[mangurian]

My partner and I are disagreeing on the following. We play 12-14 HCP weak NT.

After the sequence:
1m=1M

He wants the opener to rebid 1NT with 15-17 balanced and 4 card support in the major.
I prefer to show immediate support with 4 of partner's major.

He says, if systems are on after the 1NT rebid, we will still find the 4-4 fit.

Can some of you tell me the pluses and minuses of each alternative agreement ?
Thanks

[ahydra]

Hand evaluation with a fit vs an apparent misfit can be very different. I would be very reluctant to play a system where you don't support immediately with a primary fit. In addition, if responder is forced to check back for a 4-4 fit, this could leak information when opener doesn't actually have a fit - playing that an NT rebid denies a fit, with just 4 cards in the major responder can simply jump straight to 3NT.

One advantage of this system is that 15-16 BAL hands with 4-card support can be awkward to bid otherwise - they're worth more than a single raise, but less than a double raise due to lack of shape. One workaround I once devised for this is in a T-Walsh context 1C-1R; 3D, which is otherwise unused (since 2D is a forcing reverse), to show this hand.

ahydra

[helene_t]

With 15-16 you just raise. The raise doesn't show a minimum: since you didn't open 1NT, you have either a singleton OR a king more than a minimum. Since a singleton is almost as worthy as a king when you have a major fit, this is actually quite good. Strong-notrumpers probably make the single raise with 13 HCP plus a singleton and a jump raise with 14 HCP plus a singleton. Playing weak NT, your raises are more tight.

On the other hand, weak NT doesn't blend well with 3-card raises. If
1♣-1♠
2♠
can be a balanced 16 with 4-card support but also a 3415 11-count, responder has a problem with 10 points and a 4-card spades.

So you may agree not to raise with 3 and a bare minimum, and/or agree that both
1♣-1♠
2♠-2NT
3♣
and
1♣-1♠
2♠-3♣
are non-forcing.

[johnu]

mangurian, on 2019-September-04, 16:32, said:

He says, if systems are on after the 1NT rebid, we will still find the 4-4 fit.

That is a very shortsighted argument.

First, it assumes responder has enough to bid over 1NT. Obviously that is not the case and responder will have to pass 1NT with some frequency.

Second, some of the time you are going to leak information to the defense when you are looking for a fit after the 1NT rebid. If opener was able to immediately raise you wouldn't be in that situation.

[Vampyr]

johnu, on 2019-September-04, 17:44, said:

That is a very shortsighted argument.

First, it assumes responder has enough to bid over 1NT. Obviously that is not the case and responder will have to pass 1NT with some frequency.

Second, some of the time you are going to leak information to the defense when you are looking for a fit after the 1NT rebid. If opener was able to immediately raise you wouldn't be in that situation.

Also it seems to me that if you are using Checkback looking for 4-card support, you will have a problem finding 5-3 fits.

[awm]

This method seems better than people think. You don't need to do anything special with checkback. If you just make a value bid, partner can correct:

1m - 1M - 1NT - 2NT - 3M
1m - 1M - 1NT - 3NT - 4M

If you would normally check back, using 2-way nmf:

1m - 1M - 1NT - 2♣ - 2M (2♣ is normally puppet to 2♦; this bid that normally wouldn't exist shows 4-fit)
1m - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ - 3M (here 2M shows 3-fit, 3M is not used as most play this method and can show 4-fit and set trump)

As for hands that evaluate very differently in the presence of 4-card support, these hands usually have quite a bit of shape. That means they're unlikely to pass after the 1NT rebid, and you can have:

1m - 1M - 1NT - 2M - 3M (at least you have a nine-card fit here)
1m - 1M - 1NT... try to sign off in 3m... 3M

As best I can tell, the only significant disadvantage to rebidding 1NT is when partner has a pass of the rebid. This is not insignificant, but you do have field protection (assuming the field plays strong notrump) and you're pretty unlikely to miss a game this way. Of course, the only significant advantage is that 1m - 1M - 2M has the normal range and can handle three-card support on minimum shapely hands (this is a problem otherwise, as Helene points out upthread).

[johnu]

Vampyr, on 2019-September-04, 19:18, said:

Also it seems to me that if you are using Checkback looking for 4-card support, you will have a problem finding 5-3 fits.

OP said systems on. Could mean different things to different players, but could systems on mean Stayman and transfers? I've never heard of Checkback, 2 way NMF, XYZ, etc referred to as systems on.

[sfi]

awm, on 2019-September-04, 20:03, said:

As best I can tell, the only significant disadvantage to rebidding 1NT is when partner has a pass of the rebid.

The more significant issue is that you have opponents who are not only listening but ready to double artificial bids. As others point out above, adding extra rounds to the bidding runs the real risk of helping the opponents more than the declaring side. Not doubling an artificial bid also passes information, so it's hard to avoid being worse off than people who just raise with these hands.

Even rebidding 1NT when you know you are playing in spades will help opening leader - dummy is less likely to have a long suit for tricks or to provide quick ruffs.

[ahydra]

helene_t, on 2019-September-04, 17:01, said:

With 15-16 you just raise. The raise doesn't show a minimum: since you didn't open 1NT, you have either a singleton OR a king more than a minimum.

After e.g. 1C-1S can you not have a minimum 4225? (With hearts and poor clubs you may wish to open 1NT on a 2425 to avoid rebid issues over 1C-1S, but I wouldn't expect anyone to do the same with 4225, unless the hand really screamed out for NT with a bunch of tenaces.)

ahydra

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2019-September-04, 20:55, said:

After e.g. 1C-1S can you not have a minimum 4225? (With hearts and poor clubs you may wish to open 1NT on a 2425 to avoid rebid issues over 1C-1S, but I wouldn't expect anyone to do the same with 4225, unless the hand really screamed out for NT with poor clubs and a bunch of tenaces.)

ahydra

Yeah, good point, although some count two doubletons as similar to a singleton I think that if the hand doesn't scream of notrumps then it has some distributional values. With KQxx-Ax-xx-QJxxx I think it's not a bare minimum when we have a spades fit, although I admit it's not as good as a typical balanced 15-count.

When I played in England I found myself opening 1NT about twice as often as most others. So this obviously depends on your style.

[Tramticket]

You haven't mentioned what the rest of your system is. In particular, do you play four-card or five-card majors?

I play a weak NT in combination with four-card majors. Our solution to your problem is simple: we open the four-card major! With two four-card suits we will always open the major in preference to the minor.

[Tramticket]

helene_t, on 2019-September-04, 21:02, said:

Yeah, good point, although some count two doubletons as similar to a singleton I think that if the hand doesn't scream of notrumps then it has some distributional values. With KQxx-Ax-xx-QJxxx I think it's not a bare minimum when we have a spades fit, although I admit it's not as good as a typical balanced 15-count.

When I played in England I found myself opening 1NT about twice as often as most others. So this obviously depends on your style.

The other problem distribution is a minimum 4414. Yes, you have a singleton, but you do not have the playing strength that would usually be expected.

Having said that, 4441 hands are problems for most bidding systems.

[FelicityR]

mangurian, on 2019-September-04, 16:32, said:

My partner and I are disagreeing on the following. We play 12-14 HCP weak NT.

After the sequence:
1m=1M

He wants the opener to rebid 1NT with 15-17 balanced and 4 card support in the major.
I prefer to show immediate support with 4 of partner's major.

He says, if systems are on after the 1NT rebid, we will still find the 4-4 fit.

Can some of you tell me the pluses and minuses of each alternative agreement ?
Thanks

A fit is a fit is a fit is a fit...and supressing it is just anti-bridge. There's a billion reasons why your partner is wrong and that is down to a gentleman called Sam Stayman and his namesake convention that has probably - can some other bridge player confirm this - been used more times than any other convention. Just look at this situation as a 'backwards version of Stayman'

As other commentators have rightly said, evaluating and raising a fit with hands in the 15-17 range could prove slightly problematic but after a 1m - 1M auction assuming you play 5 card majors (given that your profile says that you are from the USA), responder will either have a 5-6+ HCP hand with a four card major, or a 5 card major in a slightly lesser hand.

The 4-4 fit will usually play for a trick or two more than a NT contract, and supressing the fit and using some checkback after rebidding 1NT just gives information to the opposition.

I would be more worried as a responder where my 4 card major has been raised to the two level by opener, not quite knowing if he/she a 3 card fit or a 4 card one, and using some form of checkback here might be useful if responder has game values, but looking for a NT contract when you definitely have a 4-4 fit is taking things too far. Only once in a blue moon will no-trumps play better than 4 of a major.

[rmnka447]

Maybe you should think seriously about redefining the bidding structure over one of a minor. The only minimum hands that occur are unbalanced minor hands. Most of those can be handled by a simple rebid in the minor

1 m - 1 M
2 m

always shows the minimum minor hand. This is the scheme adopted by Edgar Kaplan way back when for the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system. All the other rebids imply stronger hands. This makes sense since something like 65 % of the hands that are opened 1 m when playing weak NTs are more than minimum range openers. In K-S, the major raises are upgrade to reflect the following ranges -

2 M 15-17 and 4 trump
3 M 18-19 and 4 trump
4 M flattish 20 and 4 trump that you decide not to open 2 NT.

If you have 4 card support in a minimum unbalanced minor hand, you can still raise to 2 M as likely you have distributional values that get you up to 15-17 value. The number of hands where you get too high is infrequent enough as to be not much of an issue.

[Stefan_O]

mangurian, on 2019-September-04, 16:32, said:

He wants the opener to rebid 1NT with 15-17 balanced and 4 card support in the major.

What a brilliant idea.

But only if you enjoy going for +90 or -50, when you have +140 or +110 in the cards.

[Vampyr]

awm, on 2019-September-04, 20:03, said:

If you would normally check back, using 2-way nmf:

1m - 1M - 1NT - 2♣ - 2M (2♣ is normally puppet to 2♦; this bid that normally wouldn't exist shows 4-fit)
1m - 1M - 1NT - 2♦ - 3M (here 2M shows 3-fit, 3M is not used as most play this method and can show 4-fit and set trump)

Unfamiliar with 2-way nmf. 2-way Checkback is very different.

[HardVector]

Look up playing a short club with transfer responses. Will solve all these problems.

[steve2005]

Don't hide 4-card trump support even if 4-3-3-3.

[steve2005]

johnu, on 2019-September-04, 17:44, said:

That is a very shortsighted argument.

First, it assumes responder has enough to bid over 1NT. Obviously that is not the case and responder will have to pass 1NT with some frequency.

Second, some of the time you are going to leak information to the defense when you are looking for a fit after the 1NT rebid. If opener was able to immediately raise you wouldn't be in that situation.

Thirdly responder can have a hand worth a slam try opposite 4-card support. Responder will be delayed until much higher in finding out support.

[GrahamJson]

Curiously nobody has suggested opening one of the major. That seems to be the modern Acol style.