[Apollo81]

You've opened a Precision 1♦ and partner has responded 1M. In your arsenal of rebids you have a 2♦ rebid that shows a minimum (for 11-15) 3-card raise of partner's major. You play 14-16 NT so this is either a balanced hand weaker than that or an unbalanced 11 or 12 count or maybe a bad 13.

Question: you hold (23)44 shape and partner has responded in your 3-card major. Give an example of a hand where you would rebid 1NT instead of using the above convention. Do any such hands exist? Do such hands only exist over 1♦-1♥? Do such hands exist over both major suit responses?

[awm]

If the doubleton includes two honors, I would normally rebid 1NT. The reasoning is that 1NT is likely to be okay in this case (opponents won't run the doubleton suit) and that my hand is less likely to produce a ruff in the suit contract (for example consider QJ opposite Txx/Kxx or KQ opposite Jxx/Axx).

[whereagles]

I prefer to bid 1NT with all balanced hands because I think that is more descriptive than a 2M rebid that can be anything from a 4 card raise with side suit to a flat 3 card raise...

[jdonn]

Shouldn't you only use this on hands where you would have raised the major if not playing the gadget, since you are committing to the major anyway?

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Feb 11 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

Shouldn't you only use this on hands where you would have raised the major if not playing the gadget, since you are committing to the major anyway?

Pretty much. So some (23)44 hands will qualify and some won't. I wanted to get a feel for what people think is typical. I usually raise when 3244, for example, unless I have two honors like Adam said or maybe something like xxx Qx ???? ????

The thing thats different here is that partner knows you have at most a bad unbalanced 13 count and knows you only have 3 trumps, so he wont go as overboard as he would in standard. This makes the raise slightly more acceptable on some hands that mightnot raise in standard, imo.

[Cascade]

three small in partner's suit and AQ in the other major.

[mikestar]

I would use this raise on the same hands as I would give a raise to 2M in standard, but raise on all doubtful hands, where in standard I tend to bid 1NT on doubtful hands.

If this sequence does not promise real diamonds for you and is therefor forcing, 2♦ can also be used for very strong 3-card raises--opener assumes weak and responder bids again over openers 2M rebid.

Likely you are already playing this.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Feb 11 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

I would still bid 1N with most hands. The better question for me would be "which hands would you raise on" lol. I would want 3 decent hearts and a weak doubleton. I would not use this on something like Kx Kxx Axxx Qxxx or some normal hand like that since 1N is likely to be our spot. I think raising with 3 has gotten out of hand.

Right but what if it was Kxx Kx Axxx Qxxx and partner bid 1♠?

[hrothgar]

After 1♦ - 1♥, I'd consider the following prototypical 2♦

♠ xx
♥ Axx
♦ KQxx
♣ Axxx

After 1♦ - 1♠

♠ Qxx
♥ xx
♦ KJxx
♣ AKxx

I might trott out same bid on a few less attractive hands

After 1♦ - 1♥

♠ Qx
♥ Axx
♦ AKxx
♣ xxxx

The following is probably gonna be controversial, however, I might very well decide to not to open a 14-16 NT and to treat this as this as a three card raise...

♠ QJx
♥ Jxxx
♦ KQx
♣ KQx

[dake50]

Which is urgent, here? Landing in better partial OR helping partner on borderline game decisions.
I like 1NT to say bal; raise treatment for some hope of ruffs/long tricks to help game decisions.
Let 2nd best partials: 1NT when 2M is better or v/v be play spots off.

[benlessard]

i guess we can safely say that with jX or worse raising is probably best as long as you have at least 1 trump honnor.
With Qx or Kx 1nt is probably always better.

Quote

Kxx Kx Axxx Qxxx

1Nt to protect the K of H.

With Ax then if you have 2 trumps honnor then raising make sense.

Kxx Ax Kxxx Qxxx
still 1Nt but raising is close

KTx Ax Kxxx Qxxx
1Nt in MP, raise in Imps

Kxx Qx kxxx Axxx
1Nt to protect the QH

First of all its obvious that in IMP you can afford more 3 card raise then in MP.Also the weaker the range the hand is the tougher those decision are, because moysan fit are depending on honnor concentration/lack of stoppers. When the HCP are split 11-10 then its tougher then when they are 15-6.

[awm]

The topic is perhaps more complicated than people have made it out to be. Suppose partner has some hand in the 8-10 hcp range opposite your 11-13 which includes a mediocre five-card major suit. Do you expect partner to usually pass 1NT, or to usually bid 2M?

For scoring purposes, 2M on a 5-3 will give you a better score expectation than 1NT at pretty much any form of scoring on these hands (this is especially true in this situation where you have roughly half the high card points; it changes a bit when you have a higher percentage of the values, especially at IMP scoring where 3NT is a cheaper game than 4M). So it's important to reach the 5-3 fits at least in the majority of cases. Playing in 1NT vs. a 5-2 fit is roughly a wash when the five-card suit is mediocre, and playing in 1NT vs. a 4-3 fit is roughly a wash when the 3-card hand has a doubleton but no singleton.

So depending on what you expect partner to do, there seem to be two styles:

(1) You expect partner to bid 2M with a five-card suit virtually all the time. In this case you will never miss a 5-3 fit. Rebidding 1NT with three-card support only misses the 4-3 fit, which is a wash anyway. Now a raise is almost always four card support (or a side singleton), which gives you some advantages on raise auctions. It's still probably right to raise on very pure hands, such as balanced hands with one or more trump honors and xx in a side suit, since in these cases the 4-3 fit will actually win, and it may be worth encouraging partner to bid on with a five (or six) card suit and less than an invite opposite a normal 11-13 flat. The main downside of this method is that rebidding 1NT with a singleton (even singleton honor) in partner's suit becomes dangerous as you will reach many 5-1 fits this way. There are also some less severe issues when opener has two small in responder's suit and responder's five-card holding is poor (often 1NT is better in these cases, especially if trumps break badly).

(2) You expect partner to usually pass 1NT with a five-card major. In this case there is substantial risk of missing a 5-3 fit when you rebid 1NT on three-card support. In order to avoid this problem, you usually want to raise with three-card support. There are still exceptions (4333 hands perhaps, or hands with very strong doubletons). This reaches a bunch of 4-3 fits when the 3-card hand has a doubleton, but these are roughly a wash in the long-term anyway, and you reach almost all the 5-3 fits (the ones you miss usually are okay to miss, i.e. no ruff possible in the short hand). The main win is that you can now rebid 1NT on singleton without partner correcting to a 5-1 fit, which solves a lot of "problem shapes" especially in a precision-style opening structure. The style backfires when you reach a 4-3 major fit that doesn't play well, or when the single raise becomes less clear-cut in terms of support (although having an extra bid for that solves this problem to a great degree).

Another side issue is that playing style (1), you need really good follow-ups after opener's 1NT rebid in order to avoid 3NT when it's wrong. In style (2), you need really good follow-ups after opener's raise to 2M in order to reach 3NT when it's right.

It seems like having a separate "three-card balanced raise" tends to reduce the biggest issue with style (2) and the biggest benefit of style (1) -- the range of support present in opener's single raise. So I'd go with style (2) here (honestly I usually prefer it anyway) and usually raise with three-card support save only the most unsuitable hands (4333, two honors doubleton).

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Feb 14 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

For scoring purposes, 2M on a 5-3 will give you a better score expectation than 1NT at pretty much any form of scoring on these hands (this is especially true in this situation where you have roughly half the high card points; it changes a bit when you have a higher percentage of the values, especially at IMP scoring where 3NT is a cheaper game than 4M). So it's important to reach the 5-3 fits at least in the majority of cases.

Pfah. Two-handed bridge, as my mentor used to call it.

2M on a 5-3 with roughly half the count might give a better score expectation, but it's moot, because most of the time you're not going to steal the contract at the 2 level any more.

From the OP:

Quote

In your arsenal of rebids you have a 2♦ rebid that shows a minimum (for 11-15) 3-card raise of partner's major.

If you can't find a good defensive system to play over that bid, you just haven't looked. On the other hand, it can be tough to find a call over a 1NT rebid, especially if 1NT can be a 1444 hand over 1♠. So when you play an artifical raise at the 2 level, you shouldn't look at the score expectation of 2M vs. 1NT. Look at the expectation of the likely contracts after the artificial raise vs. without the artificial raise.

[awm]

Actually, opponents almost never come into this auction, no matter what they play over the artificial raise.

(1) They have already both passed.

(2) Our methods are reaching what could easily be a seven-card fit at the two-level. Usually balancing over a seven-card fit at the two-level is a bad idea.

(3) Opener's hand is quite well-defined on the bidding, meaning that responder could have quite a good hand and sign off opposite opener's known 11-13 with three trumps. This makes balancing even more dangerous.

While people do sometimes balance over 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-P, it's already a risky proposition and this auction passes out more often than not even at MP. It's more risky when 2♠ is frequently three cards. It's downright suicidal if 2♠ guarantees three cards exactly.

[jtfanclub]

It's a whole lot easier over an artificial raise.

1♦(1)-P(2)-1♥(3)-P(4)
2♦(5)-P(6)-2♥(7)-?(8)

1. Artificial, 11-15
2. If he had a 5 card suit and some points, he'd probably bid it. Aggression over artificial bids and all that.
3. Natural, 1 round forcing.
4. If he had 4+ spades, he'd probably X or bid 1 spade. So between 2 and 4, it's unlikely that they have a spade fit.
5. Artificial raise.
6. Double here simply shows 4 diamonds. Completely safe, what are they going to do, leave it in? I can deal with that.
7. No game interest.
8. Looks at his hand. Partner is marked with enough points to call (unless he has a monster), but didn't bid 1♠ or double 2♦. He can look at his hand, and figure out what to do. For example, if he has 3244, he can X, and partner will read that as 3 spades and 4 clubs and decide what to do. If he has 5 clubs, a club bid is easy. On occassion, the defenders will miss a 4-4 club fit, but otherwise, if they have a fit, they'll find it. And if they don't have a fit, well, then we probably lost by playing 2 of a major.

If you don't like the example explanations, that's fine. The point is that all those intervening bids make it safe for them to find out if they have a fit prior to the 2M bid. Because of the if-they-have-a-fit-we-have-a-fit rule of thumb, another way to phrase the expectations is that if they have a fit, we want to play in 2M. If they don't have a fit, then 1NT is fine.

So bidding 2♦ with 3 card support but a 'no-trumpy' hand doesn't work well. You don't get to play 2M when it's right, and you do get to play 2M when it's wrong.

[benlessard]

I would like to know your complete option after

1D----1S
???

I dont think 2D to show a 3 card raise is that useful. Probably better is the distinction between good and bad 2S raise (with 3 & 4 trumps)