You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yrjo,
I let it pass the first time, but since you've repeated your misconception, I will comment on it:

the 2 rebid (1-1-2) in no way suggests a minimum
hand.
This rebid is consistent with hands up to (at least)
18 HCPs.

That is one of the advantages of this bid–it does not “lie” about hand strength. Rather, it is consistent with a very wide range of strengths, thereby strongly encouraging partner to bid again (but no, it is not forcing).

Seems to me that it doesn't lie about value location either (as 2NT rebid would). We have values in s.

The *worst* thing about 2 rebid is that it temporarily hides the pretty good support.

The alternative is a 3 jump raise which, in my view, lies about support in that partner will expect four.
A really good partner with only 4 s and a balanced hand with some extra HCPs *might* think to bid 3NT over this 3, but more likely a 3 rebid will result in playing a contract even when that isn't right.

Meanwhile, a likely continuation after a 2 rebid is:
1 1
2 2
2
Now partner has an excellent picture of our hand–
5 s, 3 card support, extra values (our actual hand is about a maximum for this sequence but it always shows “extras” else would just raise 1 to 2 directly).

Partner can continue over this 3rd round 2 in many ways.
If he has 5 s but is unsure if we are strong enough for game, he can raise to 3 (we will raise to 4 with OP hand).
If he has s well stopped, he can bid 2NT or 3NT.
If he has something in but needs help, he can try 2
(we would bid 3 over this).
If he is very weak, he can pass 2.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But partner may not have the shape needed for convenient auction entry.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I try to avoid opening 1NT with a 5 card major when possible.
Sometimes, it is the “least of evils”, so I will do so with reluctance.
It is always taking a big risk of missing a better scoring major suit fit.
Methods that reduce the frequency of needing to open 1NT with a 5 card major are desirable.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener can't really double 2, even with good s because he has no idea how weak his partner is.

But *responder* can double 2 in the pass-out seat with a near max in HCPs and short s. His double is intended as TO but can easily be left in by opener with an appropriate hand.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As North, if I had “more offence and less defence” than a 3 overcall promises, I would have overcalled 4 (or more).
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 would be a “picture bid”, 100% denying a control in either minor suit.

It, perhaps, also suggests four s, but that is not an absolute requirement.

Something like AQTxx-AQTx-xx-xx would be appropriate for 4. It would be OK to have a minor suit Q (or two).
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I said “mostly North” because South could reasonably have chosen a 3NT overcall instead of his actual double.

But “double” is certainly not ridiculous since he is short in s with 3+ card support for all the unbid suits.

Suppose you changed his hand slightly by giving him same honor structure but with one more small and one fewer small card in one of the minors.

In that case, he *still* could choose 3NT, but now “double” would be even more reasonable (I'm guessing probably a majority choice) because of the 4th card in the unbid major.

Anyway, what *is* ridiculous is North's 4 response which is consistent with no points at all and a 5 card suit (perhaps even a 4 bagger).

I think this North hand is pretty close to a “textbook” 5 jump advance.

Hence, most of the blame has to go to North as his choice is utterly bizarre while South's choice is just “arguably not best.”
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2M NFBs only after the two auction starts:
1-(2)
1-(2)

The upper limit for NFB as we play them overlaps with the lower limit for standard (1 round force) 2/1 responses in competition. Thus, the NFB could be up to 11 points or so.

Given that, it seems right that double followed by responder's bidding a major (not first bid by opener) should be GF (since stronger than top of NFB range).

We also play that responder can jump to 3M directly over the (2m) overcall as a natural, GF bid showing a 6 card suit (or possibly an extremely strong 5 card suit). This treatment takes some of the pressure off of the ambiguous negative double which could be a GF hand with a more moderate 5 card suit.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a difference between opening NT (1NT or 2NT) with an unstopped suit vs. rebidding NT with an unstopped suit, especially a small doubleton in unbid major.

If OP hand were weakened considerably to say:
xx-KJT-Axxxx-KQx or xx-KJT-AQxxx-Kxx
and the auction began 1-1, I suspect few would rebid 1NT. Rather, 2 would be the popular choice.

The actual hand has similar considerations, except that since it is much stronger, a raise would have to be to (at least) 3.
Making a jump raise with only 3 card support is considerably less accepted (although not 100% taboo) then a single raise.
This is what brings 2 into the picture.

Position is improved considerably by rebidding 2 (vs. 2NT) because we are at a much lower level, hence have more room for further discussion before deciding on final strain and level.
Opener next intends to show his 3 card support (and, hence his extra values by implication).

If we wind up in NT, it will be from partner's side as our bidding will strongly suggest our lack of a stopper.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leonard,
I agree that among the choices here I consider 3 much better than 2NT. I just happen to like 2 better.

I think from my recollection of MSC polls (several), that giving a double raise of a 1M response with only 3 card support very rarely garners the “100” from the BW expert panel. But I do recall *one* case where it was the winner.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you have to announce your NT range the moment your partner opens (or overcalls) 1NT.

That is even *stronger* than alerting as you are providing the information immediately rather than just calling your opponents attention to the possibility that there may be information available that they don't have.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT rebid with “xx” in the unbid major and KJT in partner's major is not my idea of scientific bidding.

It is the way you bid if you just want to get on to the play of the hand and hope for the best.

Even if our side has a stopper (certaintly no reason we should), it will be in partner's hand and might benefit from the lead coming into it.

Partner will very rarely be passing 2, and if he does it might be right. He will surely have 4+ s and a very weak hand (5-6 HCPs). Else, he finds another call.

It is true that this hand is very close to a GF, hence my second choice (close) would be *3*.

But 2NT is neither fish nor fowl (it is, perhaps “foul” though). It is not forcing, so we might miss a game, and it also wrong-sides NT at whatever level we play.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responder should not rebid 3 (GF) with that hand.
2 is clear. That shows 5 s.

Depending on methods, it may also be limited in HCPs.

There are (at least) 3 ways to treat such a 2M rebid:
(a) 5+ in responder's major and not forcing
I don't think this is too common but it is playable.
I once heard a lecture by Max Hardy where he advocated
this method.

(b) 5+ major, ostensibly limited (to about 8) but
forcing 1 round.
I recall a series of articles in ACBL Bulletin by
Eddie Kantar where this style was advocated.

It might seem contradictory to play 2M here as
forcing but limited to 8 (Eddie might have said

But it seems to work OK and is what I play.
Responder is allowed to have a significantly
better hand but ONLY if he is confident he can
handle the ensuing auction. Opener will assume
responder is limited to 8 (9) HCPs or less, so
responder will likely have to do something dramatic
later (i.e. jump) if he is “overstrength.”

With stronger hands with 5+ in his major, responder
is normally supposed to choose between:
(1) jump rebidding his major (e.g. 3 here)
This is GF with a *good* 6 card suit or
perhaps a spectacular (4/5 top honors) 5
card suit.

(2NT except after 1-1M-2 where 2OM is
the weak relay), but then over opener's
minimum rebid, continue with 3M. This shows
full GF values with 5+ in the major but the
suit quality not good enough for (1).

© 5+ in the major, forcing 1 round (but not to game)
and could be most any strength range from minimum
response on up.

There are *some* hands where responder can have a 5 card major with sound GF (or GF+) values *and 4 card support for opener's original minor* where it is better to rebid 3m, establishing strain and GF immediately. If opener has 3 card support for responder's major, he can show it by bidding 3M over responder's 3m, so a 5=3 major fit will not be missed.
Nov. 15, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder what would have happened then
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When your partner opens 1, do you systemically know something about his hand that the opponents may not?

Since the answer seems to me to be obviously “yes”, then I think you should alert in the interests of “full disclosure.”

Whether or not one can point to explicit verbiage in the ACBL alert procedures to support this (or a different) opinion seems less relevent to me than understanding and honoring the “spirit of full disclosure.”
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
You might want to re-think your opinion about what a double would show after:
(1)-P-(1NT)-P
(2)-DBL?

I would suggest that this auction is relevently different from:

(1M)-P-(1NT)-P
(2M)-DBL?

and even from
(1)-P-(1NT)-P
(2)-DBL?

The relevent difference for the auction is that responder has to have at least 2 s and most likely has 3+.
Thus, you won't hold the stack needed for the penalty interpretation.

In the cases where opener has rebid his major, you very well might have a good hand with a big stack in his major.

Even in the case, responder could in theory be e.g.
3=3=1=6, whence you might have a stack behind opener.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't answer a question like this where you have misbid previously.

This is an obvious TO double directly over (1).
Having not made that call, nothing you can do now will allow partner to imagine you hold these cards.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went through a phase of making lead directing doubles vs. 3NT.
Even though I directed the best lead, it often turned out that -550 was worse than -430.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've thought of that too, but it does not seem to be commonly played, at least in my experience.

But in standard style (as OP describes), I do not view responder's 3 as a “forcing inquiry”.

I think it is a statement that he not only has GF values but that he is interested in playing in s. Often, he will have a hand with slam interest in s.

If he wanted to show a stopper, he could have rebid 3NT or 2NT to be followed by 3NT (exact distinction subject to partnership agreement, probably shows different strength ranges, with perhaps 2NT then 3NT being stronger).
Nov. 15, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I voted “no for both”, I am curious about the reasoning of those who made a “split” vote.

I would think that if not voting the same way for both, it would be more reasonable to be “yes” for “mini-multi” (only a weak 2 in a major) and “no” for “full” multi (includes strong option(s) in addition to weak 2 in a major) because the full version (with strong option(s)) would be harder to defend against.

Yet, as of this posting there are twice as many votes for “yes to multi, no to mini-multi” as there are for the other way around.

Anyone care to explain?
Nov. 15, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top