xx ajxxxx xx qjx he bid 1nt！if opponent bid 2d，we can play good defence！if opener bid 1n，he hold 4342，4333，3343，3352，3244，2254！if opponent bid 2d ，it's a good choice to bid 2h ！we can not consider s 44 fit！if responder has more stong power！he would bid second round，we can bid 2s！it's better to bid intermediate precision 1nt

[blackshoe]

benlessard, on 2013-June-09, 00:44, said:

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.

^This. By preference, I play a form of Walsh, but included in my agreements with that method would be that 1♠ might be bid on either an unbalanced hand or a balanced hand with a weak doubleton in the unbid major. Oh, and strong NT (or no NT, playing Romex).

[mike777]

1s
even if bal...but agree walsh over 1c.

if you want to play more complicated to find 4-4 spades ok...

but I think the gain is too little.

once again the play is what matters and we are just players upon a stage.

[P_Marlowe]

Our 1NT opening is 11-14, and contains 4 spades only if the shape is 4333,
and play a 15-19 NT rebid.

So 1m followed by 1S showes

a) 44
b) balanced only with we play, that it showes 44, and if 44, it will be 11-14.

In general I think it makes sense, that 1m followed by 1S showes at least 44,
so that you dont have to worry any longer about opener having still a 4432 shape.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Uwe, presumably this also means that 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ for you can be a 4423 hand with 11-14? What do you see as the gains and losses of this approach? On the surface it does not appear to be obviously better than a 1M rebid promising an unbalanced hand, especially in a weak NT system.

[P_Marlowe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-12, 05:41, said:

Uwe, presumably this also means that 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ for you can be a 4423 hand with 11-14? What do you see as the gains and losses of this approach? On the surface it does not appear to be obviously better than a 1M rebid promising an unbalanced hand, especially in a weak NT system.

Yes, you are right, I missed this part.

1C - 1D
1H

whould show an unbal. Hand for us, we would open the bal. hand with 44 and 11-14 ( upto 55) in the majors via a 2D Erkren
bid, lowering the point count req. somewhat, when holding 45 / 54 / 55.

The adv. would be, that you dont loose the 44 spade fit, when 11-14, unless 4333, a weakness of the weak NT.
You may also be able to handle offshape NT openers easilier, since you removed the hands with 4 spade, but we did not
heavily try to find a system, that takes advantage of this.

The disadvantage you lower the freq. of opening 1NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JLOGIC]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-09, 04:44, said:

From what I can tell from reading BW / watching vugraph, there isn't a US standard.

This is accurate with 4-4 in the blacks, with 4333 almost everyone bids 1N here.

I dont even know what is more popular here with 4-4, it must be close to 50/50. But in general the 1N bidders seem to feel way more strongly about it than the 1S bidders. I have always passionately defended 1S with 4-4 on here and really prefer it myself. Even over 1C p 1D p, I will always rebid 1M with 2 small in a major and 4432 and I doubt that will ever change. As long as partner knows that's possible it's fine imo.

[HeartA]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-08, 19:17, said:

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.

Well, if I open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦, I would re-bid 1NT and hiding my major(s). The logic is, if my partner got a weak hand, he would have bid 1M if he has one. If he got a strong hand with major, he would reverse next round.

[CSGibson]

Playing 2/1, I strongly prefer to open or rebid NT with all balanced hands, and frequently with semi-balanced hands, and to have a 1S rebid indicate an unbalanced hand (or semi-balanced with concentrations in the suits). I feel like that treatment unloads a great deal of hand types that would otherwise rebid 1S, and allows for powerful negative inferences, as well as making 1N harder to defend since the defenders have to account for more hand types. That being said, I also do not frequently raise with 3 card support or rebid 1N with a singleton, which may impact both my viewpoint and the overall effectiveness of this treatment.

In my partnership where I do rebid 1N with a singleton frequently, and do raise frequently with 3 card support, I rebid 1S with 4. That is a strong club partnership, however, so the inferences available from promising an unbalanced hand with a 1S rebid are greatly diluted when the rest of the hand shape is so nebulous.

In reality, though, it means what you say it means, there is no clear right or wrong, and as long as your partner knows what to expect of you, and you know what to expect of your partner, then everything will work out.

[MickyB]

CSGibson, on 2013-June-18, 23:16, said:

In my partnership where I do rebid 1N with a singleton frequently, and do raise frequently with 3 card support, I rebid 1S with 4. That is a strong club partnership, however, so the inferences available from promising an unbalanced hand with a 1S rebid are greatly diluted when the rest of the hand shape is so nebulous.

It's clearly right to rebid 1S in a Precision context, not least because partner can often pass it.

[mycroft]

Vampyr, support doubles are very useful in any NT context. I do miss them playing a weak NT. It's just that the "values, no bid, probably 15-17 BAL" double is more useful, if you haven't opened 1NT already with it.

Which I guess is what everyone else said. Of course, as always, the two other problems with conventions apply (in spades, with SupX): 1) this one's easy to forget, and 2) you need to know your followups, especially when you *do* only have 4♥ (and double especially if you have a weak hand you have to scramble to something on; and partner needs to know which are potential scramble bids).

[awm]

I'm the opposite of CSGibson here -- strongly prefer to bid my spades. My reasoning:

1. If responder has invite or better you have so much space after three one-bids that it should be easy to reach a good spot regardless of which method you use. The only way it's likely to matter is if you need to play a contract (most often 3nt) from a particular side. Bidding 1S keeps options open while bidding 1NT on what could be xx(x) in the other minor does not.

2. If responder has less than invite, my style allows me to find a 4-4 or 4-3 spade fit. In exchange I will lose some 5-3 minor fits and some 5-2 heart fits. Finding the spade fit might be a game swing and will definitely improve my MP result (when it comes up). Neither of these can be said of the 5-3 minor fits and 5-2 heart fits.

[blackshoe]

HeartA, on 2013-June-18, 18:55, said:

Well, if I open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦, I would re-bid 1NT and hiding my major(s). The logic is, if my partner got a weak hand, he would have bid 1M if he has one. If he got a strong hand with major, he would reverse next round.

Well, sure, but what if they're of the opinion that "my diamonds are equal to longer than my major, so I have to bid my diamonds first"?

[HeartA]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-19, 16:54, said:

Well, sure, but what if they're of the opinion that "my diamonds are equal to longer than my major, so I have to bid my diamonds first"?

If ♦ is longer than major and the hand is strong enough for reversal (game forcing), he should bid ♦ first. Otherwise, we may miss a ♦ slam. Of course, if ♦ is of the same length as a major, he bids major first.

[mikeh]

awm, on 2013-June-19, 15:37, said:

I'm the opposite of CSGibson here -- strongly prefer to bid my spades. My reasoning:

1. If responder has invite or better you have so much space after three one-bids that it should be easy to reach a good spot regardless of which method you use. The only way it's likely to matter is if you need to play a contract (most often 3nt) from a particular side. Bidding 1S keeps options open while bidding 1NT on what could be xx(x) in the other minor does not.

2. If responder has less than invite, my style allows me to find a 4-4 or 4-3 spade fit. In exchange I will lose some 5-3 minor fits and some 5-2 heart fits. Finding the spade fit might be a game swing and will definitely improve my MP result (when it comes up). Neither of these can be said of the 5-3 minor fits and 5-2 heart fits.

I couldn't disagree more.

I would be interested in some kind of poll in which those who vote one way have ever played the other to a significant extent.

My own suspicion is that virtually all of those who would reserve the 1♠ rebid for unbalanced or semi-balanced (5422 as the most balanced) have played a lot of up the line bridge before switching and that a significant number of those who reject the 1N rebid on 4432 have little experience playing the other way.

I hope no-one takes offence, because I am not saying that the second faction is 'wrong' nor that there aren't many of them who have tried it both ways and made a considered decision to rebid 1♠ on 4432 or even 4333.

Here are some of my arguments:

1. Responder's dilemma after 1m 1♥ 1♠ when holding some 3=4=3=3 hand, especially when the opening was in clubs. Say you hold some 3433 with no diamond stopper, after a 1♣ opening, and a poor hand. You can pass 1♠, I suppose but that should be reserved for really bad hands since opener could still hold up to a poor 18 for his 1♠ call. If you bid 1N, he is 4=2=2=5 and they run the diamonds and then get something more in the wash..whether you make or go down, you get a poor score because you fare better in clubs. If you bid 2♣, he has a 4=3=2=4 or for some even a 4333 and you are getting a poor score for playing clubs rather than notrump. We simply NEVER have this problem when the sequence 1♣ then 1♠ promises at least 5 clubs.

2. when we have a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand, in 3N, right-siding issues are rarely anything more than the result of random layouts of the cards. I mean, does anyone decide NOT to open a 1N in range merely because they hold a worthless doubleton? No, so why are we so worried about 'right-siding' 3N when opener has notrump shape but is out of range?

3. It is always a good idea to be able to limit common hand types with some degree of precision as early as possible. One reason that most pairs enjoy opening 1N is that they have developed excellent methods which work precisely because responder starts with a fairly good understanding of opener's general hand type. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to get to 1N, as a strength limiting and distribution narrowing call asap whenever we have a balanced hand in range. Don't all good partnerships have excellent methods for moving forward? I would be astounded if the majority of experienced partnerships don't have better tools over a 1N rebid than they do over a 4th suit scenario, even if they use xyz after 1♠, which has a built in cost in that they can't play 2♣ when it is right.

4. It is extremely valuable to conceal opener's major holdings if responder is going to raise or even pass 1N. LHO will frequently lead spades. And even if they avoid that lead, counting out declarer's hand will often be a little more challenging than it would be otherwise

5. If responder is passing 1N, 4th chair will be (properly) less likely to balance when he has to fear opener holding 4 spades. So we gain on occasion when 4th chair pulls in a bit and they miss their good 2♠ contract, and we gain some more on other hands when they do butt in and it turns out that we did hold 4♠.

6. constructive game and slam auctions in opener's minor are far easier if responder knows at the one-level that they have a good fit/source of tricks. Venturing past 3N when for all one knows, one's fit is 8 cards, is tougher than when one knows that one has a 9 card fit, not to mention the difference in playability between balanced and unbalanced. I'm not saying that 4th suit forcing won't often get you to the same spot, but the more bidding space you take to work out degrees of fit and strength, the less effective your bidding will usually be.

7. We cannot/will not miss a 4-4 spade fit when responder has invitational or better values. Indeed, with 2 way new minor, properly used, we can have very effective auctions after the 1N rebid. I note that adam argues, fairly enough, that there will be borderline hands for responder that will pass 1N but that would invite if assured of the spade fit. I turn this around and point out that these hands will be relatively infrequent when opener is flat and responder is weak. It is FAR more likely that responder can push to invite on lesser hands if responder learns of the spade suit at the 1 level while knowing that opener has shape. Responder can properly value his own shape and honour location far more effectively in those circumstances.


The only negative anyone has ever argued to me is playing 1N when we belong in 2♠. I remember getting a new, expert partner to reluctantly agree to the bypass method...he was moaning about this as a real matchpoint issue. Very early on in the event he rebid 1N over my 1♥ response, and I passed despite being 4=4 majors, since I was too weak to invite. He got a spade lead, giving him a trick in our 4-4 fit and a tempo. 1N making 2 with 2♠ doomed to fail. One hand doesn't prove anything and I readily acknowledge that this is a true flaw...but it isn't exactly a gigantic issue. Even at mps, the 1N bidders will gain on other side-effects more than this flaw costs, and at imps it is even less of a problem, since much of the time the issue is only an overtrick or 110 against 90.

[blackshoe]

HeartA, on 2013-June-19, 17:11, said:

If ♦ is longer than major and the hand is strong enough for reversal (game forcing), he should bid ♦ first. Otherwise, we may miss a ♦ slam. Of course, if ♦ is of the same length as a major, he bids major first.

Unless they're 4-4. And it doesn't matter to the players I'm speaking of what their strength is. The only thing that matters is suit length.

[straube]

There's probably a consensus for the strong clubbers to play that 1D-1H, 1N denies four spades. For us, 1D-1H, 1S is our rebid with 3145 and we have the mechanism to sort this out later.

I think for natural bidders that we might have done better to separate diamond from club openings. 1D-1H, 1S and we know that opener has at least 4/4 now. Absent agreement to the contrary, 1C-1H, 1S could be 4333. Whether a 1S rebid is better or not, this is the least attractive shape for this rebid. Setting aside whether it gives partner the impression of a 2-suited hand, it hamstrings partner when he'd rather be signing off in a 5-cd red suit.

After 1C-1H, we ought to be asking ourselves 1) why we're playing a natural system and opening 3-cd club suits to begin with and 2) why we're not using transfer responses to our natural club openings.

1C (natural)-1D (hearts), 1H (minimum balanced)
and
1C (natural)-1D (hearts), 1S (unbalanced)

solves a lot of the difficulties we've been discussing.

So if I'm playing natural openings and responses, I'll be rebidding 1N with 4333. Aside from that, I'd like the flexibility to decide between 1S and 1N rebids. I'm already playing murky methods, so why go for science now? I can use my own judgment and there's space enough to usually get to the right game whatever I rebid. If I have...

AKJx xx xxx KQxx maybe I want to rebid spades.

If I have...

Qxxx Kx AJ Qxxxx maybe I want to rebid 1N.

[mycroft]

For me, I'm happy playing bypass with either, but playing a weak NT in a strong NT world, it's almost imperative to tell partner you have 15-17 BAL when you have it. We're already "behind" having explained a lot more of our hands, adding a new suit will make even more of that. Taking the default system out of the equation, playing a weak NT the hands where partner, having responded already, has less-than-invite is *much* fewer over a 15-17 rebid than a 12-14 one - so the chance of missing your spade fit, should you have one, is much smaller (having said that, the chance you'll miss your spade fit with 12-opposite-6 is much higher, as it goes 1NT float. That isn't necessarily a bad thing).

All the benefits of 1M rebids "showing" shape are still benefits, of course (and in our K-S inspired system, the fact that they show "extras" (really, just the extras the 1m opener showed) doesn't hurt, either).