[miamijd]

rmnka447, on 2016-October-21, 13:38, said:

I tend to bid 1 ♠ with any distribution even 4-3-3-3. Only occasionally will I bid 1 NT with a 4-3-3-3 hand. Usually, this is with lots of intermediates, stoppers, and not particularly great ♠. I'd be very tempted to do it with this hand.

If you're willing to take the heat for missing a 4-4 ♠ by bidding 1 NT, then 1 NT is probably right. If not, then bid 1 ♠.

You'll only miss a 44 spade fit when responder has less than an invite. With an invite or better, responder can use any of several conventions (NMF, two-way NMF, xyz, etc) to check on a 44 spade fit.

Cheers,
Mike

[Zelandakh]

Caitlynne, on 2016-October-21, 10:07, said:

You should not rebid 1S only because that guarantees 4 clubs!

No, as others have pointed out that depends on agreements. In countries like France and Germany, the most popular method is that a 1NT rebid absolutely denies a 4 card spade suit. Within these systems you obviously rebid 1♠. If having the agreement that a 1♠ rebid shows an unbalanced hand, a popular method in the US, you obviously rebid 1NT. And then there is the method where rebidding 1♠ shows real clubs but not necessarily an unbalanced hand, in which 4333 is also a 1NT rebid. It is completely wrong to call any of these methods standard in an international sense and clearly a serious overbid to describe the minimum length of clubs for a 1♠ rebid as "guaranteed".

[Kaitlyn S]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-22, 00:56, said:

If having the agreement that a 1♠ rebid shows an unbalanced hand, a popular method in the US, you obviously rebid 1NT.

I believe most bridge teachers in the US teach to not bypass a four card spade suit to bid 1NT (i.e. would bid 1S on 4-3-3-3.)

[661_Pete]

"Acol" may be a dirty word amongst some players, but see how much easier it is for this hand! You open an obvious 1NT (12-14), partner if they have a good heart suit, bids 2♦, you have to bid 2♥ and then it's back to partner. They know your strength: if they don't see a game they will leave it at that.

OK I know I'm out of line with the thread title, but I just thought I'd post this anyway....

[1eyedjack]

661_Pete, on 2016-October-22, 15:41, said:

"Acol" may be a dirty word amongst some players, but see how much easier it is for this hand! You open an obvious 1NT (12-14), partner if they have a good heart suit, bids 2♦, you have to bid 2♥ and then it's back to partner. They know your strength: if they don't see a game they will leave it at that.

OK I know I'm out of line with the thread title, but I just thought I'd post this anyway....

This analysis is incomplete, and at least overly simplistic.

The argument about rebidding 1S v 1N largely (but not entirely) centres on the existence or not of a 4-4 Spade fit and the cost of missing it when responder lacks a game try. That argument to some extent exists whenever you are outside the range to open 1N. If you happen to be playing a weak 1N then the same questions arise (ie in Acol) when you are dealt a hand outside that range. It is pure accident that at the outset of this thread the hand happened to fall within the range for an Acol 1N opener.

Likewise it is false to conclude that your problems even on this hand are solved by playing Acol. Sure you open 1N, and sure the responses are "easier": responder passes whatever on the problem hand and you guarantee missing the 4-4 Spade fit. It does not necessarily improve your chances of finding the right contract if the system prescribes that you miss the fit, supposedly taking away your "problem".

[aguahombre]

Caitlynne, on 2016-October-21, 10:07, said:

You should not rebid 1S only because that guarantees 4 clubs! You should not be bidding two suits unless you actually have two suits!!!! So you should rebid 1NT, as you always should with fewer than 4 card support for partner's major and a 4333 pattern.

In other words, when you only have one suit you should show no suits. I will have to think about that sometime.

[fromageGB]

1eyedjack, on 2016-October-22, 16:12, said:

Likewise it is false to conclude that your problems even on this hand are solved by playing Acol. Sure you open 1N, and sure the responses are "easier": responder passes whatever on the problem hand and you guarantee missing the 4-4 Spade fit. It does not necessarily improve your chances of finding the right contract if the system prescribes that you miss the fit, supposedly taking away your "problem".

Not quite true. Responder on this OP hand might have a weak hand 5 card heart suit, and there is an additional possibility that you should really be playing in a 2♥ contract. Absolutely no problem using twalsh, of course, but natural strong NT falls down here if you rebid 1♠, while the weak NT allows responder to transfer.

I agree with 661 that sticking your head in the sand solves most problems.

[Zelandakh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-22, 09:26, said:

I believe most bridge teachers in the US teach to not bypass a four card spade suit to bid 1NT (i.e. would bid 1S on 4-3-3-3.)

This is true for those learning SAYC but generally not for 2/1, which happens to be a rather popular system in the US.

[jogs]

miamijd, on 2016-October-21, 12:34, said:

As others have mentioned, you need to have an agreement on these sorts of hands.

Pros for bidding 1NT:
1. If you reserve 1S for hands where you actually have 4+ clubs, partner will be better able to determine whether you belong in clubs or NT.

Pros for bidding 1S:
1. If partner is 44 in the majors with a hand not worth an invite to game, you will play 1NT instead of 2S.

Personally, I think the advantages of bidding 1NT on these sorts of hands (and indeed, with a lot of 4234 and 4324 hands) outweigh the disadvantages at any form of scoring, but many disagree.

Cheers,
mike

4333 opposite 4324 or 4234. The 4-4 fit only plays 0.5 trick better than notrumps. 4♠ requires declarer to win an extra trick.
Rebidding 1NT with 4333 is the best game theory answer.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2016-October-24, 07:34, said:

4333 opposite 4324 or 4234. The 4-4 fit only plays 0.5 trick better than notrumps. 4♠ requires declarer to win an extra trick.
Rebidding 1NT with 4333 is the best game theory answer.

Some questions:

- What is "the best game theory answer" when comparing 1♠ with 1NT?
- What is "the best game theory answer" when comparing 2♠ with 2NT?
- If we rebid 1NT, are we more likely to be playing one of these contracts or more likely to be unable to describe game-forcing hands adequately?
- Can you see why it makes a difference in the discussion whether the system involved allows a 1NT rebid with a singleton heart?

As it happens I do like the style with a 1NT rebid here but your answer attempts to simplify things in such a way that it is meaningless in terms of ascertaining which is better for a given system and where the various pros and cons lie.

[mycroft]

I really do think that the right "game theory" answer depends on the environment (what does the field play?) unless you assume MtG-speed metagame learning and changing. Which I would never assume - people just don't change system from one week to the next, even if shown that their system is zero-win versus something else (and that never is; there are no new systems that are "zero-win" versus anything you won't forget at the table).

That's why I prefaced (one of) my argument[] above with "we play 12-14 in the 90+% 14+ NT world, therefore our decision is based on getting the "balanced 15-17" out,getting "back to average" ASAP. Playing in a location where 12-14 was the norm, we'd probably be an outlier for bypassing majors, and would have to think whether it was technically better. As it is, there's nothing to think about.