[microcap]

Playing 2/1, you hold

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps all pass. You open 1♦. Partner responds 1♠.

What is your rebid choice and why?

[mike777]

3s no problem yet.

why? I open quite a wide range of one level bids. When I got 4 card support and extras I need to show it. 6-4 and 16 support points, 4 card support, excellent trump cards, etc...

I think this is just a bit shy of rebidding 4d or 4s and I leave room for pard to cue.

[mtvesuvius]

Many people play that 4 of the opened minor after 1m - 1M shows 6m and 4M. IMO this is too weak for that bid. I also play with several people that 3♠ shows a Distrubutional Raise, and that 3♥ is a HCP Raise with 4♥ being a splinter. So I will bid 3♠, which for me would be a distrubutional raise... Without these agreements I will still bid 3♠, but just not as happily.

The followup question is?

[mikeh]

2♠

The opps are silent, so partner rates to have a decent to good hand and the last thing I want to do is to suggest more than I have. This hand is NOT the same as KQxx x AQJ10xx xx, as an example. Nor is it as good as KQxx x QJ10xxx Ax.

I far prefer to limit my hand and then go nuts when partner asks me how I like my hand, compared to overbidding and then spending the rest of the auction hoping we can stop at a making contract.

It helps to have gadgets available. It also helps to play weak notrumps, and that may be influencing my choice here, altho I am trying to bid within the framework of a 15-17 range. When playing 12-14 or so, 2♠ shows the playing equivalent of a strong notrump, so partner will always bid aggressively. More to the point here, I expect partner to bid anyway... so long as he makes some move other than a simple game bid, I expect to be happy with my choice... and even if all he does is 4♠, we haven't taken 12 tricks yet.

[Echognome]

mikeh, on May 11 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

<snip>When playing 12-14 or so, 2♠ shows the playing equivalent of a strong notrump, so partner will always bid aggressively. <snip>

I haven't played a weak NT regularly in a few years, but is this really true?

How would you bid after 1♣ - 1♠ with:

♠Kxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxx

or

♠Kxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣KQxxx

The same way as with:

♠Kxxx ♥AQx ♦Ax ♣KT9x

Maybe I just don't understand what is standard there?


Anyway, putting that all aside, I think I would bid 3♥ as a mini-splinter if available, although I find it close to being a 2♠ call. I just think we have some pretty good playing strength and should try to show it. I don't think it's the perfect call, as I try to avoid splintering with a stiff A, but I'll view it as my choice from the lot.

[mikeh]

Echognome, on May 11 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 11 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

<snip>When playing 12-14 or so, 2♠ shows the playing equivalent of a strong notrump, so partner will always bid aggressively. <snip>

I haven't played a weak NT regularly in a few years, but is this really true?

How would you bid after 1♣ - 1♠ with:

♠Kxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxx

or

♠Kxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣KQxxx

The same way as with:

♠Kxxx ♥AQx ♦Ax ♣KT9x

Maybe I just don't understand what is standard there?

Note I said the playing equivalent of a strong 1N.

In the style of weak notrump to which I am accustomed, and I don't pretend this is universal but I think it is common, the single raise promises 4 card support. Yes, I know about the issues that arise, but you will always have a rebid other than the raise (with 3 card support), since with a balanced hand, you'd have opened 1N. And, yes, I know that this is imperfect... but all bidding methods are imperfect.

Thus Kxxx Axx x KQxxx is a very solid raise of 1♠: surely we all see that opener has the playing strength of at least Kxxx Kxx QJx AQxx?


As for your third example, a control rich balanced 16 count... it is close to a 3♠ raise, which is played as virtually forcing, but I would bid 2♠.

This style seems to work very well: responder can use a gadget (2N over 2♠, 2♠ over 2♥) to enquire, and since he is protected by the knowledge of 4 card support and either 15-17 hcp or shape, he can be aggressive in making a game try... certainly, he bids more aggressively than strong notrumpers do after the same sequence, where opener treats Kxxx Axx x KQxxx exactly the same as Kxxx Qxx Kxx Axx.

[hanp]

Probably no surprise that I would bid 2S.

[rogerclee]

2♠

[the hog]

2S also. Yes, I can understand and sympathise with 3S, but the Ds on this hand are not that great.

[akhare]

microcap, on May 11 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

Playing 2/1, you hold

Scoring: IMP

---

Opps all pass. You open 1♦. Partner responds 1♠.

What is your rebid choice and why?

2♠ -- 3♠ is probably OK, but might get pard too interested...

[whereagles]

I've noticed a tendency to bid 3♠ with shapely min hands like these.

I'd bid 2 or 3 depending on tactical factors. Mostly 2 only, though.

[jmcw]

2♠ why? because 2 1/2♠ not allowed.

[Phil]

3♠ for me. I would not expect partner to move over 2♠ with two big cards.

If I were playing a weak NT, I still might bid 3♠. This is a mighty powerful hand.

[kfay]

3♠, frankly, didn't even cross my mind.

[ArtK78]

2♠.

While it is true that it doesn't take too much to make game, it takes a very specific "not too much" to make game. If you bid 3♠, partner will go on to 4♠ with the wrong "not too much" such as:

JTxxx
KQx
Kxx
xx

If one is going to bid to the 3 level, one might as well bid 3♥ as a mini-splinter if that bid is available to you. Partner will properly discount heart honors and secondary club honors and upgrade cards in your two suits and primary club honors. I know that splintering on a singleton ace is usually discouraged, but that is for slam exploration purposes. For game exploration purposes, one wants partner to be able to evaluate the usefulness of honors.

[skjaeran]

Not so easy, overbid or underbid...
In these situations I normally prefer underbidding, since I'm then very comfortable if partner moves on. This one is very close though, and I'm undecided. At the table I'd most probably raise to 3♠.

[JLOL]

I'd han it up

[y66]

3S. I appreciate the wisdom of 2S but it is wasted on me.