[jmcw]

#1

---

#2

---

Apologies if this has been covered before.

A couple of my favorite partners are split on what is required for North's rebid.

In example #1 partner argues for a hand of reversing strength. I think this makes sense, but would like some expert feedback on the relative merits.

In example #2 there is agreement that no extra strength is required.

I'm interested in what you would rebid something like:

---

---

If 2♦ promises extra's then clearly that rebid cannot be made, but change the red suits around and you have an easy 2♥ call.

Does that make sense?
P.S. If you open these 1♦ then you would not have this problem, for me they are both 1♣

[aguahombre]

Yep, you have the issues correct for the first one. And yes, people didn't agree on earlier threads.

On the second one, all that is for sure is that 2H shows a minimum, and 3H is the same as if responder had bid 1H, instead of having to make a neg double.

Your example for the second one is interesting, and might be why some people choose to open 1D with balanced 4-4.

[gszes]

IMO when p makes a neg x over a 1 level overcall safety
is a huge issue because if opener is minimum there is
no gurantee which side is the strongest. It is easy for
opener to cue bid the overcalled suit with extra values
and save the 2d bid for weaker hands.

what else does opener do with say

x Ax AKQx Jxxxxx or
K Ax AQxx xxxxxx or anyway u get the idea

I would hate to bid 2c with such marvelous diamonds
and if p wants to take me back to clubs that is great
because my hand is much better than before. I also
prefer to open 1d with 44 minors


In your ex 1 I would rebid 2c because your clubs are great
but since you are minimum there is little reason to risk
forcing p to bid clubs at the 3 level.

In your ex 2 I would open 1d and have an easy 2c rebid.

[Flameous]

2♦ indeed is reverse, as partner has said nothing about diamonds.

With hand 1 I'd bid 2♣ and I'm quite happy about it with this good clubs.
With hand 2 I'd just bid 1NT. If we play it there, I don't really care about missing a stopper and partner can still check for it on the way to 3NT.
Or he can bid 2♣ to play as often happens.
Also note that opp wasn't raised, so partner often holds some spades himself.

[mich-b]

Much depends on your style regarding negative doubles:
If you consider the Negative double as a replacement for 1♥ response (the modern way?) then it follows that 2♦ shows reverse values.
If however you consider the Negative Double to be similar to other takeout doubles , then it makes sense for 2♦ to show a minimum hand.

Regarding the 2nd hand: If it bothers you rebidding 1NT with xx in their suit (it does bother me) , then I suggest you open those hands 1♦ and have a 2♣ rebid available if needed.

[han]

Bid as if the auction had gone 1C - 1H.

[Zelandakh]

A leading English pair had a disagreement about this in a major event a couple of years ago so there is scope for this to be an issue even for better players. I think the simplest way is for sequence 1 to be a reverse and sequence 2 a simple raise (ie what everyone else said). On your problem hands, the first can rebid 2C while the second would surely be opened 1D by the majority of players.

[aguahombre]

han, on 2011-September-18, 06:03, said:

Bid as if the auction had gone 1C - 1H.

In every way, with every tool or systemic bid we have at our disposal after 1C - 1H.

Obvious exception would be the 2S bid, which is no longer a natural jump-shift, but is available for some better agreed use we gain because of the 1S overcall.

[Phil]

han, on 2011-September-18, 06:03, said:

Bid as if the auction had gone 1C - 1H.

Yes, I've come around to this. I got tired of being the only one here that played a reverse as NF.

[Gerben42]

The most important issue is that 1NT doesn't promise a stopper. This means that you should ask for one later if you plan to play 3NT.

[helene_t]

Playing 4-card majors (English style, i.e. a major 4-card is opened in preference of a minor 4-card suit) it's a little more affordable to define the negative double as showing both unbid suits. Playing 5-card majors you can't afford not to show a 4-card hearts regardless of your diamond holding.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that 5-card majorites have to play the 2♦ rebid as showing reverse strength. You could play that hand (1) rebids 2♦ and responder will have to take it back to 3♣ with a minimum and less than 3 diamonds.

Hand (2) can't rebid 2♦ in a 5-card major system, though. Either open 1♦ (what most do) or otherwise rebid 1NT or 2♥ according to taste.

There is a growing trend (at least here in England) to opening 1♣ with all 12-14 balanced hands and no 5-card major, possibly even with 3352. If you play that style, hand (2) obviously has to open 1♣. Then hand (2) must rebid 1NT or 2♥.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-18, 09:57, said:

A leading English pair had a disagreement about this in a major event a couple of years ago

I'm surprised to hear that. Who was it?

[han]

Haha, I'm curious as well.

[jmcw]

helene_t, on 2011-September-18, 11:14, said:

Hand (2) can't rebid 2♦ in a 5-card major system, though. Either open 1♦ (what most do) or otherwise rebid 1NT or 2♥ according to taste.

There is a growing trend (at least here in England) to opening 1♣ with all 12-14 balanced hands and no 5-card major, possibly even with 3352. If you play that style, hand (2) obviously has to open 1♣. Then hand (2) must rebid 1NT or 2♥.

Agree with this. Is the trend you mention using transfer responses.