[Mcauley]

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps silent..bidding goes 1♦-1♥-??
what is your rebid if you were the dealer? what would your rebid be at 3rd seat?

[the hog]

I assume this is a serious question. Why would you rebid anything other than 1S?

[Mcauley]

Our teammates had a long discussion about this board, although the result was in our favor.here south continued with 2♦, South's opinion was ''trying to discourage partner with only 11count''. It worked well for the mentioned board, and i must admit he was pretty persuasive.(our table had a 3♠-2 contract)

[cherdano]

Brr. If you want to lie about your shape after opening "trying to discourage partner", then you shouldn't have opened.

[jdonn]

Why would you want to discourage partner? You don't know the hand is a misfit, partner can have a fit in spades or diamonds. I doubt your teammate would have been very persuasive to me.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Brr. If you want to lie about your shape after opening "trying to discourage partner", then you shouldn't have opened.

Ditto.


Peter

[Double !]

This is an interesting question.
For the sake of discussion, i shall assume that the partnership is not playing reverse flannery responses to 1m.

When I did my little vugraph operator stint last August at the usbf Team Trials, I was sitting behind Dan Morse (Bobby Wolff was on the other side of the screen). Dan held a similar hand and, assuming my memory isn't completely shot, by-passed the spade suit and rebid 2 diamonds (his suit might have been clubs- can't remember). Perhaps the reasoning was that game in spades (or NT) would require Wolff to hold a good hand that would be bidding over 2 diamonds, and that the bidding might be better served by rebidding the 6-bagger and limiting somewhat his hand. Perhaps he had decided that he was going to pull to 2D had he rebid 1S and responder then bid 1NT. By not bidding the spades, if he was going to be playing in 2D, at least he hadn't given a blueprint of his distribution away.

I didn't have a chance to ask him about the hand, but his 2D rebid sort of surprised me as suppressing a 4-card major is not exactly what the books tell you to do. Perhaps the rebid might have been different playing matchpoints, but I found the decision to not yet show the spades to be interesting.

DHL

[EricK]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Why would you want to discourage partner? You don't know the hand is a misfit, partner can have a fit in spades or diamonds. I doubt your teammate would have been very persuasive to me.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method.

On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss.

[the hog]

EricK, on Jun 3 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Why would you want to discourage partner? You don't know the hand is a misfit, partner can have a fit in spades or diamonds. I doubt your teammate would have been very persuasive to me.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method.

On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss.

I disagree strongly with this. Why might you get too high just because you rebid 1S. If pd does raise to 3S why are you necessarily too high? You have a shapely hand and decent 4 card support. In fact a 4S bid is certainly not unreasonable.
Seriously Eric, if you follow this logic, then you should play very sound opening bids and pass this hand.

[jdonn]

I'm totally with Hog on this one. I really don't fear 1♠ getting me too high, we are at the 1 level for goodness sake! Meanwhile if you rebid 2♦ and partner is 4-4 in the majors even with a good hand the partnership has to jump through hoops to find the spade fit without one or the other player misdescribing.

Rebidding 2♦ can actually cost you a lot of room if partner has a good hand. Compare 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ to 1♦ 1♥ 2♦ 3♣ 3♠/NT.

The agreement that rebidding diamonds doesn't deny spades is, among other things, completely nonstandard. So it would be a different problem than originally presented, where the 2♦ bid does deny 4 spades since I assume standard bidding.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Jun 3 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

I'm totally with Hog on this one. I really don't fear 1♠ getting me too high, we are at the 1 level for goodness sake! Meanwhile if you rebid 2♦ and partner is 4-4 in the majors even with a good hand the partnership has to jump through hoops to find the spade fit without one or the other player misdescribing.

Rebidding 2♦ can actually cost you a lot of room if partner has a good hand. Compare 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ to 1♦ 1♥ 2♦ 3♣ 3♠/NT.

The agreement that rebidding diamonds doesn't deny spades is, among other things, completely nonstandard. So it would be a different problem than originally presented, where the 2♦ bid does deny 4 spades since I assume standard bidding.

Agree with Josh and the Hog.
I'd never think of bypassing 1♠. Why on earth give up the master suit like this??? Rebidding 2♦ preempts the bidding, we often end up in the wrong strain or lose needed bidding space.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Jun 3 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

EricK, on Jun 3 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Why would you want to discourage partner? You don't know the hand is a misfit, partner can have a fit in spades or diamonds. I doubt your teammate would have been very persuasive to me.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method.

On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss.

I disagree strongly with this. Why might you get too high just because you rebid 1S. If pd does raise to 3S why are you necessarily too high? You have a shapely hand and decent 4 card support. In fact a 4S bid is certainly not unreasonable.
Seriously Eric, if you follow this logic, then you should play very sound opening bids and pass this hand.

If you have a ♠ fit you are probably better off bidding 1♠. If you don't then you might very well be better off rebidding 2♦ (eg partner will rebid his ♥ on a minimum hand with 6 ♥ if you bid 1♠, but he will likley pass 2♦ on a similar hand.)

The logic behind the position for which I am playing devil's advocate is this:

There is a bonus for bidding game. This means that players will sometimes have to stretch and/or keep the bidding open if there is still a chance of game. This in turn risks the partnership getting too high on a subset of hands. Hence there is a potential benefit in telling partner that you are minimum for your bidding to date so that he needn't stretch. This applies whether your openings are light, sound or very sound as they only concern whether you are minimum compared with what you have already shown.

[MickyB]

Double !, on Jun 2 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

When I did my little vugraph operator stint last August at the usbf Team Trials, I was sitting behind Dan Morse (Bobby Wolff was on the other side of the screen). Dan held a similar hand and, assuming my memory isn't completely shot, by-passed the spade suit and rebid 2 diamonds (his suit might have been clubs- can't remember)

Might he have been 4-7 shape?

[kenrexford]

On the one hand, there is nothing particularly amazing about bypassing the spade suit with 4♠/6♦, if third seat, IMO. If you are willing to open a Weak Two with 4♠/6♦, or 4M/6M, all of which buries the 4-card major (probably), then why not handle 1♦...2♦ as a third-seat opening the same way, on occasion? I agree with the theory that this CAN make sense.

On the other hand, I'm not all that certain that this is the right hand for that decision. ♠109xx ♥6 ♦KQJxxx ♣AJ is right for me, if the colors are favorable. The actual hand does not terribly offend me, though -- it is in the ballpark.

The idea for the "right" hand is one where you might open a Weak Two of 2♦ with a four-card side major. Actually opening 2♦, however, may be unpalatable because it does bury the major much more (you lose the possibility of partner actually bidding your major first), because 1♦...2♦ is a stronger lead-director that 2♦ directly, and because 2♦ white-on-red could be SOOOOO much weaker than a six-loser hand. It's a hand where 3♦ was your other idea, and you even toyed around with the idea of opening 4♦.

BTW -- 1♦...2♦ only denies a side 4-card spade suit COMPLETELY if you cannot imagine this auction in third seat (1/2 seat is silliness, IMO). If it is possible, then this holding is possible.

[BillHiggin]

Perhaps my brain is just too much a victim of olds-timers.

I see the issue as one that I would have resolved at my first opportunity to bid, not my second. If I intend to hide the spade suit (regardless of seat), then I can open 2♦. Otherwise, I can choose between pass and 1♦ (favoring pass in 1st seat and 1♦ in 3rd but that depends on our opening bid requirements).

Since I chose to open 1♦, I will stay consistent to my original choice. A 2♦ rebid seems to represent muddled thinking (I can do that, but try to limit it to one muddled decision per hand).

[cherdano]

EricK, on Jun 3 2007, 05:29 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 3 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

EricK, on Jun 3 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 2 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Why would you want to discourage partner? You don't know the hand is a misfit, partner can have a fit in spades or diamonds. I doubt your teammate would have been very persuasive to me.

If you are playing a system where the 2♦ rebid does not deny 4♠ but does show 6♦ and a minimum hand, then you might miss a ♠ fit but you are unlikley to miss a ♠ game. The method would lose on some hands (where you end up in the wrong part score) and gain on others (where you avoid getting too high or end up in a safer part score), so it is not obviously a bad method.

On the other hand, if the 2♦ bid is non-systemic and partner will refuse to believe you have a ♠ suit then there is a greater potential for loss.

I disagree strongly with this. Why might you get too high just because you rebid 1S. If pd does raise to 3S why are you necessarily too high? You have a shapely hand and decent 4 card support. In fact a 4S bid is certainly not unreasonable.
Seriously Eric, if you follow this logic, then you should play very sound opening bids and pass this hand.

If you have a ♠ fit you are probably better off bidding 1♠. If you don't then you might very well be better off rebidding 2♦ (eg partner will rebid his ♥ on a minimum hand with 6 ♥ if you bid 1♠, but he will likley pass 2♦ on a similar hand.)

The logic behind the position for which I am playing devil's advocate is this:

There is a bonus for bidding game. This means that players will sometimes have to stretch and/or keep the bidding open if there is still a chance of game. This in turn risks the partnership getting too high on a subset of hands. Hence there is a potential benefit in telling partner that you are minimum for your bidding to date so that he needn't stretch. This applies whether your openings are light, sound or very sound as they only concern whether you are minimum compared with what you have already shown.

If partner, over 1♠, "just makes a bid to keep the bidding open" then I should be fine, even if he bids 2♥ that may well be better than playing 2♦ (please don't tell me partner would rebid a 5-card heart suit here...)
The times when you really discourage partner from bidding on by choosing 2♦ is when he has a spade fit, which is definitely not what you want...

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jun 3 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

If pd does raise to 3S why are you necessarily too high?

Maybe the "too high" is 2♥?

[pclayton]

There might be a hand where I would bypass 1♠ on, but it looks like:

5432, void, AKJxxxx, Qx

[P_Marlowe]

Mcauley, on Jun 2 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Our teammates had a long discussion about this board, although the result was in our favor.here south  continued with 2♦, South's opinion was ''trying to discourage partner with only 11count''. It worked well for the mentioned board, and i must admit he was pretty persuasive.(our table had a 3♠-2 contract)

Fine, ... and so what?

Unless I missed the point that partner passed
before I opened, why should he not have spades
with opening strength?

Bidding 2D makes only sense, if 1H already denied
4 spades (I believe I have seen a conventions, which
respond 2H to convey 5-4 in the mayors (?!)).

With kind regards
Marlowe