[mike777]

At least on the forum many are playing reverse flannery to not lose hearts.
2c pretty much unlimits your hand.
1nt pretty tightly limits your hand.
2d limits your hand but not as much as 1nt and your suit is not that hot.

btw I think this is very common problem when opening 11-13 hcp hands with short spades.
1) You open with minimum hcp.
2) You open without the boss suit.
3) You open with a known rebid problem.

[SoTired]

I don't care what Experts say, the idea of rebidding a 3-card suit with a very common hand and possibly ending up in a 3-3 fit seems silly to me. Either rebid your 5-card diam suit or rebid 1N.

If not playing RFR and responder is weak, responder can bid 2H over 1N with a 5-4. If responder has only 5s, responder can pass or bid 2S and risk playing in a 5-1 fit. I think responder should usually pass. 1N is reasonable. A 3-3 club fit is not reasonable.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Aug 11 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

1) Why does 2C lose hearts unless partner is a GF, and 2D lose hearts unless partner is a game invite? If partner bids 2N over 2C you can just bid 3H and find game.

If that's what 3♥ means, you can find a heart fit opposite a 54xx invitation, but only if you're happy to be in game opposite a 5323 invitation.

Does 3♥ mean that? If it does, you can't use it as an exploratory move on a 1354 shape, but maybe that's not such a big deal.

Quote

I presume you're going to tell me that you play 2H over 2D as inv+ and 2H over 2C as GF ...

I assumed these methods when I answered the question. Isn't it more or less standard to play FSF as game-forcing?

Quote

... so there are some hands where partner can bid 2H over 2D that will not bid 2N over 2C.

No, I wasn't going to tell you that. This conversation might be easier to follow if you found out what my opinions were before trying to refute them.

Quote

Do you really not agree that if partner passes our 2C bid we have much more likely than not found the right minor?

It will probably be right if he is 1=4 or more clubbier, and probably wrong if he is 2=4 or 1=3 (though in the latter case 2♦ might not be much fun either). I did a quick and dirty simulation (code at the bottom of this message) with these assumptions, and I got:
  2C better   14%
  2D better   10%
  Irrelevant  76%
So, yes, I agree that on hands where we're going to play in two of a minor, 2♣ will gain more often than it loses.

Another problem with 2♣ that I mentioned is that it will get you to 3♣ (or 3NT, if you prefer) opposite an xx24 invitation. It can also, of course, create problems when partner has a better hand with club support, but you may get compensating gains by having 2♦ promise six.

It seems to me that the 2♣ bid creates more of a problem the weaker you are - if you're strong enough to accept responder's 2NT or 3♣ invitation, it's not that much of a problem, but if you aren't it is.

source format/none

south is {2 KT32 KQ932 AJ2}

# Counters
set Clubs_Better 0
set Diamonds_Better 0
set Irrelevant 0

main {
 [space]set c [clubs north]
 [space]set d [diamonds north]
 [space]set h [hearts north]
 [space]set s [spades north]
 [space]
 [space]# North has a 1S response
 [space]if {$s < 4 || $h > $s} {
 [space] [space]reject
 [space] [space]}
 [space]
 [space]# 6+ spades or 3+ diamonds or equal length or 2D + 0-3 clubs
 [space]if {$s > 5 || $d > 2 || $d == $c || ($d == 2 && $c < 4)} {
 [space] [space]incr Irrelevant
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}
 [space] [space]
 [space]# 0-1 diamonds and 4+ clubs
 [space]if {$d < 2 && $c > 3} {
 [space] [space]incr Clubs_Better
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# 2 diamonds and 5+ clubs
 [space]if {$d == 2 && $c > 4} {
 [space] [space]incr Clubs_Better
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}
 
 [space]# 2 diamonds and 4 clubs
 [space]if {$d == 2 && $c == 4} {
 [space] [space]incr Diamonds_Better
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]# 1 diamond and 3 clubs
 [space]if {$d == 1 && $c == 3} {
 [space] [space]incr Diamonds_Better
 [space] [space]accept
 [space] [space]}

 [space]puts "Unexpected shape: [north shape]"
 [space]accept
}

deal_finished {
 [space]puts " 2C better [space] $Clubs_Better"
 [space]puts " 2D better [space] $Diamonds_Better"
 [space]puts " Irrelevant [space]$Irrelevant"
}

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Aug 11 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

Quote

Do you really not agree that if partner passes our 2C bid we have much more likely than not found the right minor?

It will probably be right if he is 1=4 or more clubbier, and probably wrong if he is 2=4 or 1=3 (though in the latter case 2♦ might not be much fun either). I did a quick and dirty simulation (code at the bottom of this message) with these assumptions, and I got:
  2C better   14%
  2D better   10%
  Irrelevant  76%
So, yes, I agree that on hands where we're going to play in two of a minor, 2♣ will gain more often than it loses.

So you (rather painfully I might say) get clubs better than diamonds by a 7-5 margin, assuming you give the advantage of every equal length fit to diamonds? I think you would make an excellent presidential campaign advisor

[Lobowolf]

I deliberately made the club & diamond suits neither overly strong nor overly weak. I think that the advantages to 2♣ over 2♦ are moderate enough that I'd rebid 2♦ if the disparity was overwhelming (e.g. AQJxx vs. Txx).

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits. After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

[pclayton]

1N. Agree with the sentiments about 1N replacing 2♣ as the normal rebid.

Yes Dan you don't automatically rebid a five card spade suit over 1N.

[655321]

Lobowolf, on Aug 11 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits.  After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

I don't think these are comparable situations.
Yes, I always transfer to a 5 card spade suit when partner opens 1NT, and I never rebid 2♠ when partner rebids 1NT.

But, when partner opens 1NT his possible holdings are :

• 5 spades (unless you exclude these too)
  
• 4 spades
  
• 3 spades
  
• 2 spades

and he won't have a singleton spade.

When partner rebids 1NT his possible holdings are:

• 3 spades (only those hands unsuitable for a 3 card raise)
  
• 2 spades
  
• 1 spade (sure, if your 1NT rebid denies a singleton this doesn't apply)

so you already know that many (I agree, not all) of the winning hands for spades are no longer possible, making the decision not to rebid 2♠ pretty easy.

[benlessard]

If opener often raise with 3♠ support then responder will often pass 1Nt holding 5S . So this make rebidding 1Nt with a singleton more attractive.

PS
If you play some unbalanced diamond system the responses i suggest are.

1D---1S
???

1Nt = clubs
2C= 6D or D+H reverse
2D = D+H NF non-reverse strenght
2H = weak or GF S raise
2S = intermediate raise.
2Nt + GF

Quote

When I first started playing expert standard was 2C, now it has moved to 1N.

Agree and i think 2D is a beginner bid.

[Lobowolf]

655321, on Aug 11 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 11 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits.  After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

I don't think these are comparable situations.
Yes, I always transfer to a 5 card spade suit when partner opens 1NT, and I never rebid 2♠ when partner rebids 1NT.

But, when partner opens 1NT his possible holdings are :

• 5 spades (unless you exclude these too)
  
• 4 spades
  
• 3 spades
  
• 2 spades

and he won't have a singleton spade.

When partner rebids 1NT his possible holdings are:

• 3 spades (only those hands unsuitable for a 3 card raise)
  
• 2 spades
  
• 1 spade (sure, if your 1NT rebid denies a singleton this doesn't apply)

so you already know that many (I agree, not all) of the winning hands for spades are no longer possible, making the decision not to rebid 2♠ pretty easy.

It's true that the most beneficial situations don't apply; however, it's probably an extremely small percentage of the time when you open 1NT with a 5-card major that partner also has a 5-card major. I'd guess 75% of the time partner opens 1NT and you have a 5-card major, he's got either 2 or 3, but that's completely off the top of my head.

Simulations I've run indicate that if you knew the 1NT opener didn't have a 4-card spade suit, it would still be beneficial to transfer into your 5-card spade suit. It's a clear gain when partner has 3, and about a wash when partner has 2.


Phil - I do routinely rebid the 5-card major with partners with whom I have the agreement that 1NT denies a singleton. I've found the situations where it's advantageous to come up much more often than ones where it's disadvantageous.

Granted, the more often you raise with 3 as opener, the less benefit you get out of being able to comfortably rebidding the 5-card major.

I get the occasional awkward hand (which even then isn't necessarily a bad board), but after 1m - 1M:
1. I never end up in NT with some cheesy 4-opposite-1 suit that doesn't stop very well.
2. I never end up in a 5-1 major suit fit.
3. I never miss a 5-3 fit.

5-2 fits break about even.

The downside is, rarely I introduce a 3-card minor, and rarely I rebid a 5-card minor (when the long minor is clubs, obviously introducing the other one isn't an option). Occasionally, that results in a missed heart fit, but it's very rare.

[benlessard]

I think knowing if it MP or imps is pretty important here. Obviously at Mp you should strive to play 1Nt instead of 2m.

1m----1S-----1Nt------???
In Mp its clear that rebidding 2S with 5S is a winner but in imps 1Nt is probably safer if partner can have a stiff.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 12 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

So you (rather painfully I might say) get clubs better than diamonds by a 7-5 margin, assuming you give the advantage of every equal length fit to diamonds? I think you would make an excellent presidential campaign advisor

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Aug 12 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit.

I've already accepted, because of the results of my simulation, that 2♣ is better for getting you to the right two-of-a-minor contract. That's what I meant when I said

Quote

I agree that on hands where we're going to play in two of a minor, 2♣ will gain more often than it loses.

My subsequent comments were a response to some rather ungracious criticism of the method I used to reach this conclusion.

You haven't, however, convinced me that this is sufficient reason to prefer 2♣ over 2♦ when opener is minimum. As I've already said, there are still two disadvantages to bidding 2♣ on this shape:
- In order to be able to find a heart fit, opener has to bid 3♥ after 1D-1S; 2C-2NT, thus getting too high when responder doesn't have four hearts, and possibly also when he does.
- If responder raises to 3♣ with a 4324 or 5224 shape, we are probably in the wrong partscore at the wrong level.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Aug 12 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

You mean you would prefer to pass a 2N bid with this hand? Didn't occur to me, I would have thought this is easily enough to accept a game invite so I wasn't really worried about this factor.

No, this hand is OK, because it has enough to accept the invitation. It's only a problem when you have the same shape but are too weak to actually want to accept the invitation.

[kenrexford]

benlessard, on Aug 11 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

If opener often raise with 3♠ support then responder will often pass 1Nt holding 5S . So this make rebidding 1Nt with a singleton more attractive.

PS
If you play some unbalanced diamond system the responses i suggest are.

1D---1S
???

1Nt = clubs
2C= 6D or D+H reverse
2D = D+H NF non-reverse strenght
2H = weak or GF S raise
2S = intermediate raise.
2Nt + GF

Quote

When I first started playing expert standard was 2C, now it has moved to 1N.

Agree and i think 2D is a beginner bid.

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣. Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453 or 1444 shape. That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

[dburn]

Jlall, on Aug 12 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 12 2008, 02:04 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 12 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

So you (rather painfully I might say) get clubs better than diamonds by a 7-5 margin, assuming you give the advantage of every equal length fit to diamonds? I think you would make an excellent presidential campaign advisor

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength.

Yes but your post/simulation does not account for the fact that in the cases where clubs is better than diamonds that you allow for, clubs will be MUCH better. There is a bigger difference in playing the 4-3 rather than the 5-1 as opposed to the 5-1 and the 3-3, especially "when you don't have that many HCP." There is a much bigger difference when you find a 5-3 also.

To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit.

I am not sure which of 1NT, 2♣ or 2♦ is likely to result in the best partscore for our side - the arguments by Jlall and gnasher are interesting. To me, 1NT seems obvious because it is the least lie, and if our best partscore happens to be 2♥, the only way I can get there is to bid 1NT now. More sophisticated players would already have got there by responding 2♥ in the first place (a very common treatment among European experts, showing a weakish hand with 5+-4+ in the majors) but I am not a sophisticated player.

Of this I am sure, though: if I rebid 2♣ and partner happens to have a very good hand, I have done something very bad indeed for our side by showing nine cards in the minors when in fact I have nine cards in the red suits. Opener's rebid with a minimum hand should, in my view, not be a wilful distortion of opener's shape for no good reason, especially when (as in this case) it runs the risk of burying a 4-4 major-suit fit.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Aug 12 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣. Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453 or 1444 shape. That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

True, but by using 1NT to solve this fairly rare problem you give up one of the major constructive benefits of playing an unbalanced diamond, which is that you can use 1♦-1M-1NT to show 3-card support.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Aug 13 2008, 03:13 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 12 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

If you play an unbalanced 1♦ with natural rebids, this hand is a complete non-problem.

With 5♦/4♣, you would rebid 2♣.  Thus, if you rebid 1NT, you have precisely 1453  or 1444 shape.  That's as easy a solution as I can imagine, and the hearts are on the table.

True, but by using 1NT to solve this fairly rare problem you give up one of the major constructive benefits of playing an unbalanced diamond, which is that you can use 1♦-1M-1NT to show 3-card support.

I'm not that impressed, myself, with that idea. I understand that many love this method. It is just not for me.