[jillybean]

I keep on hearing this from unverified sources, what do the experts think?

[awm]

I've posted on this before....

Say the auction starts 1♣-1♠. If you would bid 1NT with both:

♠Axx
♥xx
♦KJx
♣KQxxx

♠x
♥Axxx
♦KJx
♣KQxxx

then this puts partner in a very tough position. Opposite the first hand, he really wants to correct to 2♠ with any weak hand including five spades. He wants to blast 4♠ on gamegoing hands with six spades, or upgrade a mediocre hand with a long spade suit to make an aggressive invite in spades guaranteed of a fit. Opposite the second hand, virtually all these actions can be disastrous. The difference between three card support and a side small doubleton versus small singleton support is huge.

So it doesn't work very well to rebid 1NT on both hands. The classical style (which seems to be more popular in some parts of Europe -- I know whereagles for example bids this way) is never to rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit, and never to raise partner's major on a balanced hand without four trumps. So the 1NT rebid in this style excludes the second hand, partner knows to rebid his major with five and that it's safe to bid aggressively with six of the major (because 1NT bidder always has at least two).

The "modern" style that seems to have a growing following at least in north america involves raising partner frequently on three-card support, including balanced hands with a side doubleton. So the first hand is a 2♠ raise, and now the 1NT rebid includes the second hand type. This style is a big advantage when you hold the second hand type because you avoid a possible 5-1 club fit after a club rebid and you make it easier to find a 4-4 heart fit (via a non-forcing 2♥ rebid by responder over 1NT). The tradeoff is that you do play a fair number of spade moysians in 2♠ on the first hand (but this is sometimes a winning contract) and that you need to have a method to uncover opener's degree of support (i.e. responder can't bid 1♣-1♠-2♠-4♠ without five trumps).

[mikeh]

In what sequences?

Are you concerned with opener's rebid after a 1 over 1 response (ie does 1N promise 2-3 card support) or 2N after a 2/1 response etc?

[TylerE]

I want a split answer:

Fact: If it's my first rebid
Good Guide: Thereafter

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Apr 10 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

In what sequences?

Are you concerned with opener's rebid after a 1 over 1 response (ie does 1N promise 2-3 card support) or 2N after a 2/1 response etc?

after a 1/1

[ArtK78]

I frequently raise partner with any reasonable 3 card support if I am not 4333.

I also frequently rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit if I dislike my other choices.

So, I voted "pure fiction."

[mikeh]

My rule (I am unabashedly old-fashioned in many ways) is 'almost never' to rebid 1N with a stiff in partner's suit.. to the point that I suspect that I have never done it.. I don't recall ever doing it.

I read Adam's post, which I think is quite good, but decidely incomplete.

Consider:

If 1N can include a stiff in partner's suit, he will have to pass a lot of 1N bids with hands that are poor for notrump and good for a 5-2 or 5-3 major fit.

I know of no good pairs who advocate raising a major on all 3 card holdings.. as Adam noted, the 'modern' style is to do so with a side doubleton. But if it is responder who has shape, we play our 5=3=2=3 opposite 3=3=3=4 in 1N with no diamond stopper and minimal values.. not for me, thanks

And if 1N promises 2+ cards, we can allow responder to blast to game over 1N rather than give away info by engaging in some checkback mechanism

And if opener is 1=4=3=5 opposite 4=3=3=3, with weak spades, I'd rather be in 2♣ than 1N, so that offsets, at least to some degree, the spectre of the 5-1 club fit when opener rebids 2♣ rather than 1N

I suspect that there are other problems with the 'modern' approach, but, in fairness, the old-fashioned approach does create the problems identified by Adam.

In summary, as in so many areas of bidding theory and practice, it comes down to personal experience and comfort. I am more comfortable knowing that 1N promises 2-3 card support than I am afraid of a 5-1 fit or missing a 4-4 heart fit.

In complete fairness, let me add that much of the time I play a weak 1N structure in 1st and second, and this approach mandates 4 card major holdings for raises, and also eliminates all of the 1st and 2nd seat minimum 1N rebid hands anyway. But I do play a lot of 15-17 or 14-16 methods, and I prefer 1N promises 2-3 cards in all methods.

[ArtK78]

I find it humerous that the "modern" approach is to raise on three-card support with a good reason. That is really an extremely old-fashioned approach. Check out any Goren book from the 1940s or 1950s.

As for rebidding 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit, that is just a practical approach, especially at matchpoints where 1NT may very well be the final contract. At IMPs, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is less likely, as playing in 2 of a minor is not a problem as long as you go plus.

[cherdano]

Missing option:
[X] is a matter of partnership agreement.

[awm]

Of course there's a lot more to it than either Mike or my post indicates. For example:

(1) In the "classical" style you will play a lot more 5-2 major suit fits. The auction typically goes 1m-1M-1NT-2M. Sometimes this contract will be better than 1NT and sometimes it will be worse. Of course you could pass 1NT with a five-card major, but knowing that partner will often rebid 1NT with three-card support even with a doubleton on the side makes it right to rebid the major on a lot of mediocre suits. In the "modern" style you will normally play 1NT on these hands, because opener could have singleton and will very rarely have three, so rebidding a five-card major is less of a good idea (still exceptional suits can be rebid, like KQJTx). Again., this will sometimes be better and sometimes worse.

(2) The "modern" style helps when opener rebids 2m, because this is almost invariably a six card suit. This means responder can raise with Hx on an invitational hand (often a better partscore than 2NT) and can invite aggressively with a minor suit fit.

(3) The "classical" style can help when opener raises the major. After 1m-1M-2M, responder with five trumps is virtually assured a nine-card fit (okay three trumps and a side singleton is still a raise, but three trumps and a doubleton isn't). This effectively narrows the range of the 2M bid and means you can make pushy game tries with a five-card suit with some protection from law of total tricks. If the 2M raise could be a balanced hand with three-card support, this kind of game try is riskier, which makes it more tempting for opener to raise to three with (for example) a 4414 thirteen-count (a heck of a lot better than a 3235 twelve).

(4) The "modern" style can help avoid a 3NT contract with a suit wide open. Say partner opens 1♣ and you bid 1♠ with ♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦KQxx ♣Jx. If partner rebids 1NT you're bidding 3NT right? Obviously you could play/use some kind of checkback but why? Who would? Yet isn't this an embarrassing spot when opener has ♠QJx ♥xx ♦AJx ♣KQxxx? Even if opponents happen to lead a diamond instead of a heart you don't have nine tricks, and meanwhile 4♠ is quite good. In the modern style this opener hand is a 2♠ rebid, if opener rebids 1NT you know he won't have xx in hearts.

(5) The "modern" style requires you to have methods over 1m-1M-2M. If the major suit raise promises four, you will (almost) always want to play in the major now. But if it is frequently three you need to be able to back into notrump when it's right. This requires playing some bids as natural and forcing instead of as game tries, or using some kind of relay, or some combination of the two.

[jtfanclub]

I've liked the posts so far, but one thing they haven't mentioned is the four hand issue.

The Law, boiled down, says that if we have a fit, they have a fit. And they get to listen to our auction as well. If the auction goes:

1♣ P 1♠ P
2♠ ?

and this promises a 4-4 fit, it's often right to X for takeout (you didn't X the first time beause you didn't have spades). You're 95% likely to have an 8 card fit with partner- 100% if responder has 5.

On the other hand, if 2♠ can be 3, usually it's not right to pre-balance. You don't have the safety of knowing that they have a fit, and it's better to let them play in their seven card fit at the two level than for you to play in your 4-3 fit at the 3 level.

I know that I take 'good enough' fits to an extreme, but this is an example of the modern method using 'good enough' fits. If you're going to game, there's plenty of space to discover if you have a real fit, and if you're not, well, a 4-3 is 'good enough' at the 2 level.