[Gerben42]

Scoring: MP

---

You open 1♦ (showing 4+♦, okay not "sayc" but natural nevertheless), partner responds 1♥. If you bid 1♠ partner bids 1NT. Now what?

[FrancesHinden]

I would have bid 2H over 1H. Given that, I now play 2H as showing extras and have to pass 1NT.

I'm not sure there is a 'standard' here as I am aware that many people who like 3-card major suit raises would also prefer to rebid 1S on this shape.

[whereagles]

Depends on what you agreed. Without any I would try 2♥ nonetheless.

[Kalvan14]

I'm on the same wavelength of Frances (immediate raise on 3 cards with weak hand - slow raise with extras) but I am not sure it is "standard". Certainly, it makes sense.

[Fluffy]

2♦, pass is close, but sometimes partner is forced tob bid 1NT without a hand that really desires to play there.

[helene_t]

I was surprised to see in "Points Schomoints" that Bergen doesn't think this shows extras. I think most would say it does.

[inquiry]

I agree with Francis...

1) I would have raised to 2♥ instead of biddign 1♠
2) A 2♥ bid after bidding 1♠ shows extra.

This is also how Robson/Segal described these two sequeences in their Partnership Bidding at Bridge book.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Dec 14 2005, 08:43 AM, said:

I was surprised to see in "Points Schomoints" that Bergen doesn't think this shows extras. I think most would say it does.

I think this hand really reflects the whole title of his book and bidding approach. The need for extra HCP is seldom needed to make bids in Bergen .

Playing Bergen if you are ever wondering how partner is showing more than 11 hcp then his style is not for you .

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Dec 14 2005, 04:51 PM, said:

I agree with Francis...

1) I would have raised to 2♥ instead of biddign 1♠
2) A 2♥ bid after bidding 1♠ shows extra.

This is also how Robson/Segal described these two sequeences in their Partnership Bidding at Bridge book.

Do Robson and Segal address the difference between the following two auctions:

1♥ - 2♥

1♥ - 1♠
1N - 2♥

I always found this situation more interesting...

[FrancesHinden]

I don't know if R&S do, but _in a 5-card major system_ I've always understand the second sequence to show a weak 5-2 in the majors.

In an Acol-ish strict 4CM system it probably shows 5-3 in the majors, again in a not very strong hand (although you could argue it should be constructive if the 1NT rebid is strong).

1H - 1H shows a very weak 3-card raise, doesn't everyone know that?

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

Do Robson and Segal address the difference between the following two auctions:

1♥ - 1♥

Amazingly, they had two long chapter on 1♥-1♥.... but more intersting was their 1♣-1♣ auctions which saved even more room.

[Al_U_Card]

inquiry, on Dec 14 2005, 09:00 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

Do Robson and Segal address the difference between the following two auctions:

1♥ - 1♥

Amazingly, they had two long chapter on 1♥-1♥.... but more intersting was their 1♣-1♣ auctions which saved even more room.

Ben, You have a "bridge" sense of humor! How wonderful......roflmao. Seriously, glad to see it as some of these topics can get pretty over-serious at times

btw, If you decide to open that hand 1D, it's because of the shape, so you have to show your shape...when p knows that your hand is unbalanced then his 1NT says that he is willing to play there. Without that agreement then all bets are off and 2D is probably better than 2H with 11 hcp and a piece of swiss....

[mikestar]

No consensus that I'm aware of. My preference is for the immediate 2♥ raise. This works out the best if partner doesn't have 4 spades: we are in a good contrat if he has 4 hearts and a great contract if he has five+. We may be OK even if he does has 4 spades. Worst case scenario is if he is 4-4 majors and we play 2♥ with 4-3 and ruffs in the short hand rather than 2♠ with 4-4. If partner has a game try, we will find the spades. And some of the time he has 4 spades, he also has 5 hearts.


In a partnership which prioritizes finding the 4-4 spade fit, I would rebid 2♥ over 1NT and in such a partnership this shouldn't show extras. I don't want to miss a 5-3 heart fit on this hand. This is the way I played for many years--until reading RS and becoming convinced of the merits of "support with support."

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

btw, If you decide to open that hand 1D, it's because of the shape, so you have to show your shape...when p knows that your hand is unbalanced then his 1NT says that he is willing to play there. Without that agreement then all bets are off and 2D is probably better than 2H with 11 hcp and a piece of swiss....

I wouldn't dream of bidding 2D over 1NT. I think I've already told partner that I have 5 diamonds and 4 spades, and he elected to bid 1NT with that knowledge. There are only two reasons I can think of to bid 2D here:

i) I really, really, really don't trust partner to play the hand
ii) My 1S rebid was consistent with a 4333 (not my methods) and partner bid accordingly.

It might to nice to play that 2D here shows this shape and allows partner to correct to 2H (or even 2S), but that leaves you a bit stuck for a bid holding

KQxx
x
KQJxxx
xx

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 14 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

Quote

btw, If you decide to open that hand 1D, it's because of the shape, so you have to show your shape...when p knows that your hand is unbalanced then his 1NT says that he is willing to play there. Without that agreement then all bets are off and 2D is probably better than 2H with 11 hcp and a piece of swiss....

I wouldn't dream of bidding 2D over 1NT. I think I've already told partner that I have 5 diamonds and 4 spades, and he elected to bid 1NT with that knowledge. There are only two reasons I can think of to bid 2D here:

i) I really, really, really don't trust partner to play the hand
ii) My 1S rebid was consistent with a 4333 (not my methods) and partner bid accordingly.

It might to nice to play that 2D here shows this shape and allows partner to correct to 2H (or even 2S), but that leaves you a bit stuck for a bid holding

KQxx
x
KQJxxx
xx

Perhaps with the 4333 opening hand possibility, pard with 3 D cards will bid 1NT (no agreement on the 5-4 nature of the hand) 1 NT after 5 rounds of clubs will be pretty hard to make ...... for me anyway

[han]

I play this both ways, depending on whom I play with.

[inquiry]

When I am playing constructive raises (1H-2H, and 1S-2S), then the auction 1H-1S-1NT-2H is weak, and maybe two card support.

When my raise to 2H can be weak, then 1H-1S-1N-2H shows "extras" but is not forcing and the auction usually dies unless partner is on max (fitting spade honor useful too).

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Dec 14 2005, 05:53 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 14 2005, 04:51 PM, said:

I agree with Francis...

1) I would have raised to 2♥ instead of biddign 1♠
2) A 2♥ bid after bidding 1♠ shows extra.

This is also how Robson/Segal described these two sequeences in their Partnership Bidding at Bridge book.

Do Robson and Segal address the difference between the following two auctions:

1♥ - 2♥

1♥ - 1♠
1N - 2♥

I always found this situation more interesting...

1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♥ is really an odd auction.

When responder sits with 3♥'s, unless you play Constructive raises, a direct raise is normally made. A 1N rebid is one of many Opener can make.

I think we'd all agree that 1♥ - 1♠ - 2 minor - 2♥ is a doubleton preference (subject to the constructive raise caveat).

Therefore, there are two sensible uses for 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♥. One is still a doubleton preference, but has rather skewed distribution. Axxxx, xx, x, Axxxx would seem a logical hand. You can't bid 2♣ (its either nmf or xyz) and you don't want to play 1N and you don't want to rebid the anemic spades.

The other meaning is some sort of weak limit raise. But with invitational values you would either make a jump raise over 1N or bid an xyz 2♣.

Playing KI many of these issues are solved; but perhaps others are created.

[Al_U_Card]

I thot that the sequence was more like the 1♠ bidder is 4333 and has a scruffy 8-9 hcp hand that has ♠ weakness so it wants to be in a trump suit and is why he bid the ♠ in the first place (unless contructive raises are not in use)