1C-1H, 1S how many clubs?
#1
Posted 2015-September-12, 07:16
1♣-1♥, 1♠
TIA,
jogs
#2
Posted 2015-September-12, 08:23
With 4=3=3=3
1♣-1♥, ?
Do you rebid 1♠? That means could be 3 clubs.
or
Do you rebid 1NT? That means 1♠ promises 4+ clubs.
#3
Posted 2015-September-12, 08:43
jogs, on 2015-September-12, 08:23, said:
With 4=3=3=3
1♣-1♥, ?
Do you rebid 1♠? That means could be 3 clubs.
or
Do you rebid 1NT? That means 1♠ promises 4+ clubs.
Whether you bid 1♠ or 1NT will largely depend on whether you have a way to check back.
#4
Posted 2015-September-12, 10:59
Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:
2/1 definitely has that ability and I believe SAYC does too. In my 2/1 partnership it promises 5+ clubs. We are allergic to re-bidding 1nt with a singleton and a 4-1-4-4 would have opened 1♦.
What is baby oil made of?
#5
Posted 2015-September-12, 12:32
Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:
The bidding rules for both SAYC and BWS say opener always rebids the major: SAYC has no checkback convention, BWS New Minor Forcing. Kantar preaches the NT rebid, whether or not a conventional check back is present.
#7
Posted 2015-September-12, 14:48
ggwhiz, on 2015-September-12, 10:59, said:
That is fine but obviously OP would do thing differently.
jogs, on 2015-September-12, 12:41, said:
I think one should respond 1NT with no way to check back.
If you have a strong opinion why are you asking for the opinions of others?
#9
Posted 2015-September-12, 15:38
Vampyr, on 2015-September-12, 08:43, said:
You can always find the spade fit by bidding
1♣-1♥
1NT-2♠
3♠
I don't see that it matters. It's about how bad it is to miss the spade fit when responder passes the 1nt rebid. No check-back convention can fix that unless opps can be expected to accept insufficient bids.
#10
Posted 2015-September-12, 16:37
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2015-September-13, 02:55
blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 16:37, said:
At least here in England it is practically unheard of.
#12
Posted 2015-September-13, 02:56
helene_t, on 2015-September-12, 15:38, said:
1♣-1♥
1NT-2♠
3♠
I don't see that it matters. It's about how bad it is to miss the spade fit when responder passes the 1nt rebid. No check-back convention can fix that unless opps can be expected to accept insufficient bids.
Come back, 4-card majors, all is forgiven.
#13
Posted 2015-September-13, 02:59
Does the same theory hold for players who select "better minor" and open 1D and then bid a S over 1H? Bid 2 suits, yyou need to have a reason, and 4 X 3 to me is a eason to tell partner about my balanced hand.
#14
Posted 2015-September-13, 06:20
Every method has its advantages as well as its disadvantages:
- In the typical American agreement of routinely bypassing 4♠ when balanced you end up playing 1NT from the right side more often than not, and you can also show a real ♣ suit when rebidding 1♠.
- In the typical Italian agreement of always bidding suits up the line, you never miss a 4-4 ♠ fit and you can improve your part-score bidding when responder has 5+♥ and 4♠, because after opener rebids 1NT you can be sure he doesn't have 4♠ so you can confidently bid 2♥. On the other hand, I have been living in Virginia for a few months and while playing there I noticed how, by skipping the 1♠ rebid, you end up playing 2♠ in the Moysian fit or 2NT or 3♥ instead of a more convenient 2♥ because responder with 5+♥ and 4♠ isn't sure about the possibility of a Spade fit and has to check back by bidding 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ (if you play XYZ), which is often too high when partner does not have 4♠.
In my opinion, the right-siding of 1NT is not a sufficient compensation for the loss of a 4-4 Major fit, and the presence of a real ♣ suit can almost always be shown later in the auction, so I prefer bidding suits up the line.
#15
Posted 2015-September-13, 08:00
#16
Posted 2015-September-13, 16:01
The disadvantage of this approach is that partner doesn't know if I have a real ♣ suit.
The advantage is that I can play in 1♠ when partner can't afford to check back. That could be a 7-card fit since partner should probably pass with 3-(5-4)-1 and no reason to rebid 1NT.
If partner has a 4-card ♠ suit and a hand good enough to check back then it probably doesn't make any difference.
#17
Posted 2015-September-13, 16:04
dave_beer, on 2015-September-13, 16:01, said:
If he wanted to know that he could have just agreed to play T-Walsh.
-- Bertrand Russell
#18
Posted 2015-September-13, 22:19
blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 16:37, said:
It has any been only recently students of the game have been studying how tricks are generated. 4432//4333. When HCPs are 19-24, The 4-4 fit makes about 0.5 tricks more than in notrumps. There is no advantage in playing in a suit one level higher.
Have there been any good books on theory(of how tricks are generated) written in the last 20 years?
#19
Posted 2015-September-14, 10:13
jogs, on 2015-September-13, 22:19, said:
Have there been any good books on theory(of how tricks are generated) written in the last 20 years?
Responder might not be balanced, in which case 4-4 fit is much better than NT.
Pavlicek's data does not show a profit for skipping 4-4 fit even if it is 4333 opposite 4432
http://www.rpbridge.net/8z17.htm#2
#20
Posted 2015-September-14, 10:35
yunling, on 2015-September-14, 10:13, said:
Pavlicek's data does not show a profit for skipping 4-4 fit even if it is 4333 opposite 4432
http://www.rpbridge.net/8z17.htm#2
Pavlicek has a strange way of selecting hands included in his study.
In testing hypothesis one selects conditions. Like 4432//4333 and 19 to 24 HCP.
Pavlicek viewed the results and only chose observations where at least one contract makes.
DD analysis has a bias favoring defenders in notrump contracts.
When HCPs are 20/20, the declarer averages less than 6.2 tricks.
I've done my own study. In real play on BBO minis declarers
average better than 6.8 tricks.
You must have seen this yourself. Both sides made 1NT.
Real people don't find all those killer DD leads.