[the hog]

"On xx xxx AKx KQxxx I rebid 1N."

I would certainly bid 2H on that hand. I think that is a far superior bid to 1NT. You have 3 card support and a ruffing value. Furthermore the xx is precisely that - an honourless doubleton. Give me Qx xxx KQx AQxxx otoh and I think 1NT is superior.

[Jboling]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2006, 02:26 PM, said:

You hold x Ax Kxxx AKQ9xx. You open 1C, 1S on your left, X by partner, pass on your right.

Question #1: does 2D show extras?
Question #2: what do you bid?

For me 2D does not show extras, and I would like to add a hand to the discussion, what is you rebid with xxx-AQ-xxxx-AQxx? If 2D show extras you have to open 1D with that hand.

I might have rebid 3D given the current hand, 3C is my second choice. 2S gets you into trouble after the most likely bid 3H from partner, as awm pointed out. You have to rebid 4C, 3S sounds like a cue-bid with hearts set as trumps.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Nov 1 2006, 12:48 AM, said:

On xx xxx AKx KQxxx I rebid 1N.

(...)

And bidding 2♣ is WRONG.

I don't think responding 2♣ to the dbl is 'wrong', but I do agree 1NT is the lesser distortion and certainly would rank #1 among my choices. Shape and strength come (or should come!) before stoppers and 1NT is perfect in this respect.

[bid_em_up]

Mikeh,

Please note, I am not saying your arguments for 2♦ requiring extra are without merit. They certainly make sense and have some valid points.

However, I'm really surprised by them knowing that you normally prefer to open 1♣ on 4-4 in minors that you now want 2♦ to require extra after the neg X. The only time you are really screwed by bidding 2♦ (not showing extras) is if you have extras AND 2♦ is passed out. The simplest solution to playing 2♦ as not promising extras in this sequence is to apply the contingent that it is quasi-forcing for one round (opposite a normal neg X). (By quasi-forcing, I mean only very rarely will 2D actually be passed by partner).

Seriously, how frequently would you expect 2♦ to be passed out here (either by partner or opps), even without this agreement? If it does get passed out, how likely is it that you have missed anything? At the moment, I'm having a hard time coming up with a hand that partner could make a neg X on, AND pass the 2♦ bid where we could miss anything even without this agreement. The given hand is about as close as it could come, and even it should raise to 3♦, imo.

If you treat it as quasi-forcing, whats the worse thats going to happen? Partner raises to 3♦ (his weakest available bid besides pass)? If you have extra values, then either 4♣ or 4♦ should be reasonably safe and you're still free to show the extra over 3♦ now. On this hand, I can now make another call showing extras (3♠, most likely). On weaker hands, you're free to pass 3♦. If you play manage to play 3♣ or 3♦ and go -1 or 2 (favorable, undoubled), is that necessarily going to be a terrible result? (Opps should make 2 or 3 spades if this is the case).

If, over 2♦, partner has a spade stop and normal neg X, he's free to show it via 2N, show a better than min neg X via 2♠, show club support with 3♣ (if he X'd on 3-4-2-4 or similar). You will also now find the diamond fit whenever one is one available to you. This, in and of itself, outweighs the extra/noextra problem in my opinion. If 2♦ is going to be passed out, then isnt it just as likely 2♣ will be passed out as well?. If I am playing 2 of a minor, I would much prefer to play my 4-4/5/6 diamond fit, than the 5-1/5-2 club fit and I think you would also.

As always, jmoo.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Nov 1 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

However, I'm really surprised by them knowing that you normally prefer to open 1♣ on 4-4 in minors that you now want 2♦ to require extra after the neg X.

You have me confused with someone else Richie Reisig and I are continually abusing each other (in good fun) about our views on this issue. He is a firm believer (as is Roland, I think, amongst other good players) in opening 1♣ on 4=4 in the minors, and I find it incomprehensible that such fine players could be so utterly misguided!

I am a 1♦ opener on 4=4 and (almost always) a 1♣ opener on 4=5. Indeed, if you reread my posts, you will see that I think that the 1♣ [1♠] x [P] sequence under discussion is horrible for the 1♣ on 4=4 school.

[whereagles]

French school of bidding opens 1♦ on 44 minors, BUT...

If opener has a balanced min (12 or bad 13) with 44m or 4♦3♣, a 1♣ opener is advised, so that the dreaded 1♦-2♣-2NT as 12-14, which leads to responder occasionally overbidding to 3NT on 10-11, is avoided. With this slight twist, the 2NT rebid always shows a good 13 or 14.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Nov 1 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

You have me confused with someone else Richie Reisig and I are continually abusing each other (in good fun) about our views on this issue. He is a firm believer (as is Roland, I think, amongst other good players) in opening 1♣ on 4=4 in the minors, and I find it incomprehensible that such fine players could be so utterly misguided!

I am a 1♦ opener on 4=4 and (almost always) a 1♣ opener on 4=5. Indeed, if you reread my posts, you will see that I think that the 1♣ [1♠] x [P] sequence under discussion is horrible for the 1♣ on 4=4 school.

Hmmm, ok. Getting senile in my old age, because I would have sworn where I had seen you state this (that you open 1C on 4-4) elsewhere in the forums.

Forget what I said then.