[1eyedjack]

What is the normal distinction in a natural system (SAYC, Acol, SEF, what you will) between these two uncontested sequences?

1H-1S
2H-2S
3D

and

1H-1S
2D-2S
3H

Do they both show 6-4 but of differing strengths? If so, which is stronger?
Does the whole problem change if responder's rebid were 2N?

[temp3600]

I'll start with the two sequences where responder rebids 2NT first, because I think they're clear-cut.

1♥  1♠
2♥  2NT
3♦
shows a minimum 6-4, not interested in game. Most of the time, responder will pass 3♦ or go back to 3♥. Sometimes, his hand will improve enough that he'll go on to game. (with a great fit for diamonds for example)
x AKJxxx Q10xx xx

1♥  1♠
2♦  2NT
3♥
shows a non-minimum 6-4 and is game forcing.
x AKJxxx AQ10x xx

If responder bids 1♠ then 2♠, I think opener's bids show the same thing (♥-♥-♦ : minimum, ♥-♦-♥ : non-minimum), but I'm having a hard time coming up with actual possible hands for the minimum sequence.

1♥  1♠
2♥  2♠
3♦
Opener, minimum, knows partner has a weak hand with spades, and is adventuring at the 3 level without a known fit. That seems impossible.

1♥  1♠
2♦  2♠
3♥
Opener probably should have a very strong hand here, just short of a game-forcing rebid. 3♥ is non-forcing.
Maybe K AKJxxx AQ10x xx or x AKJxxx AKQx xx

[1eyedjack]

Thanks

With a minimum 6-4 I have always in the past felt that it is right to show the second 4 card suit with the initial rebid. You might not get another chance, and in so doing partner will assume (if not already guaranteed) 5+ cards in the first suit. So you are showing 9+ of your cards, where to rebid 2H just shows 6 of them.

With such a philosophy, on this hand you are pretty much committed to NOT rebidding your 6 card suit unless forced by responder to bid again.

That might suggest that BOTH of the indicated sequences show extras, the distinction being on suit quality perhaps.

Just a few thoughts.

[Fluffy]

temp3600, on Mar 4 2007, 08:18 AM, said:

1♥  1♠
2♥  2♠
3♦
Opener, minimum, knows partner has a weak hand with spades, and is adventuring at the 3 level without a known fit. That seems impossible.

I agree with everything you said , just one more thing, if 1 bid is impossible, then it is artificial. I wouldn't ever had this auction without discussion, but thinking about some short of ♠support bid comes to mind.

[1eyedjack]

I think I probably chose bad examples for the problem I have in mind.

Ultimately I wish clarify: with a minimum 6-4, would you rebid the 6 card suit despite an opportunity to bid the 4 card suit without reversing, or would you rebid the 4 card suit implying at least 5 in the first suit albeit perhaps at that point concealing the 6th.

Whichever rebid you choose, you would probably not (unless forced by responder) show the other feature (4 card suit if you rebid the 6, or 6th card in first suit if you choose to rebid the second). Responder could do quite a wide variety of forcing or nonforcing rebids, with which you may have to cope. Indeed depending on your style responder might be permitted to pass a non-reverse new suit rebid by opener, which could also affect your policy here.

[Fluffy]

Standard bid is 2 of the minor, showing 9 cards is better to partner than showing just 6. But then if my hand is very weak (10-11) I'll rebid my major because partner knows I open lighter when I have 6c major.

Suit qualities have also something to say.

[skjaeran]

temp3600, on Mar 4 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

1♥  1♠
2♥  2♠
3♦
Opener, minimum, knows partner has a weak hand with spades, and is adventuring at the 3 level without a known fit. That seems impossible.

1♥-1♠
2♥

Openers rebid here shows a 6-card suit.
A 2♠ bid by responder is not just to improve the contract - it's a forwardgoing move, showing some game interest.
IMO, a new suit by opener after 2♠ is value showing, probing for a 4♠ game, not a probe for a new strain.

[whereagles]

Agree with temp as well. 3♦ must be constructive with spade support, e.g.

Kx
AQxxxx
KQx
xx

or similar

[temp3600]

1eyedjack, on Mar 4 2007, 07:37 AM, said:

Ultimately I wish clarify: with a minimum 6-4, would you rebid the 6 card suit despite an opportunity to bid the 4 card suit without reversing, or would you rebid the 4 card suit implying at least 5 in the first suit albeit perhaps at that point concealing the 6th.

With a minimum 6-4, I would rebid the 6-card suit and forget about the 4-card one.
Only with a hand worth 3 bids would I mention the 4-card suit at my second bid.

[Double !]

1eyedjack, on Mar 4 2007, 07:37 AM, said:

I think I probably chose bad examples for the problem I have in mind.

Ultimately I wish clarify: with a minimum 6-4, would you rebid the 6 card suit despite an opportunity to bid the 4 card suit without reversing, or would you rebid the 4 card suit implying at least 5 in the first suit albeit perhaps at that point concealing the 6th.

I don't believe that you chose poor examples at all.

This is a topic where, as far as I know, there is not universal agreement. For example, Marty Bergen used to or still does recommended bidding all 6-4 hands via the 6-4-6 route. Fred Stewart recommended in one of his books (sorry, I don't recall the title) that one bid 6-6-4 with minimum opening hands, and 6-4-6 with extra values. Others have suggested that one base the decision on where honors are located. At matchpoints, I personally prefer to rebid the 6 unless i have extra values, and even sometimes when I have extra values if the quality of my 6 is reasonably good. I might even downgrade my hand slightly at matchpoints with a borderline-extra values hand (maybe a 15-count) with a weakish 6-card major because of the potential benefit of playing in a major vs a minor. The exception might be when 6-4 in majors.

dhl

[Winstonm]

I believe the overwhelming expert consensus is that M-m-M is used on hands of extra strength whereas M-M-m shows a weaker hand.

[Double !]

Jlall, on Mar 4 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

I think the whole good 6-4/ bad 6-4 thing is becoming a little outdated.

It might be helpful if you could expand on this, especially regarding opener's and responder's rebids and follow-up bidding sequences to help differentiate between minimum hands and hands with extra values. While the good 6-4 vs. weaker 6-4 distinction might be outdated (I am willing to accept what you say), it still works as far as I can see. Perhaps the rest of one's bidding structure might be a significant factor in determining which way to go with this?

As with many other similar issues regarding which way to approach a situation, IMO, the partnership might be better served by deciding on one approach and going with it.

dhl

[BillHiggin]

I frequently use the 6-4-6 bidding pattern to show extra strength (note that I choose to play mostly IMP scoring - your mileage may vary)
I frequently truncate the weaker 6-6-4 pattern at 6-6

Add into the comparison
1♥ - 1♠
3♥

This sequence can really present problems for responder - we have taken away a large number of options from him. Hopefully he is able to place the contract (and so I ask my partners to sit down and talk about a "picture" definition for this sequence). The worst (in terms of presenting headaches to responder) case is when he intended to support hearts but wanted to show that he held a fine spade suit (as a source of tricks). Now he can no longer really "tell" anything and must take control of the auction. Since this is the only exception to the pattern of responder showing a new suit while simultaneously establishing a game force (in 2/1 over a major suit opening), I like to use a jump to 2♠ as strong (Soloway or simply heart support with spades as a source of tricks and either invite+ or game forcing strength - pick your poison).

Note again - this is based on IMP strategy (I just do not bother with MP strategy)

[ArcLight]

>I think the whole good 6-4/ bad 6-4 thing is becoming a little outdated.

How do todays experts bid?
Do they bid both hands the same way? (rebid the major?)

Too bad Marty Bergen never wrote his book "Is it Forcing" (advertised as a future release in 2003).

[Winstonm]

ArcLight, on Mar 4 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

>I think the whole good 6-4/ bad 6-4 thing is becoming a little outdated.

How do todays experts bid?
Do they bid both hands the same way?  (rebid the major?)

Too bad Marty Bergen never wrote his book "Is it Forcing" (advertised as a future release in 2003).

This whole concept isn't some earth shattering decision made by the bridge elite, but is simply a common sense matter.

When you bid 1H-1S-2H partner will pass with less than a limit raise.

When you bid 1H-1S-2C/2D, partner with an 8 or 9 count will strive to keep the auction alive with either a raise, a false preference, or some other bid, knowing opener might have 16-17.

By bidding 2 suits, you increase the chances that partner can find another call, either a raise or a false preference. Partner can't keep the auction alive with a raise to 3D if you don't bid them.