[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Jan 14 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

[Echognome]

skaeran, on Jan 14 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 14 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

I think Mike means over a 2♥ response. 1♠ - 2♥; ?

In this situation it is common to rebid 2♠ even holding a 4-card minor.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Jan 14 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 14 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

I think that it is common (altho not universal) to rebid 2♠ on minimum hands with 5-4 in the pointed suits.. say AKxxx x KQxx xxx.. this is a 2♠ rebid for most 2/1 players.

Why is that? To me a 2♦ rebid would be absolutely obvious. And I play 2/1. (I did see the "not universal" part.) I know that many would rebid 2♠ on a 6-4 minimum, but the reasoning behind doing it on 5-4 eludes me.

Hi Harald. I always respect your views, but you must now be playing in a game I don't recognize... I have never been allowed to get away with a 2♦ rebid after partner's 2♥ response. I have argued that this is a true reverse.. showing substantially fewer values than a 3♦ bid, but no Director has yet upheld my argument, and my partners refuse to participate in appeals on the issue. They keep muttering something about 2♦ being 'insufficient'.

[awm]

I don't really understand Mikeh's view that the 3♦ bid is "natural" but then at the same time it can be bid with three small diamonds on an awkward hand.

Either this bid shows diamonds or it doesn't. If it is ambiguous:

(1) Is responder supposed to bid notrump on 1525? The chances of avoiding a diamond lead here are vanishingly small as it is the one suit that has not been bid naturally...

(2) Is responder supposed to raise diamonds on 0544 without substantial extras? If so, you are really in the soup when opener bid diamonds on three-small (total misfit and here you are at the four-level without extra values, and 4NT probably isn't even to play). If not then how has it helped you to "show" your four-card diamond suit in the first place?

[mikeh]

awm, on Jan 14 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

I don't really understand Mikeh's view that the 3♦ bid is "natural" but then at the same time it can be bid with three small diamonds on an awkward hand.

Either this bid shows diamonds or it doesn't. If it is ambiguous:

(1) Is responder supposed to bid notrump on 1525? The chances of avoiding a diamond lead here are vanishingly small as it is the one suit that has not been bid naturally...

(2) Is responder supposed to raise diamonds on 0544 without substantial extras? If so, you are really in the soup when opener bid diamonds on three-small (total misfit and here you are at the four-level without extra values, and 4NT probably isn't even to play). If not then how has it helped you to "show" your four-card diamond suit in the first place?

I don't really understand Adam's view.. I'm not sure that I know what it is.

I am assuming, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, that he likes 3♦ to be systemically a punt on a holding such as xxx.. and I think Harald agrees with him.

I am going to make one further assumption: that Adam would rebid 2♠ with a minimum hand and 5 spades/4 diamonds or 5=5.. that for him, as for most but not all 2/1 players, 1♠  2♥  3♦ shows extras.

If that assumption is in error, then what follows is less relevant, because he will need to be able to bid diamonds (over 3♣) naturally only with 6-4 hands, not with the more common 5-4 hands nor the occasional 5-5.

So I want ask what his rebid, as opener over 3♣, would be on:

1. QJxxxx x AKJ Jxx

2. KQxxxx x AQxxx x

3. AQxxx x AJxxx xx

4. AKxxxx x AJxx xx

I suspect that we all agree that the first hand bids a wtp 3N. The reason I include that example (or many hands with chunky diamonds... say AKxxx xx AQx xxx) is to anticipate the unlikely argument that responder can take the 3N call as showing 4+ diamonds)

But if, and it may be a big if for some, we accept that systemically hands 2-4 rebid 2♠, what are our choices over 3♣? Surely we are not bidding 3N with 2 and 3.. and don't we want to find out if partner can preference to spades on 4?

So what choice do we have other than 3♦?

Even if we systemically decide that the 'book bid' with xxx with Jxxxxx A xxx AKx is 3♦, does that mean that 3♦ 'shows' xxx? if it shows xxx, then we can't bid my examples 2 3 and 4 intelligently.. can we? (again, assume that we don't rebid 3♦ over 2♥)

My argument was not that we should systemically have 3♦ as ambiguous. For me, 3♦ is a natural, usually weak, bid, altho if I pull 3N, it makes it a powerhouse 6=4. I was arguing that it is possible that there could be a hand with xxx in diamonds on which no call is 'right' and that one might choose to fudge the 3 call as the least of evils.

BTW, please don't read this post as an argument in favour of making the 1♠  2♥  3♦ call on weak hands.. I've heard and read all of the arguments, and (outside of a strong club method) I don't find them persuasive, even tho on some hands they work better than the alternative.