[straube]

We play limited(10-15) 5-cd major openings. Curious what others rebid after say 1M-1N. Show the four-card suit or rebid the major? Does it depend on suit quality or strength? Whether the side suit is hearts? Showing the side suit is a lot more descriptive, but partner can't then tell if you are 5/4 or 5/5.

[kenrexford]

If 1NT is not forcing, you could rebid:

2♤ = 5125 ish
2♡ = 5314 ish
2♧ = spades and hearts

The difference between 2♤ and 2♡ is the 2H is a heart suit playable opposite a 5-card suit, with clubs, whereas 2S shows worse hearts.

After 2♧, 2◇ asks for shape, 2♡ tending 55, 2♤ tending 64.

[straube]

I don't understand. 1S-1N, 2D is still diamonds? Don't we need 1S-1N, 2S for 6S? Possibly single-suited?

[awm]

With 6♠-4♥ it is very important to rebid the hearts. Partner will pass a 2♠ rebid on a wide range of hands with 5-card heart support, even with marginally invitational values.

With 6M-4m, I tend to rebid the minor for much the same reasons. However there are cases where rebidding 2M is better, typically when the suit texture is good for play opposite a singleton and the values are very minimal. Also note that 6-4 hands can often make pretty light games especially when a double fit materializes; for example AKxxxx xx Axxx x opposite xx Axx KQxxx xxx is worth bidding despite only 20 hcp and only an eight-card fit in the major, and even without the diamond queen it can be okay at IMPs. You will never find these after 1♠-1NT-2♠ but 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♦-3♠-4♠ is a possible auction (with responder able to upgrade slightly due to the minor suit fit).

[straube]

Thanks

[mikestar13]

awm, on 2016-June-18, 22:46, said:

With 6♠-4♥ it is very important to rebid the hearts. Partner will pass a 2♠ rebid on a wide range of hands with 5-card heart support, even with marginally invitational values.

With 6M-4m, I tend to rebid the minor for much the same reasons. However there are cases where rebidding 2M is better, typically when the suit texture is good for play opposite a singleton and the values are very minimal. Also note that 6-4 hands can often make pretty light games especially when a double fit materializes; for example AKxxxx xx Axxx x opposite xx Axx KQxxx xxx is worth bidding despite only 20 hcp and only an eight-card fit in the major, and even without the diamond queen it can be okay at IMPs. You will never find these after 1♠-1NT-2♠ but 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♦-3♠-4♠ is a possible auction (with responder able to upgrade slightly due to the minor suit fit).

This is quite good advice. In my limited opening partnerships, the rule is to always to bid the four card suit with extra values (=would have accepted a limit raise); with a minimum, rebid the major if it is reasonably good and the four card minor is poor, but we virtually never suppress a heart suit (maybe with ♠AKQTXX ♥xxxx ♦Jx ♣x).

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2016-June-18, 20:36, said:

I don't understand. 1S-1N, 2D is still diamonds? Don't we need 1S-1N, 2S for 6S? Possibly single-suited?

2◇ is long spades, possibly with a heart fragment. That allows us to get to 2♡ with maybe 6322 opposite 1534.

If Opener has ♤+◇, he opens 2◇ if not good enough for an intermediate 3◇ on rebid.

[straube]

kenrexford, on 2016-June-19, 06:36, said:

2◇ is long spades, possibly with a heart fragment. That allows us to get to 2♡ with maybe 6322 opposite 1534.

If Opener has ♤+◇, he opens 2◇ if not good enough for an intermediate 3◇ on rebid.

So your first post was a solution that depended on a particular 2D opening...which you didn't state.

[nullve]

I always show hearts with 6+S4+H and always "rebid" the major with 6+M4+m, but the latter "choice" has less to do with personal preference than the fact that my rebid structure is designed solve a completely different problem: how to get rid of NAT NF 2N/3M bids by Responder. In a limited opening (rules of 19-24 with min/max = rules of 19-21/rules of 22-24) context the scheme would be close to

1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = min, 4-S5H4-D4-C¹
2♣ = 5H5m / max, 5H4O² / ? ["Lucas"]
2♦ = max³, 4-S6H / ?
2♥ = min³, 4-S6H
(...)

1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = min, 5S3-H4-D4-C¹
2♣ = 4+ H⁴ / ?
2♦ = 5S5m⁵ / max, 5S4m² ["Muiderberg"]
2♥ = max³, 6S3-H / ?
2♠ = min³, 6S3-H
(...)

A scheme with 2-under transfers for the majors, much like the one Ken posted but not relying on a special 2♦ opening, could also work. E.g.

1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = min, 4-S5H4-D4-C
2♣ = 6+ H (=> 2♦ = range ask)
2♦ = Flannery (max, 4S5H)
2♥ = Muiderberg (5H5m or max, 5H4m)
(...)

1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?:

P = min, 5S3-H4-D4-C
2♣ = 4+ H (=> 2♦ = range ask)
2♦ = 6+S3-H (=> 2♥ = range ask)
2♥ = Muiderberg w/ H tolerance (5S2+H5m or max, 5S2+H4m)
2♠ = Muiderberg w/o H tolerance (5S1-H5m or max, 5S1-H4m)
(...)

¹ In my experience, passing 1N with min, 5S5m is seldom right even opposite a NF 1N, so these hands have to go somwhere else.
² Some such hands are suitable for 1N ("14-16"), of course.
³ I actually kind of swap min/max here, but for reasons I won't go into now.
⁴ Then Responder can ask about min/max with 2♦ instead of inviting with 2N/3♥.
⁵ I like to exclude min hands with 5S5C from 2♦ in order to have a better structure over 1♠-1N; 2♦-2N(inv+ relay), but then those hands have to go somewhere else and it isn't obvious where.

[kenrexford]

straube, on 2016-June-19, 07:24, said:

So your first post was a solution that depended on a particular 2D opening...which you didn't state.

I thought that was standard.

[kenrexford]

Actually, if you want a simpler method, with no weird openings (LOL), then there is a similar solution. 2♤ rebid is, as I said, spades and clubs. 2♧, then, shows long spades. That at least solves the 6-4 problem. It leaves unsolved the 5314/5305 problem, though.

[Zelandakh]

How about using transfer rebids? Since you do not have any hands with extras here, you could use those sequences to show the 6-4 types:

1♠ - 1NT
========
2♣ = diamonds
... - 2♦ = preference
... - ... - 2♠ = 6♠4♦
2♦ = hearts
... - 2♥ = preference
... - ... - 2♠ = 6♠4♥
2♥ = 1-suited
2♠ = 4 clubs
3♣ = 5 clubs

Whether it is worth pushing the auction up a level to show the extra distribution is questionable but it seems like a very easy solution to the given issue. Which is ironic given that the origin of transfer rebids is to solve the issues created by wide-ranging openings.