[Winstonm]

---

Curious as to how this hand is evaluated by others. Whatever you choose to bid, partner will respond 1H. How do you open and continue?

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-17, 18:39, said:

---

Curious as to how this hand is evaluated by others. Whatever you choose to bid, partner will respond 1H. How do you open and continue?

Not bad enough for me to downgrade so a simple 1♣ opening, to be followed by 2♦ and then, if available, 2NT. A 2NT rebid is ok too but then if we miss 6♦ it is on me.

[LBengtsson]

bad 18 I'm opening 1NT. I don't like reversing when first suit worse than second. I do not see the idea of 1m - 1M - 2NT as info given to opps where your weakness is, and its a bad 18 (yes, I said that before and repeat, repeat, repeat.....) kaplan and rubens says it is <17 and I looked at Kaplan/Rubens after deciding it is a bad 18 and I'm opening 1NT.

[mikeh]

Form of scoring matters


Open 1N and partner will/should pass most 8 counts, and we’ll miss a game that should usually have play.

I’m assuming nv but vul, even more dangerous to downgrade.

At mps, missing a borderline game is no big deal, so I’d be comfortable opening 1N then.

If opening other than 1N, put me down for 1C, to be followed by 2N

Note…in my preferred methods, with responder having a 1H response, it goes 1C 1D 1N, where 1D is hearts and 1N is 17-19 (we play 14-16 1N: if playing 15-17, then the 1N is 18-19).

Again, in my preferred non-mainstream methods, we can have 4=3 minors, so partner will check back for diamonds if interested in a high level diamond contract.

Btw, I’m pleased partner showed hearts, but id bid the same way if he had shown spades…it’s the chance one takes opening 1C. Reversing into diamonds strikes me as very poor….while I see the heart holding, we still have 10 hcp in the majors, so showing a minor oriented hand seems misguided to me. Wild horses couldn’t make me open 1D.

[Winstonm]

Btw, the hand itself is pretty uninteresting - 4H down 1 due to losing 2 clubs and 2 hearts K10xx offside. Partner held 10x, A9xxxx, Kx Jxx.

[nullve]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-18, 11:42, said:

Partner held 10x, A9xxxx, Kxx, Jxx.

14 cards.

[pescetom]

A fairly automatic downgrade to 1NT for me, but then we have a very liberal idea of NT and our system is MP oriented.
If partner responds 1H then I'm pleased with the UI.

[Winstonm]

nullve, on 2021-August-18, 12:30, said:

14 cards.

Thanks: xx, Axxxxx, Kx, Jxx

PS: Fixed original, too.

[mikl_plkcc]

Two doubletons so never a NT opening or rebid or me.

My bidding will go 1♣ - 1♥ - reverse 2♦ which is forcing and shows 5+♣s, 4+♦s, with clubs longer than diamonds and denies 4 ♥s nor 4 ♠s.

Partner will then bid 2♥, showing 6+ ♥s with less than invitational values, then it's easy 4♥.

[Gilithin]

mikl_plkcc, on 2021-August-19, 17:25, said:

Partner will then bid 2♥, showing 6+ ♥s with less than invitational values, then it's easy 4♥.

You really think ♠xx ♥Axxxxx ♦Kx ♣Jxx is less than an invite opposite a reverse?

[mikeh]

mikl_plkcc, on 2021-August-19, 17:25, said:

Two doubletons so never a NT opening or rebid or me.

My bidding will go 1♣ - 1♥ - reverse 2♦ which is forcing and shows 5+♣s, 4+♦s, with clubs longer than diamonds and denies 4 ♥s nor 4 ♠s.

Partner will then bid 2♥, showing 6+ ♥s with less than invitational values, then it's easy 4♥.

Standard treatment of 2H, following a reverse, is that it says nothing at all about values. Responder could have a 5 count or a 16 count…it merely promises at least 5 hearts…not 6 or more…5 or more.

The reverse, in normal methods, promises another bid unless responder, for example, bids game…say 3N

As for the reverse, count me out. Try to avoid showing powerful 2 suited hands when holding bad suits.

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2021-August-19, 18:41, said:

Standard treatment of 2H, following a reverse, is that it says nothing at all about values. Responder could have a 5 count or a 16 count…it merely promises at least 5 hearts…not 6 or more…5 or more.

It does...but there are also perfectly decent methods over a reverse that allow for it being natural and weak, with some of them having been posted on BBF.

[nige1]

Winstonm' Curious as to how this hand is evaluated by others. Whatever you choose to bid, partner will respond 1H. How do you open and continue
+++++++++++++++++++
Deal rotated to make opener West. As opener, I rank
1. 1♣ = NAT.
2. 1♦ = NAT Canape.
3. 1N = BAL. Underbid.

After 1♣ - 1♥ - ??, I rank
1. 2N = BAL 18-19. I have what it says on the tin.
2. 2♦ = NAT Reverse. Exaggerates ♣s. Unnecessary distortion.

(At the table, would consider only the first options).

---

[Douglas43]

I agree with nige1 above. Partner's heart response means the ♥QJ are pulling their weight, so no downgrade for me. (Opening 1NT not an option as I play 12-14, 1NT rebid is 15-17)

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-19, 20:52, said:

It does...but there are also perfectly decent methods over a reverse that allow for it being natural and weak, with some of them having been posted on BBF.

I’ve not seen any such methods that make much sense to me, but that could be my biases showing😀

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-August-18, 11:42, said:

Btw, the hand itself is pretty uninteresting - 4H down 1 due to losing 2 clubs and 2 hearts K10xx offside. Partner held 10x, A9xxxx, Kx Jxx.

Actually it's more interesting than you think particularly at MPs where if the hearts behave 3N and 4♥ both make 10 tricks most of the time (yes a diamond lead might cause you entry issues, but with 9 spades missing it's odds on you get a spade). As it is you go 2 down in 3N.

We play a wide range 1N rebid here 15-bad 19.

So our auction is 1♣-1♥-1N-2♣(asking)-3♦(we would open 1♦ with xx44 so this is 2245 17-19)-3N/4♥

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2021-August-20, 00:46, said:

I’ve not seen any such methods that make much sense to me, but that could be my biases showing😀

The one I wrote down in my "Interesting Ideas" file was Zelandahk's transfer scheme, where 2♠ shows precisely 5 hearts, 2NT/3♣ are transfers to the suit above and 3♦/3♥ show 6+♥. But there were a few other good suggestions in that thread too.

[nullve]

Zelandakh's transfer scheme over 1♣-1♠; 2♥:

https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1021893

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2021-August-20, 11:42, said:

Zelandakh's transfer scheme over 1♣-1♠; 2♥:

https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1021893

I respect Zel, but in that thread he suggested that his scheme was easier (or as easy) as in Ingberman/lebensohl, which IMO it most definitely isn’t

Plus frankly, I don’t like it much.

Using 2N, after 1C 1S 2H, as either sign off in clubs or gf+ in clubs is, again imo, far less playable than 2N as signoff somewhere (usually clubs but could be borderline values in hearts or some other holding, intending to rebid 3N, expressing doubt…3N over 2H is a more definite attempt to play 3N).

The problem is that opener doesn’t know that responder likes clubs until after responder’s third bid….and that itself can be problematic. If opener knows immediately that responder has a good hand for clubs, he gets to start exploration, or to slow things down, or to show a fifth heart, etc immediately.

Also, the method needs tweaking for 1D 1S 2H, so it’s even more memory intensive

And if responder bids, say, 3H, gf with 6+ spades, what do opener’s rebids mean? After all, opener could be 3415 or 0526, etc. How does opener set spades as trump? It’s never a good idea, when the bidder could still have a fairly wide range of strength and, to a lesser degree, shape to have to bid 4S to agree spades, yet if he bids 4C, surely that should not be a spade fit, and 4H should be 5=6 or more.

Ingerberman lacks the detailed description, by responder, of his hand but it gains by conserving bidding space, which is very valuable when the partnership is still exploring for strain.

At least, that’s my view. Btw, I’m a systems junkie. In fact, I suspect that in one of my partnerships we play about as many transfers in as many sequences as almost anyone, so I’m generally a big believer in transfers, because (usually) they work to conserve space. Zel’s scheme, to me, doesn’t seem very efficient at that. Your view may vary😀