[Trump Echo]

---

This is from Frank Stewart's syndicated newspaper column today which is also available online. It is taken from the bottom of the article in the Daily Question area.

http://www.baronbarc...14-14/March2014

What is Opener's correct rebid in a natural (not a 2/1) auction?

I would think opener's rebid is 2 ♥, allowing partner to show delayed support for the ♠. But Stewart says opener should rebid 2 ♠.

Thoughts?

Thank-you.

Edit: Please see post #21

[helene_t]

The short answer is 2♥. Bypassing hearts denies (in principle) four hearts and if opener subsequently bids hearts it will show a concentration of values, not length.

The long answer is that there can be a case for 2♠ in some styles with this shape. Suppose responder's next bid is 2NT and you don't want to let him play that. Having bid 2♥ before, you cannot retreat to 3♠ now with a minimum hand because it is forcing. On the other hand, if you rebid 2♠, you can bid 3♥ next as Stewart suggests.

Presumably Stewart plays a style in which
1♠-2♦
2♥ is forcing

1♠-2♦
2♠ is non-forcing or at least denies extra values

1♠-2♦
2♥/♠-2NT is non-forcing or at least not forcing to game.

1♠-2♦
2♥-2NT
3♠ is forcing

[Trump Echo]

Thank-you, Helene. I've seen your answers in other threads and you are obviously a great and wise bidder.

If I was responder and I saw the bidding play out like this with a bid of 2 Spades followed by 3 Hearts, I would think my partner held 3 Hearts, and I didn't understand how he could have 4 Hearts. But if his 2 Hearts bid is forcing, it makes perfect sense.

And I like your short answer.

Thanks again.

[helene_t]

Actually I think Stewart could have given a better example, one with South holding KQJTxx of spades and North having a singleton.

Because if North has two spades he can just take preference to spades. And if South holds six mediocre spades he is ok with passing 2NT.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

2S rebid.
You have a minimum 6-4 hand.
Bidding ♠-♥-♠ is stronger than bidding ♠-♠-♥.

[mike777]

I don't see this as a minimum hand hence the difference approaches here.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mike777, on 2014-March-14, 11:14, said:

I don't see this as a minimum hand hence the difference approaches here.

12 hcp and a stiff in partner's suit ... signalling possible wasted values in ♦ .

[mike777]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-March-14, 11:28, said:

12 hcp and a stiff in partner's suit ... signalling possible wasted values in ♦ .

As I said I understand if you think this is a minimum for me a mimimum would look like:

AT9xxx.ATxx...void ...xxx

[mike777]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-March-14, 11:28, said:

12 hcp and a stiff in partner's suit ... signalling possible wasted values in ♦ .

As I said I understand if you think this is a minimum; for me a minimum would be close to:

AT9xxx.ATxx...void ...xxx
A 7 loser hand vs a 5 loser hand

thus the discussion

[the hog]

2H is obvious in a system where 2/1 is not a gf. Bidding 2S on this is really silly, though it may have some merit (not much) in a 2/1 gf system.
You could end up totally missing the H fit.

[MrAce]

Deleted

[helene_t]

the hog, on 2014-March-14, 18:43, said:

2H is obvious in a system where 2/1 is not a gf. Bidding 2S on this is really silly, though it may have some merit (not much) in a 2/1 gf system.
You could end up totally missing the H fit.

Yes that's right, 2♠ (edit: thanks mrAce) has merits only if you play a style in which you can always find the hearts fit later. Obviously that is not the case if the 2♠ bid is nonforcing.

In a SAYC-like system you might think you could rebid 2♠ since it's forcing, but the trouble is that responder will often bid 3NT at his next turn. And then you have missed the heart fit.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2014-March-16, 10:13, said:

Yes that's right, 2♥ has merits only if you play a style in which you can always find the hearts fit later. Obviously that is not the case if the 2♠ bid is nonforcing.

In a SAYC-like system you might think you could rebid 2♠ since it's forcing, but the trouble is that responder will often bid 3NT at his next turn. And then you have missed the heart fit.

Hmmm...Ok i think you meant 2♠ has merits on the first sentence (not 2 hearts). But i still did not understand how is 2♠ is forcing in sayc ? Can you show me a source ? I googled it and found only one source that says it is NF, other sources seem to conveniently skipped that particular auction and its definition. (i admit i only checked 5-6 sources)

[BillHiggin]

MrAce, on 2014-March-16, 16:02, said:

Hmmm...Ok i think you meant 2♠ has merits on the first sentence (not 2 hearts). But i still did not understand how is 2♠ is forcing in sayc ? Can you show me a source ? I googled it and found only one source that says it is NF, other sources seem to conveniently skipped that particular auction and its definition. (i admit i only checked 5-6 sources)

According to the official (and generally ignored) SAYC booklet:
"NOTE: Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two
level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level."

The 2♠ call is forcing because it is not at game level so responder has promised another bid.
This is often used as the basis of a trick question in "How well do you know SAYC" type articles.

Given that very few players that claim to play SAYC have ever read that booklet, much less understood the implications of this note, the pragmatic approach would be to NOT expect 2♠ to be as forcing as the booklet suggests.
Another similar related oddity: In the unopposed SAYC auction 1♠ 2♥; 3♥, the last call is technically forcing! Do not bank on it!

[P_Marlowe]

2H, but ...

There is a treatment for 64 hands, that AAB is weaker than ABA,
and Frank Steward plays this style, at least in his columns.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

I know nobody asked this and that this is not really the time or place to say it, but... I would really like to have responder bid 2♣ and not 2♦ on this hand. You are basically looking for 4 hearts or 6 spades from partner or otherwise invite him in notrumps. Of course you need some agreements, such as 1♠-2♣; 2♦ be a semi-artificial bid so opener need not raise clubs with minimum 5♠-4♣ hands, but normally the auction will flow better. You don't have to play it this way per se but it is a nice treatment and worth taking a look at.

To see how this can work, look at this system from awm and Elianna (both prominent contributors to these forums):
http://www.cs.ucla.e...ianna-notes.pdf

Yes, I know it says 1♠-2♣ promises 4 cards but you can just play it as 2+ and 1♠-2♦ 5+ without much change.

[mikeh]

In standard American bidding, the 2/1 by an unpassed hand has always promised another bid but wasn't forcing to game.

This would be alien to an old-time acol player.

The idea behind spades-spades-hearts being the weak 6=4 and spades-hearts-spades being the strong 6=4 is that in standard 2♦ followed by responder bidding 2N didn't create a force of any kind. Now, if opener had to have bid 2♥ initially on all 6=4 major hands, he couldn't show the 6th spade over 2N by bidding 3♠ without creating an insoluble problem: is this getting out or forcing to game?

This problem was so bad that the idea of splitting the 6=4 hands came into existence. With a gf, one bids 2♥ and then rebid spades at the 3-level, forcing. With a weak hand, one rebid spades then made a natural but non-forcing 3♥ bid. It sounds odd to modern ears to have that auction stop in 3♥! Remember that this style was developed long before the modern focus on finding 4-4 fits. Old time experts had few qualms about playing the so-called Moysian fit. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a modern expert, compared to modern intermediates and advanced players, is the skill set needed to play (intentionally) in a 4-3 fit when the auction suggests it.

The approach of splitting 6=4 major hands still has utility even when 2♦ is gf: indeed, it can be even more useful since responder can be very strong for 2N, and now being able to distinguish strength for opener can lead to some very nice auctions.

My own preference is these days to bid 2♥ on all 6=4s because in all my partnerships 2♦ created a gf. If we belong in a heart slam, I want responder to be able to set trump at the 3-level, and if I rebid spades, then either one of us bids hearts at the 3 level, the other one can't raise without risking a pass in 4♥....one can come up with inferential cuebidding, I suppose, but that is a poor kludge most of the time. However, there are undoubtedly hands on which the old method would work well.

The last point I will make is that my impression of Frank Stewart as a bridge writer and theorist is....well......he isn't exactly strong imo. I certainly wouldn't take anything he wrote as being necessarily sound.

[rhm]

mike777, on 2014-March-14, 13:41, said:

A 7 loser hand vs a 5 loser hand

thus the discussion

Or a matter how to count losers. I do not see a 2 loser difference here.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

helene_t, on 2014-March-16, 10:13, said:

Yes that's right, 2♠ (edit: thanks mrAce) has merits only if you play a style in which you can always find the hearts fit later. Obviously that is not the case if the 2♠ bid is nonforcing.

In a SAYC-like system you might think you could rebid 2♠ since it's forcing, but the trouble is that responder will often bid 3NT at his next turn. And then you have missed the heart fit.

And sometimes 4♠ will be better when you bid 2♥ when responders bids 3NT.

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2014-March-17, 17:27, said:

The approach of splitting 6=4 major hands still has utility even when 2♦ is gf: indeed, it can be even more useful since responder can be very strong for 2N, and now being able to distinguish strength for opener can lead to some very nice auctions.

My own preference is these days to bid 2♥ on all 6=4s because in all my partnerships 2♦ created a gf. If we belong in a heart slam, I want responder to be able to set trump at the 3-level, and if I rebid spades, then either one of us bids hearts at the 3 level, the other one can't raise without risking a pass in 4♥....one can come up with inferential cuebidding, I suppose, but that is a poor kludge most of the time. However, there are undoubtedly hands on which the old method would work well.

Indeed, in 2/1 g.f., if Responder rebids 2NT, we are much better off when Opener is 6-4 and showed his strength by bidding 6-6-4 with the minimum and 6-4-6 with extras. Your preference (always bid 2♥) and the reasoning is one rationale. We have found another one, which converted us away from splitting 6-4's after a 2♦ response.

At the moment we rebid 2♠, there are hands where that rebid must be made without 6 Spades. The big problem comes when Responder isn't nice enough to rebid 2NT --- she rebids 3♦ or 3♣. Now, 3♥ is a stall, not guaranteeing 4 cards and we still haven't shown 6 Spades. Conversely if we rebid 2H and Responder continues with 3m, 3♠ is a stall not guaranteeing 6 Spades --- but at least we showed 4 hearts on the previous round.

We don't have the same problem over a 2♣ response because 2♠ guarantees 6 of them and continuations are natural (no stalls).