[jerdonald]

BBO,

Playing ACBL 2/1.

Hand 1.
As opener I bid 1C with:
S J952
H T4
D AK5
C AJ98

Partner responded 1H and there was no interference.

What rules or logic would you use to decide whether or not to show that
4 card spade suit?


Hand 2.
As opener I again bid 1C with:
S KJ92
H QT32
D A5
C A73

Partner responded 1D and there was no interference.
As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

Jerry D.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

basically a matter of partnership agreement. And it is basically either up the line or
always by pass all major 4 card suits.

It is quite common, that opener makes a NT rebid, if he holds a bal. hand.
And he may by pass one or two four card majors. Partner should be aware of this.
The advantage is, that if you bid a 4 card major, this showes an unbal. hand, implying length
in the opened minor.

#2 it is quite common, to respond with a major if reponder has 4 diaomonds and a 4 card major,
i.e. either responder is strong enough to introduce his major, or responder has none, in other
words, no need by opener to show it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jerdonald]

Mallowe,
Thanks for the input.
I have made a slight edit to my post changing the last line from:

Would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?
As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

To avoid any confusion as to whom I was asking should bid which major.

Jerry D.

[Stephen Tu]

Hand #1:

Strictly a style question. There are very strong players in any of 3 camps:

1. Always rebid spades.
2. Never rebid spades, always bid 1nt with no fit for partner's major.
3. Usually rebid spades, but bid 1nt with specifically 4333.

All of the three have their own particular strengths and weaknesses which you can google search this forum for (bypassing spades to bid 1nt) to get the arguments for and against.


Hand #2.Also strictly a style question. Most players play "Walsh" style these days in which responder is expected to bid a major in preference to diamonds unless holding game forcing (for some game invitational) values, so opener is expected to bid 1nt for concealment purposes. Responder doesn't have a major or will be strong enough to introduce one over 1nt.

But if you are playing an up-the-line style, there aren't any good reasons on these sort of auctions not to bid hearts first. If you bid hearts first, you find fit in either hearts or spades if responder has it. If you bid spades, hearts will often be lost.

[Vampyr]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-June-13, 14:19, said:

The advantage is, that if you bid a 4 card major, this showes an unbal. hand, implying length
in the opened minor.

I think that this is very important . Of course it is necessary to have some kind of checkback available, preferably two-way.

(On hand two, the idea of bypassing the heart suit to bid spades is hilarious.)

[nige1]

JerDonald asks "Playing ACBL 2/1. What rules or logic would you use to decide whether or not to show that 4 card spade suit?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Partnership agreements differ. Some examples ...
- Always show a 4-card major at the one level even when 4333.
- Rebid 1♠ if (43)24 or 4423.
- Allow judgement e.g. sometimes rebid 1N with a poor ♠ suit.
- Rebid a 2nd suit, only with real ♣s and a shapely hand e.g. 4144 or 4225.

---

"As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- IMO, most partnerships rebid 1♥, regardless of relative quality.
- But some partnerships would still rebid 1N with this shape.
- I don't know what's best but my partners tend to rebid 1N on all 4333 and 4432 hands

---

[smerriman]

jerdonald, on 2020-June-13, 15:06, said:

Would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?
As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

I think you misunderstood his response. Many people play that 1♦ by responder denies a 4 card major (unless holding 5+ diamonds and a game forcing hand). Opener then does *neither* of your two options, but instead bids 1NT to show a balanced hand - 1♥ and 1♠ would both show unbalanced hands. (You never miss the 4-4 major fit since responder can show it next time if holding the game forcing version).

[P_Marlowe]

jerdonald, on 2020-June-13, 15:06, said:

Mallowe,
Thanks for the input.
I have made a slight edit to my post changing the last line from:

Would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?
As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

To avoid any confusion as to whom I was asking should bid which major.

Jerry D.

If I bid up the line, than I bid up the line. Personally I try to minimize judgement calls,
I get enough of those anyway.
Both sides try to describe their shape, even bypassing with 4333 is a decision based on shape.
A 4432 plays usually better in a 44 because you can ruff on both sides to get add. tricks,
which is the strength of the 44, with the 53 you have to use the side with the shorter trumps to get
add. tricks. With a 4333 this advantage is no longer existing, hence you may decide to drop the search
for a 44.

[nudnikbp]

Hand 1: One spade. Partner may have four spades. If the hand was 4333, then maybe 1NT instead.
Hand 2: One heart, looking for a 4-4 major suit fit.

[bluenikki]

jerdonald, on 2020-June-13, 13:50, said:

BBO,

Playing ACBL 2/1.

Hand 1.
As opener I bid 1C with:
S J952
H T4
D AK5
C AJ98

Partner responded 1H and there was no interference.

What rules or logic would you use to decide whether or not to show that
4 card spade suit?


Hand 2.
As opener I again bid 1C with:
S KJ92
H QT32
D A5
C A73

Partner responded 1D and there was no interference.
As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

Jerry D.

The background fact is that a 1♥ responder is unlikely both to have a ♠ suit and a hand that will pass 1NT. Less likely than you might think if you haven't done the tedious computation. So you should rebid 1♠ only if you don't have clear positionsl reason to declare 1NT.

I would say that hand 1 has no particular reason to be declarer, so 1♠ it is.

In hand 2 you have tenace positions in both majors, so 1NT

[msjennifer]

Sir,
My answers are ae under,
Hand 1) A straightforward 1Spade. There are two reasons for this.(1)Partner HAS AS YET NOT DENIED a four card spade suit.My bid of one spade DOES NOT show an unbalanced hand at all when the bid is made at THE LEVEL OF ONE.That it does is stretching the imagination too far.2)I certainly do not wish to see a spade opening lead going through responders Ax of Spade when One blindly bids 1NT.
Hand 2)Nothing easier than a natural ONE HEART rebid on this hand.It does not deny a four card spade suit at all.
Thanks.
PS.Sorry but I beg to differ with those who try to impress that 1S shows an unbalanced hand.We can not afford to suppress a 4 Card suit at the level of one.It just does not fit in the modern age CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH bidding at all.And lastly to recall I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO BID PROGRESSIVELY IN A FOUR CARD MAJOR SYSTEM.

[miamijd]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-June-13, 15:53, said:

Hand #1:

Strictly a style question. There are very strong players in any of 3 camps:

1. Always rebid spades.
2. Never rebid spades, always bid 1nt with no fit for partner's major.
3. Usually rebid spades, but bid 1nt with specifically 4333.

All of the three have their own particular strengths and weaknesses which you can google search this forum for (bypassing spades to bid 1nt) to get the arguments for and against.


Hand #2.Also strictly a style question. Most players play "Walsh" style these days in which responder is expected to bid a major in preference to diamonds unless holding game forcing (for some game invitational) values, so opener is expected to bid 1nt for concealment purposes. Responder doesn't have a major or will be strong enough to introduce one over 1nt.

But if you are playing an up-the-line style, there aren't any good reasons on these sort of auctions not to bid hearts first. If you bid hearts first, you find fit in either hearts or spades if responder has it. If you bid spades, hearts will often be lost.

+1

[Povratnik]

It depends on your general agreements. To avoid fancy terms like "Walsh style", I'll make two separate questions:
a) With 1♥, has your partner denied longer ♦ suit?
b) With 1♦, has your partner denied 4 card major suit?

In both hands, I'll bid 1NT IF ALLOWED. (Allowed means - by skipping a major suit, I don't deny having four cards)
So:

- In the first hand, I am bidding 1♠ if I have to; 1NT otherwise.
- In the second hand, I am bidding 1♥ if I have to; 1NT otherwise. I don't see a reason to ever bid 1♠; even if I have ♥5432 (instead of ♥QT32), my answer is still the same...

[AL78]

This comes down to partnership discussion. In my university days, my partner and I agreed that 1x - 1y - 1M could be 4-4 and strong balanced (we played weak NT) and is one round forcing. Another more recent partner used to bid the major if it was biddable, which means it has an honor card. With other people I've always rebid 1NT to show the shape and strength (playing weak NT). There are advantages and disadvantages of each method.

[KingCovert]

Reading the original post, I'm choosing to place a bit more emphasis on what I think are the most important parts of the post:

Quote

What rules or logic would you use to decide whether or not to show that
4 card spade suit?

Quote

As opener would you rebid strictly up-the-line or prefer the better spade suit?

I don't really feel that this thread is asking what treatments are possible/viable here, but, rather, which treatment we believe to be best?

I think that the options have been clearly presented already by others, so, here's my two cents: I'd rebid 1NT on both. I realize that others will disagree, but, I generally have many concerns about minor suit openings in 2/1, I'm not a fan of the system in general, and I think this treatment is the best at mitigating them.

My primary concern with a minor suit opener is that it can simply be too many different types of hands. It can be a weak balanced hand (12-14), it can be a strong balanced hand (18-19), it can be a weak unbalanced hand, it can be an intermediate hand with a long single-suited minor, it can be a strong hand with a long minor, or it can be a reverse. Which is really to say that a minor suit opening says almost nothing about what your hand is, and more about what your hand is not, it's not a 2NT opener, not a 1NT opener and doesn't contain a 5-card major (unless you have some 6-5 I guess).

It's primarily for this reason that I find minor suit openings in 2/1 to be incredibly easy to take advantage of by competing aggressively with agreements designed to place an emphasis on describing shape. But... this point is irrelevant given that these are uncontested auctions.

To return to the topic at hand, I think it would be advisable to bother to tell your partner what kind of hand you actually have, at some point, and I don't see a good reason why this isn't the time given these fairly boring hands. 1NT clearly states that you have a weak balanced opening hand, and partner can adjust expectations accordingly.

As with most treatments, there are hands that you will get worse results on, and hands that you will get better results on, but, I think that you will generally be more able to arrive at sane contracts and avoid a lot of train-wrecks that can only occur by bidding a major here. Responder is now also better able to understand when to penalize, or how high to compete if opponents decide to balance. I'm sure that extremely experienced pairs will be able to navigate this effectively without re-bidding 1NT here, but, frankly, having to exercise that much judgement in such a routine sequence is itself an indictment of the sequence.

[jerdonald]

BBO,
Thanks for all the opinions.

No consensus but everyone seems to agree that, no matter what, a partnership
agreement is a must with both these hands.

Jerry D

[mycroft]

That seems pretty accurate. If I was playing pickup, I would expect to see 1NT or 1S on the first hand, or 1NT or 1H on the second, pretty much "at random" (but in my area, I'd bet on the suit with a weaker partner, and bet on 1NT with a stronger one. Just our area's styles).

I have played, in the space of one week (many years ago):

• Never bypass a 4-card major;
  
• 1C-1red; 1S promises 4-4 at least in the blacks, with only 3 clubs, bid 1NT;
  
• Always bid 1NT with a balanced hand (because we played weak NT, it was critical to get "back to the field" with 15-17 balanced)
  
• 1m-1H, don't bypass 4 spades, but 1C-1D, bypass any 4cM (because we played that responder bypassed diamonds to show a 4cM with a "one-bid" hand)

My personal preferred style is "balanced hands are balanced hands, bid them that way, not like two-suiters"; with detailed enough followups, this works. So does (almost) any other style, provided there are detailed enough followups that take the style into account.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-June-18, 10:36, said:

My personal preferred style is "balanced hands are balanced hands, bid them that way, not like two-suiters"; with detailed enough followups, this works. So does (almost) any other style, provided there are detailed enough followups that take the style into account.

Yes, it is more descriptive and helpful to partner that if you open, say 1♣ and rebid 1♠ you are promising 4-5 in the blacks (or, rarely, 4(14)4) than 4-3. A small additional advantage is that if opener becomes declarer in NT her major length is not revealed if responder is not interested in checking back. Of course the strong notrumpers will reveal even less, as it may go 1NT AP. And they will be less prone to overcallers.

As an aside, a lot of people have adopted the strong NT in recent years, and even 2/1 GF. Tends to be the stronger players, if only because the lesser players will never change their methods. It makes me wonder if switching to this method makes sense in a qualifying event, and then in the final play what you think is best.

[mycroft]

I have that style whether I'm playing with my one regular partner (that plays K/S in a "universal" strong NT world), or my other one (playing pretty much "Flight A field", including 2/1. She's one of the best card players in the room, and prefers to win in the play.) But like many other things, I'll play what partner wants (if I can), because what the agreement is isn't as important as not having an agreement.

[DavidKok]

Vampyr, on 2020-June-18, 12:34, said:

Yes, it is more descriptive and helpful to partner that if you open, say 1♣ and rebid 1♠ you are promising 4-5 in the blacks (or, rarely, 4(14)4) than 4-3. A small additional advantage is that if opener becomes declarer in NT her major length is not revealed if responder is not interested in checking back. Of course the strong notrumpers will reveal even less, as it may go 1NT AP. And they will be less prone to overcallers.

As an aside, a lot of people have adopted the strong NT in recent years, and even 2/1 GF. Tends to be the stronger players, if only because the lesser players will never change their methods. It makes me wonder if switching to this method makes sense in a qualifying event, and then in the final play what you think is best.

I wouldn't dare to suggest that either one is better than the other. But a lot of this discussion has felt very alien to me - I play a Dutch Doubleton (a popular flavour is 1♣ promising 2+, 1♦ promising 5+ or 4=4=4=1, although not quite what I prefer) with some extensive agreements after a 1♣ opening by partner. We simply do not have any of the problems discussed here. All of this was discussed once years ago, written into the system of responses and not been a problem since.

Also here in strong NT land I notice a lot of people are mixing in the weak NT openings as an aggressive weapon. The 'chicken NT', weak in 1st/2nd hand at favourable vulnerability and strong in all other positions, seems to be gaining in popularity especially rapidly.