[dboxley]

It seems that the consensus is to rebid 1NT. I don't like it but I'm not adamant about it. It seems that everyone voting for 1NT considered cases where responder will make a further bid instead of cases where responder will pass either rebid. My position is:

1) If responder has enough to make a game try then you should be able to sort it out.

2) If responder doesn't have enough to make a game try, which contract will more likely be the best spot? (more likely to make or go down less, more likely to get the opponents back in when you want them in or less likely when you don't want them in, etc.)
2a) 2S definitely works best if pd has 5 spades
2b) 2S works best when you have a diamond problem and maybe just as well when you don't
2c) 2S makes them balance at the 3 level
2d) 1NT let's them balance at the 2 level which may or may not be good for you

Any comments?

[gwnn]

dboxley, on 2012-March-06, 06:39, said:

It seems that everyone voting for 1NT considered cases where responder will make a further bid instead of cases where responder will pass either rebid.

Who exactly? Most posters just said which are the most important factors why they consider this a 1NT rebid (quacky, Qx, etc). But phil's point that partner will sometimes take us to 3♠ (and we go down) when he'd pass 1NT is also good - there are no hands that'd pass 2S but bid on over 1NT but there are plenty vice versa. I agree with you that the most important question is how well will 1NT play vs how well 2S will play. I guess we disagree with the answer to that question.

[gnasher]

awm, on 2012-March-05, 12:02, said:

With 3-card support and a side Singleton there is a strong expert consensus to raise. Apparently there are still a few who wouldn't (mostly in Poland it seems) but they are a small minority.

I don't think that's a fair summary. So far as I know, it's still a capital crime to raise on three-card support in France, for example. And Poland alone has rather a lot of experts.

[Zelandakh]

dboxley, on 2012-March-06, 06:39, said:

It seems that the consensus is to rebid 1NT. I don't like it but I'm not adamant about it. It seems that everyone voting for 1NT considered cases where responder will make a further bid instead of cases where responder will pass either rebid. My position is:

I think most posters are considering which bid they feel will give them the best overall results, taking into account every hand opposite according to the relative frequencies. For what it is worth I used to raise on 3 card support quite a lot but do so much less now. I think the given hand is a clear 1NT and it is not at all close.

[phil_20686]

dboxley, on 2012-March-06, 06:39, said:

Any comments?

Yes, you should also consider the field action when playing MP. Raising on 3 cards on hands where it is not the room action essentially gives up your edge in the card play, so the contract needs to play enough better to cancel out your edge playing in 1N and scoring up against the room. Obviously this is a non event in teams.

If I am playing in a poor field where I expect many players to play in 1N, I am giving up a 60-70% board if I don't also play in 1N. So I need really very large equity in the decision to raise to 2S before its right. Playing in a strong field where many will consider a 3 card raise I have lots of protection, and should do what I think best, but its fairly rare (in my experience) to have a MP field strong enough that declarering hands in normal contracts is not a route to a good score.

[bluecalm]

Quote

With 3-card support and a side Singleton there is a strong expert consensus to raise. Apparently there are still a few who wouldn't (mostly in Poland it seems) but they are a small minority.

Nah, with side singleton I am raising. In Poland people usually don't have that problem as 1C opener promises 2 in any other suti in weak variant and after 1D opening the only problem shape is 3-4-5-1 (with 3-1-5-4 you could bid 2C) and with that problem shape most people here would raise I believe.

Now raising with 4-4-3-2 is completely different thing and if you raise on 3 with that here you would get a lot of suspicious looks if it worked and pitiful looks if it didn't

Quote

2a) 2S definitely works best if pd has 5 spades

With 5 spades partner bids 2S in style when you routinely bid 1NT with 3-4-4-2's/5-3-3-2's that's the whole point of that style.
I guess for people who routinely raise with 3 it's more common to pass 1NT with 5 spades.

Quote

2c) 2S makes them balance at the 3 level

This is similar to argument against support doubles. They make life easier for you but also easier for them. Most people prefer to play them these days it seems.

[jmcw]

Count me in on the 3 card raise when unbalanced.

Here, I would call 1NT (mostly for similar reasons as othes have posted)

[jogs]

gszes, on 2012-March-05, 21:56, said:

number 3

this hand 1n

I prefer to raise with (reasonable) 3 card support
when I have a major problem with 1n.
If my hand were say

KJ9 QJxx xx AQJx

I would bid 2s since I have a fairly
serious concern about dia and the 2s
might make it harder for the opps to
find their dia fit if p is min.

I would also bis 2s with the more
distributional hands shown by others.

The downside of the 2s bid is that we
might be closing out the heart suit and
playing in an anti-field 53 fit vs
44 in hearts I prefer to raise with
3 card support sparingly for that reason
alone.

Has anyone made a definitive study comparing
the merits of 4/4 fits versus 5/3 fits?
The differences are probably very small.

[CSGibson]

I am definitely in the camp that I will only raise when unbalanced. There are clear competitive advantages to defining your hand type as soon as possible, and 1N is a tighter definition for me than 2♠. Our partnership style is influenced by this - we almost never rebid 1N with a singleton, and we expect partner to correct to 2M with a non-invitational hand and a 5 card major.

[akhare]

Sign me up for #3 (as in almost always with unbalanced hands only). In this case, 1N seems pretty clear cut..

[rhm]

bluecalm, on 2012-March-05, 07:14, said:

I checked my database and I was wrong about Italians. While almost all 3card raises are with 5m, there are some 4-4-3-2, for example this one:
QT6 KQT5 43 AQ74 from Versace, which is exactly what Helene_t described (LV don't play Walsh).

Some other examples:
T94 9743 A7 AKQ6
A87 K973 AQT3 95
AK4 AK98 9863 42
QT2 A762 KQJ4 72

All from Lauria-Versace

As to disasters I think, slam bidding is crippled if you don't very detailed agreements in this spot and might result in ridiculous contracts. I will search my db later to find some examples from real experts

Btw, if you raise with 3, then:

1m - 1M
2M - 3m should promise 5card major.

I would raise on this hand for the following reasons:
Your spades are strong and you likely will score a ruff with your short trumps.
Ax is the wrong sort of stopper for your weak suit in notrump. (Versace seems to agree with me).
The type of "stopper" I like for rebidding notrump with a doubleton in an unbid suit is Kx, Qx, Jx or AT, AQ or AJ.
In other words I want secondary honors in my weak suit and if opponents attack here, that they develop tricks for me I could not get on my own.

Even if partner has only 4 cards in spades, though he is quite likely to hold a 5 card suit if you bid up the line, game in spades might well play better than notrump.
I think you can not discuss 3 card raises in isolation.
For example Polish player tend to raise only on 4 cards but will often rebid their 5 card major over opener's 1NT rebid.
I have the opposite philosophy:
As opener, I will not rebid a 5 card minor and I frequently rebid 1NT with a singleton spade if I have the right HCP range.
(I still promise at least 2 cards if I rebid notrump over a 1♥ response.)
So my partners tend not to rebid a 5 card major over a 1NT rebid, at least not a mediocre 5 card spade suit.
I also tend to be really minimum when I raise with 4 cards and tend to jump raise with a little bit less than most to make 3 card raises more playable.
Accordingly partner is under less pressure to look for game if he gets a single raise and holds only 4 cards.
Yes I have gone down in three, when others have made two, but sometimes we made game where others remained in two, and sometimes we remained in two , when others tried for game and went down.
Overall I am quite satisfied with my result in this area.

My continuations over a raise are different:
Partner can relay with the next higher bid (artificial, invitational or better), in this case 2NT and opener will describe his hand further. (It is better for opener to describe, since he will be dummy most of the time)
Any bid below 3 of the agreed major is natural and shows a 3 card raise.
With the above hand opener would bid 3♥ over 2NT hinting at this precise distribution.
If responder bids a minor over a raise, this would be non forcing and suggest that he does not want to be taken back to the major unless the raise was on 4 cards.
For example 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♣ suggests a hand with only 4 spades and longer clubs.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I think that it is a good idea to bid 2S here. I have three reasons:

1. We have chunky spades.

2. Partner bid suits up the line.

3. We have a doubleton in a suit that partner bypassed. Moreover, our holding in that suit does not scream for declaring from our hand.

The fact that partner bids suits up the line makes it likely that partner has 5 spades. As I routinely rebid 1NT here with a singleton spade (on most minimal 1444 or 1435 or 1345 shapes) my partner won't often return to 2S with a 5-card suit, especially not missing the king, jack and nine. If our rebid is passed out I think we'll rarely be in a clearly inferior contract if we rebid 2S, but we will often be if we rebid 1NT.

What if partner does try for game or slam? Bluecalm's assertion that raising on 3-card support leads to disasters is frankly absurd. This is the A/E forum, let's assume that we know what we are doing. His further comment that 3C by partner has to show 5 spades is almost as silly. You can play that it shows exactly 4 spades, or you can play that it shows at least 5, or you can play it completely artificially. There are many choices and it is just important to have a clear agreement with your partner. (By the way, I play that it is a natural slam try and does guarantee 5 spades.)

A last reason to bid 2S is that we have a 14-count and we want to incourage partner to try for game. 2S is more encouraging than 1NT.

Disclaimer: I don't bid suits up the line with my regular partner, we play T-walsh.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, I remember when I started playing bridge reading that 1C p 1S was likely to be 5 because partner denied 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, so the only other shapes were 4333 or 4(32)4 or 4xx5.

BTW, I think an often overlooked point is that raising with a small doubleton heart and with other doubleton heart holdings after 1m p 1S even if you don't bid up the line is very advisable, partner has either 5 spades or they have 8 hearts in which case they are very likely to attack them and be successful. As han points out, the same thing happens in diamonds here.