[P_Marlowe]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-19, 09:41, said:

Here it is much more common to have a way to check back. I wouldn't rebid 1♠ unless I had a specific agreement with partner, otherwise he will not believe I have a weak NT. Of course with virtually all of my partners I will already have opened a weak NT, and am interested if there are people who, playing a weak NT, would not do so.

We play weak NT, but the 1NT opening denies 4 spades unless 4333.
But absent this explicit agreement, I would open 1NT.
They stayman seq. will give the thint, that clubs is a good bet.

Regarding the original post: This is an systemic question.
You take the positive effects, if openers rebid showes / denies a bal.
hands, and you take the negative side effects.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rmnka447]

Playing weak NTs, we'd open the West hand 1 NT and thereafter be fixed by the system.

Playing strong NTs in Standard or 2/1, the bids would likely be the same through at least 3 ♦ assuming 2 ♣ is a 4th suit forcing GF. Minor openers are much more likely in a strong NT context to be minimum hands, so it's easier to lose ♠ if you don't bid them. So, it's fairly rare to bid 1 NT when holding 4 ♠.

IMO, the 3 ♥ temporizing bid was terrific. It sort of implied indecision about where to play and sought partner's opinion. East made the logical choice, but was a bit lucky to find 9 running tricks to go with the protected ♣ stop. Change the ♦ K into the ♥ K and 3 NT is more problematical.

[gszes]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-April-20, 12:22, said:

Yes. These days the most common agreement is 2♣ 4th suit is forcing to game. If East did not hold the CK, he would bid 3♦, invitational, rather than 2♣ over the 1♠. It is also reasonable IMO to play it the other way around, that direct 3♦ over 1♠ is GF, while going through 2♣ is invitational (something Richard Pavlicek advocates), but for whatever reasons unclear to me has become a distinctly minority view.


Because West has to bid something if it's GF, doesn't want to bypass 3nt if partner has the club stopper, so why not 3H? Generally when partner has forced you to bid, you usually need some call to not say anything, just that you don't have anything else more descriptive to offer.

3s would be a clear cut case of waiting since there is no natural distribution by opener where 3s could mean 5+ spades. That's why 3h has a use as a partial club stop for 3n.

[Jinksy]

eagles123, on 2016-April-19, 13:35, said:

I just assumed if I bid 1S i was showing unbal here, learn something new every day

All I see is a thread full of people boasting that their methods work on this hand. If you play a 1♠ rebid as an unbalanced hand, don't bid it here. If you don't and don't bid it here, what hand could you be waiting for? I've not seen anyone present evidence that either way is clearly better than the other.

[Jinksy]

rhm, on 2016-April-19, 06:37, said:

Where are all those "experts", who claim that any rebid except notrumps by opener should guarantee an unbalanced hand?

In your head, perhaps?

[rhm]

Jinksy, on 2016-April-22, 17:21, said:

If you play a 1♠ rebid as an unbalanced hand, don't bid it here.

Sure, but the issue is whether such an agreement is good for your own health.
This is worth arguing, but as usual people tend to be dogmatic.
A principle of good constructive bidding is that cheap bids can encompass a wide range of hands, while expensive bids should be specific.
Guaranteeing that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand is nice when it crops up, but will often miss a much better spade partial and as here wrong-sides notrumps.
My 1NT rebid does not deny four spades, but if I bypass spades I must have a positional stopper in the other unbid suit.
If my agreements forced me to bid 1NT bypassing a spade suit with no stopper in the unbid suit I would change my agreements.
There is plenty of room after 1♠ for responder to find out, if he needs to, whether opener is unbalanced or not.

Rainer Herrmann