This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
main lines of thought on how the system should work:
a) In 4-card major systems, the standard is to open 1H, and when partner
bids 2C, bid 2D or 2NT (depending on what the range of 2NT is and on
system). This is going to end up distorting your hand no matter what;
the 2NT bid implies a second club (probably not a massive issue) and
will often be out of range, the 2D bid implies a fifth heart (something
more of an issue). At least there isn't much strain on the rebid,
though.
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2C. Now, if 2NT is out of range, it seems like you're completely stuck:
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5 stretching it to 4 is much more of a stretch; 2NT shows the wrong
strength; raising clubs on one card is ridiculous; and anything else
would be a reverse (which you have the wrong shape for, and if not
playing a weak NT, also have the wrong strength for).
c) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT forcing (and 2C game forcing), responder will reply 1NT to your 1D, and just as in b) above,
you have no good way to describe your hand.
I tried to look at my usual sources for a range of systems online, but
almost none of them covered opener's second round action with a 4=4=4=1
hand after responder makes their appropriate response for their
primary-club hand. (The one exception is, oddly, the SAYC definition,
which is normally the least detailed of any of them; it perhaps
accidentally defines opener's rebid in this case as 2D, which I guess is
the least of all evils here. In SAYC, that 2D is a 1-round force, so
there is at least a possibility to end up in a better strain than
diamonds, but it's unclear what the future bidding would look like.)
I find this a particularly interesting case because it happens very
early on (opener's rebid), a point in the bidding that I'd expect most published systems to cover in detail, and yet it seems to be a hole in
pretty much every natural system at the same time (despite the varying bidding sequences). Perhaps people get away with it in practice because
the frequency seems to be low (based on my simulations, around 1 in
8000 of happening to one particular player, 1 in 4000 to one particular partnership, 1 in 2000 on one particular board).
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2C. Now, if 2NT is out of range, it seems like you're completely stuck:
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5
ais523 <ais523@nethack4.org> writes:
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2C. Now, if 2NT is out of range, it seems like you're completely stuck:
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5
First off, 2-over-1 for majors has nothing to do with 1D-P-2C.
How you choose to address this is entirely separate.
It is feasible to play that the 2D rebid shows 5+ and 2H/2S/2N deny 5.
For example, at least a third of responders chose this approach in https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-1d-2c-2d/
The question wasn't worded perfectly. E.g. it seemed to say a 3D rebid
would deny 5. It is possible a fair number of people would follow the
general idea most of the time, but had a specific exception or two.
The final synopsis was https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-final-conclusions/
and said "After 1D-2C" "Tend to rebid 2D with 5+D Bidding a major
usually not 5D and could be dead minimum".
This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
main lines of thought on how the system should work:
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing,
This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
main lines of thought on how the system should work:
a) In 4-card major systems, the standard is to open 1H, and when partner
bids 2C, bid 2D or 2NT (depending on what the range of 2NT is and on
system). This is going to end up distorting your hand no matter what;
the 2NT bid implies a second club (probably not a massive issue) and
will often be out of range, the 2D bid implies a fifth heart (something
more of an issue). At least there isn't much strain on the rebid,
though.
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2C. Now, if 2NT is out of range, it seems like you're completely stuck:
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5 stretching it to 4 is much more of a stretch; 2NT shows the wrong
strength; raising clubs on one card is ridiculous; and anything else
would be a reverse (which you have the wrong shape for, and if not
playing a weak NT, also have the wrong strength for).
c) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT forcing (and 2C game forcing), responder will reply 1NT to your 1D, and just as in b) above,
you have no good way to describe your hand.
I tried to look at my usual sources for a range of systems online, but
almost none of them covered opener's second round action with a 4=4=4=1
hand after responder makes their appropriate response for their
primary-club hand. (The one exception is, oddly, the SAYC definition,
which is normally the least detailed of any of them; it perhaps
accidentally defines opener's rebid in this case as 2D, which I guess is
the least of all evils here. In SAYC, that 2D is a 1-round force, so
there is at least a possibility to end up in a better strain than
diamonds, but it's unclear what the future bidding would look like.)
I find this a particularly interesting case because it happens very
early on (opener's rebid), a point in the bidding that I'd expect most published systems to cover in detail, and yet it seems to be a hole in
pretty much every natural system at the same time (despite the varying bidding sequences). Perhaps people get away with it in practice because
the frequency seems to be low (based on my simulations, around 1 in
8000 of happening to one particular player, 1 in 4000 to one particular partnership, 1 in 2000 on one particular board).
--
ais523
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:22:21 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,328,364 |