BBO Discussion Forums: Unbal 1D-1M; 1NT - BBO Discussion Forums

Inspired by the 1D-1M; 2NT thread, I figured it would be interesting to hear what you (would) play the 1NT rebid as, when 1D is natural and always unbalanced. The alternatives I've seen are:

1. "Natural". So 1D-1H; 1NT would be probably be NT friendly hand with both minors or weak 6 card diamond suit. 1D-1S; 1NT would show hearts.
2. "Transfer rebids". So 1NT would show 4+ clubs.
3. Strong. 1NT would show a strong hand, perhaps 16+.
4. "Gazzilli". 1NT would show a strong hand or 6+ diamonds.
5. Something that needs unwinding. Probably the case if 1D-1H is (or could be) an artificial relay.

If playing transfer rebids, I guess most play 1D-1H; 2D as a three-card raise. Do you have a three card raise available after 1D-1S too? It seems to me that 2D (showing hearts) would need to be non-forcing, and thus 2H would be a natural reverse?

Within a strong club context, I think the most popular is to use 1NT and 2♣ to differentiate between 5-4 and 4-5 hand types. That may or may not be relevant to your system. The main alternative, as you wrote in the OP, is some Gaz variant. Perhaps not particularly relevant to your system but I use 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT to show hearts - that is primarily because a 1♥ response would have been artificial though. I guess another related factor would be whether you are using RF responses. Unfortunately I cannot remember whether this is one of the auctions where Adam does something clever. Hopefully he or straube can weigh in with some extra information.

1. Clubs
2. Gazilli
...
7. Strong
99. Natural

1. Clubs
2. Gazilli
...
7. Strong
99. Natural

Kungsgeten, on 2016-April-04, 09:16, said:

You're missing at least

6. 3-card support
7. 1D-1S-1NT = 4+ hearts (goes somewhat well with 1D-1H-1NT = clubs)
8. 1D-1S-1NT = 4+ hearts or single-suited diamonds (allows you to play 1D-1S-2D as nonforcing with 3-card support.)

My prior comment was that the minimum hand with hearts is a big problem after 1♦-1♠, and it makes sense to use 1NT to fix this hand.

In general I think the answers here will depend a lot on the rest of your system too. In a "natural" system where 1♦ has a very wide range, but hands with 4♦-5♣ open 1♣, you will probably come to different conclusions than in a system where 1♦ is more limited in strength (because most strong hands open 1♣) but could include 4♦-5♣ patterns.

Three types of 1N rebid over 1♦-1M that I've played in a T-Walsh / unbal. 1♦ context:

1. 1N as "transfer to C" (i.e. like a standard 2♣ or 3♣ rebid)

Major upside IMO:

* part of a scheme that solves many of Opener's immediate rebid problems

Major downsides IMO:

* part of a scheme where 2N is still needed as NAT INV in many situations
* awkward for Opener to show extras after 1♦-1M; 1N-2OM(FSF) if continuations are natural
* RFR needed


2. 1N as any bad minimum (rules of 19-21) with neither 3c+ support nor 4+ S.

Major upsides IMO:

* 2N over 1♦-1M; 2♣/♦ no longer needed as NAT INV since Opener is promising Roth-Stonish opening values
* INV RFR not needed
* 2♥ over 1♦-1♠; 2♣/♦ can be played as NAT NF (in which case WK RFR is not needed either)

Major downsides IMO:

* doesn't solve any of Opener's immediate rebid problems (but doesn't create new ones, either)
* 2N still needed as NAT INV over 1♦-1M; 2♣-2♦


3. 1N as NF "Gazzilli" (rules of 19-21, neither 3c+ support nor 4+ S¹, and either 6+ D or 5D5C / rules of 25-27 without 3c+ support)

Major upsides IMO:

* helps freeing up space so that virtually all of Opener's immediate rebid problems can be solved
* helps getting rid of all NAT INV 2N bids after 1♦-1M
* RFR not needed (if done right)

Major downside IMO:

* the complexity when everything is in place

¹ Actually, it's 4+ H that's denied, since I play swapped 1M responses to 1♦ where 1♦-1♥(4+ S); 1♠ = 4+ H or 10-15, 13(54).

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-April-28, 08:51

Gaz is poor & unnecessary if your willing to always bypass 1NT.

For example

1D-1H (relay)

D+H,
2S+ = D+H 18+
2H= D+H 15-17
1NT followed by 2H = 12-14


D+S
2D= D+S 15-17
2C = D+S 11-14 or 18+


singlesuiter D
1NT---??

2D not inv------Pass = 11-15 with 6D
2C= 9+ ----------2D = 11-14 with 6D

So 1D-1H-1NT-2D-??
pass = 11-17 with 6D
2H=12-14 with H
2S = 18+ 6D no sing
rest is sing 18+ 6D

1D-1H-1S (clubs) ??

1NT= inv+
2C = like clubs dont like D
2D like D dont like clubs

1D-1H-1S-1NT-??

2C = Clubs>=D
2D = D>C
2H = 1444,0454,0445
2S = 18+ wiht 5C

So the only type of hand we cant show the strenght is when its clubs and D the range is 11-17 however since responder can inv.
with 1NT its cost nothing.


So as long as 1H relay show at least 3H when weak your are ok.

Sometimes 1NT would have been better than 2m however playing the in best minor when its 4D+5C is more important.

benlessard: I actually play a variant of your methods in my Swedish club system Our diamond opening shows 11--19, unbalanced and may have longer clubs if 11--16. We always have 4+ hearts if weak, else it is a GF. The downside of using it as a relay (to me) is opening hands with three-card support (and memory/time issues).

If your 1♦ excludes unbalanced hands that are short in diamonds, then a different variety of "natural 1NT" is a 3-suiter short in responder's major, if the major is a natural bid. This is how I play it opposite natural.

As this is the non-natural forum, let me also add this : actually my preference is for a less than invitational hand with either (or both) majors to respond 1♥!, and 1♠! is any invitational+ hand. Then I play 1♦ 1♥! 1NT as a 3-suiter without spades, and 1♦ 1♠! 1NT as any unspecifed 3-suiter.

benlessard, on 2016-April-28, 06:46, said:

Unnecessary, perhaps, but why poor?

Because you have enough space to show how many pts you have and show suits for most 2 suiters. In the others cases its better if its responder who show some extras rather than opener.

1D-1H-1S-1NT is a sort of Gaz but by responder. Responder either got 9+ or both minors
1D-1H-1NT-2C is similar. Responder is 9+

So if opener got 15+ he will force to game and if hes min he will stop low.


"We always have 4+ hearts if weak, else it is a GF. The downside of using it as a relay (to me) is opening hands with three-card support (and memory/time issues)."

the reason why we use 3+ is that 1D-1S can show 5 (or 4225), 1D-1NT is free to show 6 clubs and 2C 2D are both !D raises. !S and 1NT are not that frequent but they are really profitable when they come up.

With my structure you have 3 !H raise at the 2 level at your disposal.

1D-1H-2H (4H 15-17)
1D-1H-1NT followed by 2H = 4H 12-14
1D-1H-1S followed by 2H = 1444,0445,0454.


I guess you could switch

1D-1H-3H = 15-17
1D-1H-2H = 12-14
1D-1H-1NT-2Y-2H = 3 card raise short clubs 3361,4351.
1D-1H-1S-??-2H = 3 card raise short spades 1363,13(54)


other prossible sequences

1D-1H-2C(!S)-??-return to H for the 4351 with extras.

this mean that you should switch.

1D-1H-2C = 15+ with 4D+4S
1D-1H-2D = 5D+4S 11-14.



!

benlessard, on 2016-April-30, 09:09, said:

I've had a further look at your Chapi 8 system (found via a link in this thread: http://www.bridgebas...-unbalanced-1d/ ), and noticed that Opener's ranges after 1♦-1♥ are usually either "12-14", "15-17" or "18+". If taken literally, they seem to imply that you don't open 1♦ with, say, 5D4x or 6D(322) unless you have at least 12 hcp. But then your opening style is about 1 hcp sounder than standard 2/1's and about 2 hcp sounder than mine or modern Precision's.

Am i missing something? If not, do you think your structure would still work if these ranges were shifted downwards 2 hcp?

My choice is "natural" since I think it is important to be able to stay in 1NT, particularly after 1♦-1♠.
2♣(maybe 1♠?) can be preserved for Gazzilli then.
This works quite well, if you use reverse flannery & can afford to throw minimum 5-5 minor hands into other opening.

I play it as 3-card support and almost forcing. That makes the raise to 2M much better defined, and solves all the problems with strong hands that have 3-card support.

gnasher, on 2016-May-09, 01:09, said:

Do you think this is advantageous against the similar transfer rebid scheme with 2M-1 for the 3 card raise, Andy? You are clearly gaining when you can stop in 1NT but it is unclear whether that offsets the array of forcing sequences that are being lost.

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-09, 06:48, said:

Yes, he does, as documented by a thread you can find on my systems index.

1D-2H=weak 5S/4+H
1D-2S=weak 6S

1D-1S
.....1N-strong or 6 diamonds
.....2C-3-suited short spade, limited (1-3-5-4, 1-4-5-3, etc)
..........2H-artificial GF
..........2S-GI
.....2D-5D/5C, limited
..........2H-artificial GI+
.....2H-better raise
.....2S-weak raise

1D-1H
.....1S-natural
.....1N-strong or 6 diamonds
.....2C-5/4+ or 4/5 minors, denies 3 hearts
..........2H-weak
..........2S-artificial GF
.....2D-better raise
.....2H-weak raise

With Csaba I used to play it as 6 diamonds, then responder can check back even with weak hands, looking for a better fit, as we can still stop in 2♦.

I think this was Adam's idea (it was in the context of one of Adam's strong club systems).

straube, on 2016-May-09, 23:24, said:

I like the idea of the 1D-1S; 2C rebid, but in that style I guess you cannot open 5422 hands with 1D, unless the hand is specifically 4-2-5-2?