[mikeh]

I understand the 1♠bid, and have inflicted that on my partner's with this shape before, but not with this honour distribution... such clear playability for ♦s and relatively weak ♠s.

I would not reverse nor would I rebid 2N. I am a 'strong' reverser, and I will never be able to slow partner down if he has a good hand.... plus I will wrongside Nt if he has Ax of ♠, as a minor side risk. Put me down for 2♣...

BTW, ask yourself this question: if, over 2♣, he rebids 2♥ (and assume you are not playing weak jumpshifts) is this hand suited for a 2N bid now?

If you think that it is, and I do, then that should caution you against the overbid of 2N or the reverse.

I fall back on the fact that my partners KNOW that this hand is within the family of the 2♣ rebid, and they also expect more from the reverse/2N options.

[awm]

It seems like there are basically three styles, and these come with a tradeoff between finding the right strain and level:

(1) Fairly light reverses. This hand would certainly qualify for a reverse. This style maximizes your chance of finding the right strain, since you are bidding each of your suits in length order. However, there is a risk of playing a level too high, since the reverse becomes quite wide-ranging.

(2) Sound reverses but open the longest suit. On this hand you will be opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣. This may hurt your chances of reaching the best strain (partner will pass with a minimum 4441 shape for example where either of the pointy suits is likely to play substantially better than clubs). It can also push you to the wrong level since the 2♣ rebid is now quite wide-ranging (this hand is substantially better than a lot of 11-counts that open and rebid clubs). However the times you play the wrong partial you at least have extra strength (might make anyway).

(3) Sound reverses and open diamonds with both minors. On this hand you'd open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. This quite frequently carries issues with finding the right strain -- any time the hand should play in a minor partner will be forced to guess (with equal length) which minor to preference. On the other hand the reverses can be kept up to strength and the 2♣ rebid is fairly limited. Partner will usually do a good job figuring out whether you have game values; the issue is likely to be picking the right minor suit partial (or minor suit game).

My preferred style is the first, since I like to emphasize strain over level and much prefer to be in my best fit even at the price of playing the hand a level higher. I'd have no problems reversing on this hand.

There certainly exist hands where I'd consider bidding a three-card spade suit, but this is not one of them. Typical might be something like:

AKx
x
xxxx
AKQxx

Here I am too strong to rebid 1NT, and while reversing into diamonds might be okay on values (in my light-reverse style), I'd rather not convince partner to bid 3NT with a singleton diamond (could easily go down when we have slam in clubs) or convince partner to look for a diamond slam on a weak four-card holding (serious issues in the trump suit). So basically the hands where I'd rebid a spade on three cards are ones where the spades are quite strong and diamonds are weak, not vice-versa.

[Free]

It's clear that most people prefer to reverse on this hand. Ok, lets make it a bit more interesting: do you still reverse if you have ♦AJxx? And what is your rebid if you only have ♦ATxx?

1.

Scoring: IMP

---

2.

Scoring: IMP

---

[pbleighton]

"It's clear that most people prefer to reverse on this hand. Ok, lets make it a bit more interesting: do you still reverse if you have DAJxx? And what is your rebid if you only have DATxx?"

No to both, the first hand was a marginal reverse. I rebid 2C on both, although I can see a 1NT rebid on the third hand. I prefer rebidding an excellent 5 card suit to an offshape 1NT rebid.

Peter

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 17 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 17 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

It is a fair and reasonable decision to opt between 1NT and a reverse, I suppose. 

No, it is not: it is not even in the same universe. This comment suggests an utter failing of any appreciation of bidding theory.

As you can see, I felt that 1NT was wrong and that 2♦ was wrong. Are you saying that I should call the prior post idiotic instead of being nice?

To clarify my thoughts, in case anyone cares:

(1) 1NT seems to be an absurdly egregious underbid. However, tons of people do this routinely and expect ibvites on trashy 10-counts. Their partners usually comply.

(2) 2♣ seems reasonable and would be my second preference.

(3) 2♦ seems too unwieldy. Sure, a 4th-suit weak convention will help, but not enough IMO. Minor two-suiters can be too strong to reverse on bad-stiff 16-counts.

(4) Opening 1♦ first solves a world of hurt, but many despise this idea.

(5) 1♠ also solves a world of hurt, but many also despise this idea. However, as mentioned, this is not a "lie" if the partnership expects that a one-level major rebid might be a 3-card suit from a problem 5431. (Similarly, 1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠.)

The specific pattern 3♠1♥4♦5♣ is a recurring problem, as no rebid is "right" unless the partnership allows flexibility in traditional definitions somewhere. The question is at what place to redefine? Redfine club length expectations? Redefine reverse parameters? Or, redefine 1♠ rebids. I happen to elect felxibility where space is maximized, meaning the cheapest call (1♠). Others are more inclined to protect major-length integrity, sacrificing something else. NT-range variability seems really bad. Club length expectancy seems decent to me, as it is the second-cheapest suit call and not a major. Reverse variability protects pattern honesty but sacrifices strength reliability.

[Walddk]

awm, on Jan 17 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

(2) Sound reverses but open the longest suit. On this hand you will be opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣. This may hurt your chances of reaching the best strain (partner will pass with a minimum 4441 shape for example where either of the pointy suits is likely to play substantially better than clubs).

Only if you play Walsh. I don't, so I would have found our diamond fit in a split second. Many Europeans do not play Walsh; I don't understand why so many North Americans assume that Walsh is a universal agreement.

The same goes for opening 1♣/♦ with 4-4 in the minors (1♦ in NA). I am perfectly happy with opening 1♣, and I have never encountered any problems by doing that.

Roland

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Jan 17 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 17 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

I don't make prepared 1♠ bids anymore. With this pattern, if the hand is strong enough to reverse I will, and if its not strong enough, I should be able to rebid 1N .

Gack.... you are going to rebid 1NT with this monster? How will partner ever know? (Yes, I know you choose to reverse, so I am not exactly sure where this 1NT rebid talk came from.)

After 1♣-1♥ this is closer to a 2NT rebid than a 1NT rebid. Here, I would just rebid 2♣. If partner can not take another call, we maybe high enough.

I'm not saying this as all.

3=1=4=5 patterns with varying degrees of strength are a problem. What I am suggesting is that its a practical approach to make a 1N rebid with a hand judged too weak to reverse. For example:

Kxx, x, AQxx, AQxxx rebid 1N.

Reverse with just a little more.

[awm]

Perhaps 4441 was a badly chosen example, but after 1♣-1♥-2♣ you will have trouble finding the right fit when responder has a minimum with:

4-5-3-1 (spades likely better than clubs, with the ruff in the short hand)
3-5-4-1 (4-4 diamond fit better than 5-1 club fit)
2-5-4-2 (4-4 diamond fit bette rthan 5-2 club fit)
4-4-3-2 (4-3 spade fit with singleton in the short hand often better than 5-2 club fit)

For the weaker hands given by Free, my general style is:

(1) I have no problem rebidding 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit, and generally prefer this to rebidding a five-card minor (or opening a four-card diamond suit when holding a five-card club suit). With 12-14 hcp and 3-1-4-5 this is my normal rebid.

(2) I'll typically reverse on 16 hcp with the right shape. Occasionally even a very pure 15 will qualify (xxx x AQJx AKJTx).

(3) With a moderate 15 and this shape I tend to rebid 1NT. Sure I am a point "heavy" but the singleton in partner's suit sometimes creates transportation difficulty, and it's not like rebidding 2♣ will necessarily get me to the 15-10 and 15-9 point division games (partner will often pass a 2♣ rebid with 9-10 points and no apparent fit).

(4) Partner expects the singleton in her suit as a possibility for a NT rebid. Generally rebidding the major after 1m-1M-1NT promises six in our style (occasionally a very strong five). We frequently raise the major suit response with three cards even when balanced, so we don't miss too many 5-3 fits this way (yes we occasionally play 4-3 fits, but this is not necessarily bad).

[000002]

the disadvantage of 1♠ rebid is twisting the length,the sequel which we can't control is misguiding a ♠ slam.for example:
1c-1h,1s-2d,3d-
following 1♣ opening,this 3♦ is a clear void on ♥ ,inevitable, it will cause a bad effect.

comparing with others option,i circa like this one,because i am pleasure to retrain opps leading when we are an delicate situation,especially doing 3nt by me.


regards 000002

[the hog]

I am late to this thread. I would reverse and bid 2D. Yes, this IS close, I would not crime any pd for bidding 2C.

1S is absurd! Mikeh says he can understand it; I can understand it as well, but only in context of someone who has totally failed to plan an auction. (This is not a comment about your argument, Mike.) If anyone thinks this hand is not worth a reverse, then you should open 1D and bid 2C or open 1C and rebid 2C. My choice, having played Polish Club for a long time, is the former, but I can understand if some players don't like this. So open 1C and bid 2C! The reason 1S is absurd is that you are totally misdescribing your hand. You are showing an unbalanced hand, (ok mbe a 4xx4 shape with some pds), with 4S. You would NEVER convince a pd that the S suit was manufactured because you failed to plan ahead.

[kenrexford]

1♠ cannot be "absurd" for the reasons provided (poor planning).

If the partnership agreement is for 1♣-P-1♥-P-1♠ to show 4 spades OR 3145 maximum pattern, then the bid perfectly describes the hand. It is very well prepared, with great planning, as the auction allows you to describe you hand perfectly. There is no distortion of spade length when the promised spade length is 3-4 cards.

If the objection is that such an agreement is unworkable, please explain. Keep in kind that Responder often has 2♦ available to check on pattern, with 3♦ clarifying 3145 and 15-16 HCP's. With invitational hands and a fit (3♠), 3NT works. With weak hands and a fit, 2♠ looks like a fair contract.

There is nothing wrong with an agreement to have possible canape calls (1♦...2♣), if this is known to be a possibility; although it does create problems after courtesy corrections (or erases ability for safe courtesy corrections, with similar problems). There is nothing wrong with rebidding the clubs, if 5+ is expected, although it also creates a risk (5-0 fits? Uncertainty about game/slam tries).

The arrogance of some objections to the "bid 1♠" thinking is amazing. You are not "totally misdescribing your hand" if you have discussed this and agreed to this treatment. You actually "will ... convince partner" as I have described. You have not "totally failed to plan an auction" when this is the chosen auction for this hand in the partnership.

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Jan 17 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

Playing a standard version of 2/1GF, you hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm not advancing anything.
I'm just confused as to why 2♣ is an option.

Thinking in matchpoint terms only...

It seems to me that 1NT is a big winner over 2♣ if partner passes. 120 vs. 110 or 150 vs. 130 even if clubs is worth an extra trick. So it seems like 2♣ is only more valuable than 1[NT] if partner is more likely to find a rebid. Is he? I expect partner to rebid with six hearts over either, pass with a balanced 8 count, and bid with a balanced 11 count. With a 9 or 10 count, would people generally bid over 2♣ but not 1[NT]? I'd been taught to pass with a 9 count for both and bid with a 10 count. In addition, I'm more likely to bid over 1NT and pass 2♣ with good hearts, and more likely to pass 1NT and bid over 2♣ with poor hearts and points in diamonds and spades.

So is this just my misunderstanding of 2/1?

[keylime]

I confess I am also late to the thread but I did vote for 2D because of a simplistic view I have: if I open a strong 1♣ in Precision, I most likely jump rebid or reverse in 2/1 GF.

The controls are right, the queens are in the right place, and I try really hard not to fudge about major lengths. I can't fathom 2NT (bleck! I rather eat cauliflower than rebid 2NT on this suit oriented hand), nor can I open 1D, rebid 2C, and then wonder why five of a minor is on. It's frankly a hand where its potential is enormous in terms of trick-taking capacity.

What concerns me after reversing is why the opps are not bidding in this auction over my 1C opening and 1H response from pard.

[han]

With this pattern and strength I choose between 3 options:

1) Open 1NT. This seems to much of a distortion with the actual hand, but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this.

2) Open 1C and rebid 2C.

3) Open 1C and rebid 2D.

I think the actual hand is very close between (2) and (3).

I would only open 1D when the clubs are very poor and the diamonds very good. Rebidding 1NT is out of the question, if you want to sell this as a balanced hand you have to open 1NT.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jan 18 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

Free, on Jan 17 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

Playing a standard version of 2/1GF, you hold:

Dealer: South Vul: ???? Scoring: IMP

♠ JTx ♥ x ♦ AQxx ♣ AKQxx

I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm not advancing anything.
I'm just confused as to why 2♣ is an option.

Thinking in matchpoint terms only...

It seems to me that 1NT is a big winner over 2♣ if partner passes. 120 vs. 110 or 150 vs. 130 even if clubs is worth an extra trick. So it seems like 2♣ is only more valuable than 1[NT] if partner is more likely to find a rebid. Is he? I expect partner to rebid with six hearts over either, pass with a balanced 8 count, and bid with a balanced 11 count. With a 9 or 10 count, would people generally bid over 2♣ but not 1[NT]? I'd been taught to pass with a 9 count for both and bid with a 10 count. In addition, I'm more likely to bid over 1NT and pass 2♣ with good hearts, and more likely to pass 1NT and bid over 2♣ with poor hearts and points in diamonds and spades.

So is this just my misunderstanding of 2/1?

If you knew or strongly suspected that your task was to place the contract via your next bid: that partner will pass both 2♣ and 1N, then 1N is almost certainly the better bid, for the reasons you set forth.

However, in the early stages of a constructive auction (my comments are not limited to this situation, but I am addressing your points), it is your task to involve partner in the dialogue. You do this by making a call that most accurately describes your hand to partner.

One of the fascinating points about bridge is that we have far more varied hands than we can possibly describe precisely, especially early in the auction... and especially in a natural-type method such as 2/1 in which our 1 level suit bids are of an extremely wide range.

This hand is a classic example of a tough hand to bid.

Your objective should be to make the call that comes closest to allowing partner an understanding of your hand.

1N is a gross distortion. It shows 2 or 3♥s... you have only 1. Partner may quite properly, from his perspective, insist on playing in ♥s based on your representation that you own at least 2 of them.

It also shows 12-14 (11-14) hcp... it is a limited bid. You hold 16... this is NOT a trivial distortion.

So 1N lies to partner in two very important ways: in describing shape and in describing strength.

Those who choose to reverse are coming closer to an accurate description of the hand. They convey their minor suit shape without any suggestion that they hold ♥ support or tolerance. So shape-wise, the reverse is ok.

Where posters such as Roland and I disagree with the reverse is on the basis of the strength shown by the bid. Both of us would have reversed, with this hand, over a 1♠ response... I suspect I would have been less comfortable doing so than would Roland, but the ♠ fit (that 10 is potentially very valuable) and the ♥ ruff, combined with the controls in the minors, warrants an upgrade opposite a known fit.

Neither of us consider this hand worth a reverse opposite a partner who has just bid our short suit. For me, and, I suspect, Roland, the issue is that partner, whoc is unlimited in strength, will take me for a better hand than I have... a different hand, at least in terms of hcp. Thus we may well lose control of the auction.

So that brings us back to 2♣. Clearly, if partner passes 2♣, we will be nervous about dummy, suspecting that 1N will be a better mp spot.. but out nervousness will be lessened by realizing that no good players will be in 1N, and many players will be overboard... after reversing and catching partner with a hand that couldn't act over 2♣.

If partner bids again, which the opp's silence suggests he may do, then we are well-positioned. Why? Because 2♣ is a wide-range bid. It INCLUDES this hand type...yes, we are upper-range, but so what? If we play a 1N opening as 15-17 and we pick up AQxx Kxx AJxx Kx, we open 1N and are happy to be upper range. Being at the top of one's strength range is NOT a bad thing. Being BELOW one's strength range will often be terrible.

BTW, as other threads have revealed, in 2/1 land, there are 'strong reversers' and 'weak reversers': both schools play that the reverse is a 1-round force. The strong reversers, of whom I am one, play that the reverse is a game force opposite a full responding hand. I play that responder will stretch to respond to a minor opening, so we play a method that allows responder to get out, but when responder has a full responding hand (a decent 6 count), we play game opposite our reverses... when you use that approach, you will see that a reverse on this hand could be disastrous.

[the hog]

"If the partnership agreement is for 1♣-P-1♥-P-1♠ to show 4 spades OR 3145 maximum pattern, then the bid perfectly describes the hand."

Ok Ken, I suppose you could also have the agreement that a 1S bid shows a singleton S and some weird other shape if you so desired it. If you are playing with a regular pd and have discussed this I suppose you can have any agreement you like. It doesn't make it sensible!
Ken you are adding over complications in by forcing responder to use 4th suit forcing thus "bidding around the clock". This has implications on the rest of your system. With support, 4th sf is generally used as a slam exploration and/or an attempt to elicit further information about strength/hand shape. A far more sensible approach is the direct one where you support with support. Why on earth should your responder have to bid 2D with something similar to say....Axxx AKJxx xx xx rather than a direct bid of 4S? Why muddy the waters with your possible meanings for the bid, when you have perfectly acceptable alternatives available?

The final point is that virtually all of the questions in these forums are directed at playing with a pick up pd and NOT your regular pd. If you don't know what you would bid with this hand with your reg pd, there is something seriously wrong. Bidding 1S with a pick up pd is absurd; you deserve to languish in an unmakeable 4S with 3NT in the refrigerator. (Personally for the reasons I have stated it is absurd anyway).