[Wayne_LV]

---

What do you rebid with S hand?

[johnu]

Sorry, not seeing the interesting part about this hand. What's the background story?

[the hog]

Uh, if I thought really hard I might come up with 1NT.

[Free]

1NT wtp. Perhaps nige1 will give some points to the alternatives, but I rate them 0.

[Cyberyeti]

Depends on system slightly and scoring, but 1N most of the time. If I open or rebid 1N rather than bidding 1♠ on minimum balanced hands, I'd consider going back to diamonds. KQxx, Qx, KJxxx, xx will play much better in diamonds barring a club lead from Axxx in NT.

[billw55]

If you are looking for people who rebid ratty five card suits, I think you will find a lot more on BBO than on the BBO forum.

[PhilKing]

Two drooler options (even Nige would give 2♥ a five) and no 2♦ choice. Hmmm.

[gszes]

if p has a balanced hand 1n is surely best for now.

If p has (or is showing) an unbalanced hand 1n is a perfectly reasonable
place to start with this hand and p can pattern out. There is no need to
guess. A 2d raise here (when p is promising an unbalanced hand) would
only be used with say xxx in clubs instead of KTx and even then if playing
MP one is loather to bypass in in favor of a maybe safer 2d (ughh)

[the hog]

OP, come back and tell us why this was an interesting hand. What was the bid and the result?

[BillPatch]

Particularly playing with a systemic weak NT vulnerable, so that partners one of a minor shows either an unbalanced hand or 14+ balanced points, an invitational bid in two of a minor should allow you to end up either in a ♦ contract, allow a heart preference with 3, or choose a NT partial or game. In modern KS, a diamond pref shows this hand (9-11 HCP, 3 ♦ and 4-5♥). two of the other minor shows 9+ points and that suit. Otherwise, a more artificial weak NT system might use XYZ. (5-8 hcp hands would normally rebid 1 NT, even without a club stopper.

[Siegmund]

2D certainly should rank ahead of two of the choices included in the poll (and behind one of them.)

Wonder how opener decides whether to sit for 1NT or not. A lot of people use the 2H bid on the 3rd round as showing extras, but it's when EW are weak that there is the most profit in running from notrump.

[Zelandakh]

So what was the actual story behind this Wayne?

[Lord Molyb]

I love the poll results

[mikeh]

This OP is in the wrong forum.

Even if opener implies or promises an unbalanced hand, 1N is clear, with no sensible 2nd choice.

An unbalanced hand includes shapes such as 4=1=4=4 and 4=0=5=4 and even, for some players, 4=0=4=5 with weak clubs and strong(er) diamonds.

Such hands can and usually will take out 1N to 2♣ and now we have a comfortable 2♦.

Meanwhile, if we don't bid 1N, we ain't ever getting to 1N and 1N rates to be the spot opposite most 4=2=4=3, 4=1=5=3, 4=2=5=2 hands and so on.

The only remotely plausible alternative....and it is a horrible call imo.....would be 2♦. The fact that the OP felt that the only alternatives were the frankly silly choices of 2♥ or 2N simply confirms that this was in the wrong forum.

Let me stress: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with posting this sort of problem and I don't want to discourage the OP in any way at all. In fact, I would encourage the OP, and anyone who feels that this problem is a tough one, to keep posting.....but consider another part of the forums

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on 2013-November-19, 11:57, said:

Even if opener implies or promises an unbalanced hand, 1N is clear, with no sensible 2nd choice.

I'm really surprised by that especially since I agree with this:

Quote

An unbalanced hand includes shapes such as 4=1=4=4 and 4=0=5=4 and even, for some players, 4=0=4=5 with weak clubs and strong(er) diamonds.

Such hands can and usually will take out 1N to 2♣ and now we have a comfortable 2♦.]

This seems like an argument that bidding 2D is correct if partner promised an unbalanced hand, since the shapes that we really want to play 1N opposite will still get to 2D after a 1N bid (when partner has 4 diamonds he will have a 2C bid).

I guess I just strongly disagree with this:

Quote

1N rates to be the spot opposite most... 4=1=5=3, 4=2=5=2 hands and so on.

If partner is 4153 or 4252 (the shapes he will pass 1N with if he has promised an unbal hand), I would rather play 2D imo. We have an 8 card fit and a ruffing value and partner has a stiff, sure we have KTxxx of that suit but obviously that could be several losers in NT still. I would be more surprised if NT played equally well as our fit given those scenarios than if diamonds played 2 tricks better.

So if partner promised an unbal hand I would think 2D is correct, I do not play that way (and OP made no indication they played that way) and would bid 1N since 4243 is pretty disastrous to play 2D instead of 1N. Just surprised you think 2D would not be sensible if 1S did show an unbal hand.

[kenrexford]

If the auction were instead 1♣-1♥, 1♠-?, I think there is a lot going for a 2♣ call (assuming a style where a 1♠ rebid is unbalanced), because it takes everyone's stress away from the risk of 2♦ competition. But, with diamonds in focus, the risk of 2♣ competition is minimal and easy to handle.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2013-November-19, 12:12, said:

I guess I just strongly disagree with this:



If partner is 4153 or 4252 (the shapes he will pass 1N with if he has promised an unbal hand), I would rather play 2D imo. We have an 8 card fit and a ruffing value and partner has a stiff, sure we have KTxxx of that suit but obviously that could be several losers in NT still. I would be more surprised if NT played equally well as our fit given those scenarios than if diamonds played 2 tricks better.

So if partner promised an unbal hand I would think 2D is correct, I do not play that way (and OP made no indication they played that way) and would bid 1N since 4243 is pretty disastrous to play 2D instead of 1N. Just surprised you think 2D would not be sensible if 1S did show an unbal hand.

I think I am being heavily influenced by my 10's

I really like the combining value of a 10 with a K, plus if partner has the 5 card diamond suit, I am very happy about the diamond Q.

In short, I was probably too harsh in my criticism of 2♦. If partner promised an unbalanced hand, and I suspect he didn't simply because that is a fairly sophisticated agreement and the OP didn't read as sophisticated, then I still wouldn't choose 2♦ on this hand, but could well be persuaded to make that call if you removed even one of the 10's.