[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

2/1 ACBL

Opener bids 1S

responder holding:
S 76
H Jxxxx
C KQxx
D J9

bids 1NT

Opener then bids 2D

Does responder, holding an equal number of cards in both, return to opener's
first suit?

If responder had another point or 2, same distribution, would it make a
difference?

Jerdonald

[smerriman]

You know partner has 5 (and possibly 6) spades, and maybe only 4 diamonds. Spades is always your better fit, so you should prefer to play there.

If you were a couple of points stronger, you should give false preference to 2♠ even if you had *three* diamonds, because there is still a chance of game (and 5-2 fits are better than a likely 4-3 if not).

[Stephen Tu]

It's standard in posting/publishing bridge problems to always list suits in SHDC order, please use hand diagram tool or write out like:
76
Jxxxx
J9
KQxx

Yes, absolutely you return back to spades, because you'd much rather play a 5-2 fit than a 4-2 fit! Also sometimes partner has 6 spades, and sometimes partner has only 3 diamonds if that is the systemic rebid on 5=3=3=2, playing forcing NT (some people rebid clubs on this shape, some diamonds).

Make the hand stronger, same up to a point. At some point you get strong enough to rebid 2nt depending on how light partner tends to open. And some hands with really solid heart texture might try 2H.

The much harder problem is when you have 2542 shape, and the question is pass diamonds or take the false preference to spades, then forcing vs semi-forcing NT, MP or IMPS, suit quality, overall strength come in to play.

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2020-August-23, 19:52, said:

You know partner has 5 (and possibly 6) spades, and maybe only 4 diamonds. Spades is always your better fit, so you should prefer to play there.

If you were a couple of points stronger, you should give false preference to 2♠ even if you had *three* diamonds, because there is still a chance of game (and 5-2 fits are better than a likely 4-3 if not).

With 5=3=3=2 distribution, opener would rebid 2♦ after a forcing 1NT playing standard rebids by opener.

[DavidKok]

If your 1NT is only semi-forcing I dont see the harm in bidding 2♥. Perhaps partner has 5=3=4=1, or even 5=2=5=1 which rates to play better in your suit due to entry problems. And once every year you'll hit their 5=4=4=0 and get to game. And if you hit partner's singleton or void they can just run to 2♠, no harm no foul.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2020-August-24, 03:32, said:

If your 1NT is only semi-forcing I dont see the harm in bidding 2♥. Perhaps partner has 5=3=4=1, or even 5=2=5=1 which rates to play better in your suit due to entry problems. And once every year you'll hit their 5=4=4=0 and get to game. And if you hit partner's singleton or void they can just run to 2♠, no harm no foul.

Unless you are playing something very non-standard, you will never see opener with 5 spades and 4 hearts because they would rebid 2♥ over a 1NT response, and never the minor.

Will partner run with a singleton heart if you rebid 2♥? ♥Jxxxx is an awful suit and will probably not play well opposite a singleton or random doubleton, but will play well if opener has an unlikely tripleton. Spades may not be much better, but you know the quality of your heart suit.

[DavidKok]

Ah, my mistake about the four-card heart suit. In my system it would be a tough decision (in fact, I once decided to rebid 2♥ with 5=4=4=0 on the auction 1♠-1NT and got chided because 2♦ is the percentage action, precisely because partner can correct to hearts). But I can easily imagine this depends a lot on the partnership. I think "very non-standard" is overselling it though.

As for the other parts of the comment, there are two different remarks I would like to make. Firstly I think it is smart to agree that a 2♥ bid by responder promises 5(+), so partner is supposed to run with a singleton. Some people instead demand at least 6 hearts, but I personally feel this is losing bridge simply based on the frequency with which it applies. Secondly it is really unclear to me that 2♠ will be better than 2♥ opposite a random doubleton. As a general rule, if you are going to play a misfit between a strong and a weak hand it is best to play the long suit of the weak hand. This will produce extra entries (by ruffing), which will help set up the strong hand. If you are off the top heart honours you will lose them opposite a random doubleton regardless, but your long hearts have no chance of taking tricks in 2♠.

[johnu]

DavidKok, on 2020-August-24, 07:12, said:

Ah, my mistake about the four-card heart suit. In my system it would be a tough decision (in fact, I once decided to rebid 2♥ with 5=4=4=0 on the auction 1♠-1NT and got chided because 2♦ is the percentage action, precisely because partner can correct to hearts). But I can easily imagine this depends a lot on the partnership. I think "very non-standard" is overselling it though.

Responder will not be introducing hearts with only 4 which is much more frequent than 5+ hearts.

DavidKok, on 2020-August-24, 07:12, said:

As for the other parts of the comment, there are two different remarks I would like to make. Firstly I think it is smart to agree that a 2♥ bid by responder promises 5(+), so partner is supposed to run with a singleton. Some people instead demand at least 6 hearts, but I personally feel this is losing bridge simply based on the frequency with which it applies. Secondly it is really unclear to me that 2♠ will be better than 2♥ opposite a random doubleton. As a general rule, if you are going to play a misfit between a strong and a weak hand it is best to play the long suit of the weak hand. This will produce extra entries (by ruffing), which will help set up the strong hand. If you are off the top heart honours you will lose them opposite a random doubleton regardless, but your long hearts have no chance of taking tricks in 2♠.

If you have to lose 3 or 4 heart tricks, your contract is probably not going to be successful.

I did a quick simulation and 2♠ on a 5-2 fit made 7 tricks 79%, and 8 tricks 50%. 2♥ on a 5-2 fit made 7 tricks 55% and 8 tricks 21%. A clear and substantial advantage for 2♠. And what is opener supposed to rescue to with a singleton heart? Rebidding 5 mediocre spades that you have already bid, 2NT with a dead minimum 5=1=4=3 hand, maybe without a club stopper, rebidding a 4 card diamond suit? It sounds easy for opener to rescue the contract, but finding a better spot may not be so easy.

[DavidKok]

johnu, on 2020-August-24, 13:03, said:

Responder will not be introducing hearts with only 4 which is much more frequent than 5+ hearts.

Responder will also not introduce a 4-card diamond suit over your 2♥. Conversely, they might introduce a 5-card heart suit over your 2♦, but probably not the other way around. If your 1NT is NF (or semiforcing) I think this is not clear-cut in the slightest.

johnu, on 2020-August-24, 13:03, said:

If you have to lose 3 or 4 heart tricks, your contract is probably not going to be successful.

I did a quick simulation and 2♠ on a 5-2 fit made 7 tricks 79%, and 8 tricks 50%. 2♥ on a 5-2 fit made 7 tricks 55% and 8 tricks 21%. A clear and substantial advantage for 2♠. And what is opener supposed to rescue to with a singleton heart? Rebidding 5 mediocre spades that you have already bid, 2NT with a dead minimum 5=1=4=3 hand, maybe without a club stopper, rebidding a 4 card diamond suit? It sounds easy for opener to rescue the contract, but finding a better spot may not be so easy.

2♥ has the additional advantage that partner can have 3 (or 4), or can pull (with 0 or 1), thereby combining your chances. But regardless I don't know how to judge the simulation. What were the assumptions?

[Stephen Tu]

DavidKok, on 2020-August-24, 15:55, said:

Responder will also not introduce a 4-card diamond suit over your 2♥. Conversely, they might introduce a 5-card heart suit over your 2♦, but probably not the other way around. If your 1NT is NF (or semiforcing) I think this is not clear-cut in the slightest.

It's pretty clear cut in my view. Missing 4-4 heart fit is pretty huge if it takes an extra trick over 5-2 spade fit. Missing 4-4 diamond fit is less costly, because 3d make = 110 = 2S make 2. Yes sometimes diamonds makes and spades doesn't, or when it's 130 in diamonds, but there are also compensation boards when spades outscores diamonds. You might have fit in both red suits, in which case surely you overwhelmingly want to be in the major at matchpoints.

You're the first person I've ever seen suggest bidding 2d on 5=4=4=0. Now bidding 2c on 5=0=4=4 maybe there's some argument for that.

You are also losing something on your 6+ weak heart auctions when opener is supposed to pull with stiff.
You do rate to gain on the 5=3=4=1s but is it enough to cancel the losses elsewhere?

[Vampyr]

I am finding some of this discussion confusing. I thought that semi-forcing and forcing NT responses were the same as ordinary 1NT responses in one respect — when opener doesn’t indicate extra values and responder introduces a new suit, that is natural(5+) and weak.°

[Stephen Tu]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-24, 19:41, said:

I am finding some of this discussion confusing. I thought that semi-forcing and forcing NT responses were the same as ordinary 1NT responses in one respect — when opener doesn't indicate extra values and responder introduces a new suit, that is natural(5+) and weak.°

The semi-f vs F doesn't really make a difference for the original hand, it is more an issue for 2542 type hands where the question is to pass or preference. If one is playing SF NT then 2d is a real 4 cd almost always or always, also affecting is choice of rebid on 5=3=3=2 and are you going to rebid 2d on this shape and 14 or do you open 14-16 nts etc. Any of these methods diamonds is very often 4+ the question is how often is it 3 if ever.

Responder's new suit is usually 6+ or a really good 5 with some internal solidity when you have alternative of major preference on doubleton or passing partner's minor. David was suggesting that responder should also bid 2H on lousy 5 and opener should pull if short, johnu and I are disputing that.
He also made the IMO dubious assertion that it's normal to bid 2D on 5=4=4=0, which I have never seen anywhere until now.

Responder bidding 2H on 5 (or 2d artificial showing 5H or other hands) can be done with much less downside over a 1s-1nt-2c sequence if one is playing a "Bart"/"Lisa" variant to distinguish between 5 cd heart vs 6+H (and other hands), at the expense of being able to show diamonds.

[akwoo]

There's not much you can do after 1S-1N-2D, but note that the Bart convention was invented pretty much to solve this problem after 1S-1N-2C (and it turns out to be useful for some other hand types, but does have the disadvantage of not being able to play 2D).

[DavidKok]

Thank you all for the replies, I will discuss the 5=4=4=0 rebid with my partner (especially since he told me 2♦ is the percentage action). To be clear: I'm not sure a 2♦ rebid is 'normal', just that it not a clear call (perhaps suit quality matters?). And Vampyr the difference between NF/SF/F 1NT is indeed what percentage of the time a 2♦ bid can promise only 3, which also influences the average number of hearts partner likely has. I play a NF 1NT (and multiplex 2♣), so 2♦ is 100% guaranteed to be 4(+). Over a forcing 1NT I would always bid 2♥, of course.

[nige1]

Jerdonald "BBO forum, 2/1 ACBL, Does responder, holding an equal number of cards in both, return to opener's"
++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 2♠ Partner normally has more ♠ than ♦
-- Even if partner had rebid 2♣, most would give false preference
2. 2♥. only works if partner is 5341. (not much good if he is 5143).

---

[Zelandakh]

In the actual case it is completely clear to rebid 2♠ - generally when you respond 1NT and follow that with a new suit that could not have been bid at the 1 level it should be a suit playable opposite a singleton, which J7532 surely is not.

Strangely, I think the original questions are potentially more interesting with the hand as it initially appeared to be - ♠76 ♥J7532 ♦KQ75 ♣J9 or "another point or 2, same distribution". That moves into an intermediate-level bidding concept that sometimes causes some confusion.