[Walddk]

If I am not mistaken, it is mainstream in North America (perhaps in some places elsewhere too) to rebid a six-card major and ignore a four-card minor with a minimum opening hand.

♠ 7
♥ KQ10943
♦ AJ87
♣ Q4

1♥ - 1♠/1NT
2?

If you rebid 2♥, you show six of your 13 cards; by rebidding 2♦ you show at least nine. I understand that 2♥ shows a minimum, but where I come from 2♦ could be a minimum (11-15) as well as a medium (16-18).

What is the philosophy behind rebidding the major rather than show that your hand is two-suited, not one-suited?

Roland

[mike777]

1) if not disallowed I can open 2h(minimum) with this hand and get it off my chest with one bid.......6h and often second suit ala roth stone...but I assume that is forbidden on bbo so now my hand becomes a max.
2) one heart rebid 2d. Max!

[1eyedjack]

Part of the benefit may be to distinguish the hand from a slightly stronger one that might rebid 2D and then rebid Hearts.

[the hog]

mike777, on Nov 5 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

1) if not disallowed I can open 2h(minimum) with this hand and get it off my chest with one bid.......6h and often second suit ala roth stone...but I assume that is forbidden on bbo so now my hand becomes a max.
2) one heart rebid 2d. Max!

I don't understand this comment Mike. Please explain.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Nov 5 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

1) if not disallowed I can open 2h(minimum) with this hand and get it off my chest with one bid.......6h and often second suit ala roth stone...but I assume that is forbidden on bbo so now my hand becomes a max.
2) one heart  rebid 2d. Max!

Sorry, I don't understand a word of what you are saying. Could you please answer the question I ask? I am not looking for a reply to what a 2♥ opening might show in your methods.

Your post makes me think of cherdano's signature:

"Some other time I will post something useful, sorry."

Roland

[Flame]

im sure i wouldn't bid 2H with bad suit no matter how weak my hand is, but with a good suit like the one in the example i can see the benefit of 2H rather then 2D.
Also i believe after 1NT its more sensible to hide 4m, because we are likely to be in part score or at most in game and in such showing the D suit will rarely help us.

[kenrexford]

Not taking sides here, but...

If you play that a weak two shows 5-11, then...

1♥...2♥ shows a hand with a minimum of 12 HCP and therefore, to some degree, is a "sound" opening hand, more Roth-Stone as a sequence.

If, however, you open many Rule-of-20 hands, then...

1♥...2♦ shows a distributional hand (at least 5-4), such that the minimum with minimal shape is 11, but 10 or 9 HCP is very possible. Hence, a 2♦ rebid might be weaker, in a sense.

So, perhaps the goal of the "mainstream" in North America might be to assure partner of HCP soundness, whereas non-NA folks have more of a focus on shape bids and assuring shape valuation.

One non-NA counter, I would think, to the NA position is that a 2♥ rebid, although promising 12+ HCP, shows what could be a base of 10 losers (6322), with honor cards chipping down that base. A 2♦ rebid, in contrast, shows a base LTC of 9, or a trick better, before honors even kick in. Hence, which is really showing the sound opening?

Another non-NA counter is that precise range is less important than description of the location of value.

If you think about familiarity with bids like a 2♥ opening showing hearts and a minor but some range like maybe 11-16 HCP, or 8-12, but a more focus LTC or trick-taking "range," not so familiar in NA, this all seems to fit together. Whether you use the gadget or not, familiarity with the style suggests a different focus of evaluation and, hence, a different idea as to what to rebid in (perhaps) close-call auctions.

[ArtK78]

There are two reasons that I can think of for the style of rebidding the major with 6 rather than bidding the 4 card minor:

1) Bidding major-minor-major shows a strong hand.
2) An historical preference for the major based on the fact that matchpoint pairs (and, to a lesser extent, BAM) was the predominant form of competition in North America from the 30's through the 80's.

[ASkolnick]

What happens if responder has a 1 bid hand with 2 hearts and 4 diamonds and a 6 count?

He is going to pass the 2D bid, although the 4-4 may be technically superior, it would need to beat the responding 2H bid by 2 tricks.

Playing a Roth-Stone style, changing suits implies extras, so even the minimum could raise to 3.

In NA, game is about finding major suit fits and 3N, Your 4 card suit does not really rate to be trumps.

On this hand, your 6 card suit is very playable opposite a singleton. With responder having 3-1-3-6 and a 1 bid hand playing a forcing NT, What does he bid over 2D?

Now, if my hearts were Kxxxxx and diamonds were AQJx, that would be different.

[helene_t]

I am surprised. I thought the 2♦ rebid was standard, except with a very chunky heart suit.

[han]

What Wald describes was indeed standard quite a while ago, you can for example find it in Stewart's "becoming a bridge expert". I'm not sure what is more common these days, both are fairly common. At IMPs I would almost always bid 2D, at MPs I would bid 2H if my hearts were good and my diamonds were weak. On the actual hand I would be very tempted to bid 2H at MPs thanks to the excellent heart spots. I'd expect 2H in the 6-1 to usually score better than 2D in the 4-4 for example.

When you get another chance to bid then you can usually show your 6-4 shape. An advantage of 2H is that the auction 1H-1NT-2H-2NT-3D is NF while 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is forcing. On the hands where partner is weak you probably do better after a 2D rebid as that is more likely to land you in a playable spot. Again, the stronger the hearts, the less likely this is. 2D can also gain when you have a big diamond fit and partner would pass 2H. On the ctual hand with the slow heart cards this is not very likely.

By the way, I have never found the argument "you describe 9 cards instead of 6" very convincing. You can apply the same argument to make a case for opening 1NT on a 2524 shape (after all, you would describe 8 cards instead of 5!).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if you play a forcing NT, e.g. you have agreed to
play 2/1, than openers rebid in a minor does not
necessarilly promise a 4 card suit.

As an example take the sequence

1S - 1 NT (1)
???

(1) forcing

The question is, what do you bid with 5332 and
12-14.

You can bid 2S, in which case 2S does not promise a
carder, you can bid 2 NT, which may be too high, if
the forcing NT contains hands with 4-7 and 3 spades,
or you can invent a minor.

If you like, that 2S showes 6 cards, than you have to
bid a minor, hence the statement, if I bid 2m I show
9 cards, if I bid 2M I show 6, is not true, at least for
such a system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Edmunte1]

Walddk, on Nov 5 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

If I am not mistaken, it is mainstream in North America (perhaps in some places elsewhere too) to rebid a six-card major and ignore a four-card minor with a minimum opening hand.

I think that many strong partnerships use this method, and i think it has certain advantages:
a)usually second bid defines hand type, balanced, one suiter or two-suiter, third bid if possible adding more clarification about extraforce +/- extrashape
b ) on minimum hands that are not affording 3rd bid, usually it's more important showing a-6 carder because:
- when partner holds 2 hearts can invite on marginal hands and can place the contract in the right strain(4M instead of 3nt)
- playing a 6-1 major fit is better than a 4-3 minor fit
c) after defining first suit, a 6-carder (6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1, 6-4-2-1, 6-4-3-0 shapes) is more frequent than a 5-4+ two-suiter (5-4-2-2, 5-4-3-1, 5-5-2-1, 5-5-3-0, 6-4-2-1, 6-4-3-0 shapes) with second suit specified
d) as Han said, some sequences are better defined: 1H-1NT-2H-2NT-3D is NF while 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is forcing.

[andy_h]

Been here before, and I still stick by it.
Form of scoring is also important as Han pointed out.

http://forums.bridge...topic=24279&hl=

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Nov 5 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

An advantage of 2H is that the auction 1H-1NT-2H-2NT-3D is NF while 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is forcing.

Isn't this fact a consequence of the decision to rebid 2H on minimum hands? If (for the sake of argument), you generally rebid 2D on all 2-suiters, then you would not play 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H as forcing (and the first auction wouldn't exist).

Or do you mean that being able to play 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H as forcing is one reason to play this way in the first place?

Of course, in Acol-land, the auction 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT doesn't really exist, so yuo wouldn't have this problem.

[pclayton]

I guess I'm old-fashioned. With a weak 6-4, it would not occur to me to rebid 2♦. Would I ever leave pard in 2N with this pattern?

Similarly, a 'two-step' sequence like 1♥ - 1N - 2♦ - 2N - 3♥ HAS to be forcing.

What I don't understand is the rationale behind rebidding 2♦ on Roland's hand. Is it simply to find a better partial?

[jdonn]

han, on Nov 5 2008, 10:21 AM, said:

By the way, I have never found the argument "you describe 9 cards instead of 6" very convincing. You can apply the same argument to make a case for opening 1NT on a 2524 shape (after all, you would describe 8 cards instead of 5!).

If you had to make an argument to open 1NT with that shape, I think that's the best one!

[han]

I don't. Better arguments are "it is the value bid", "it will make auctions easier" and "it will often rightside the contract". Of course the last one only applies sometimes, and if it doesn't it wouldn't be a good idea to open 1NT anyway.

[han]

Quote

Isn't this fact a consequence of the decision to rebid 2H on minimum hands? If (for the sake of argument), you generally rebid 2D on all 2-suiters, then you would not play 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H as forcing (and the first auction wouldn't exist).

Or do you mean that being able to play 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H as forcing is one reason to play this way in the first place?

Of course, in Acol-land, the auction 1H - 1NT - 2D - 2NT doesn't really exist, so yuo wouldn't have this problem.

The question was why some North Americans would bid 2H, so Acol is irrelevant. If the auction 1H-1NT-2D-2NT doesn't exist for you then imagine I wrote 1H-1S-2D-2NT.

The fact that a Limit Bidder might play that 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is non-forcing is also irrelevant, as far as I know North Americans play that 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is forcing. That includes North Americans like myself who rebid 2D instead of 2H on minimal hands.