[mike777]

Your hand type is something close to the following:

---

1S=1NT
?

any vul, any MP or Imp

What is your rebid and why?

The theme here is 1 Major=1NT=your rebid with this kind of shape, feel free to add or subtract or move around HCP.

[jillybean]

pass, but I assume 1nt is forcing

I actually like to use a somewhat nebulous 2♣ here, could be short.
Partner has a weak or limit raise in spades, or has his own suit.
If his suit is clubs, I'd like to stop at the 2 level.

I'm sure I am in the minority here.

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 06:52, said:

pass, but I assume 1nt is forcing

I actually like to use a somewhat nebulous 2♣ here, could be short.
Partner has a weak or limit raise in spades, or has his own suit.
If his suit is clubs, I'd like to stop at the 2 level.

I'm sure I am in the minority here.

I was taught that when you play 5-card majors, you pass a nonforcing 1NT _only_ with 5332.

[jillybean]

bluenikki, on 2026-November-03, 06:57, said:

I was taught that when you play 5-card majors, you pass a nonforcing 1NT _only_ with 5332.

That rule was conceived by people who fear playing in 1nt. But of course, I don't pass here.

[P_Marlowe]

2D

I am unbal., I have a 2-suiter.
2C is quite often played as art., solving some issues, creating other.

[mikeh]

With the OP hand I doubt you’d find any good player doing anything but 2D, assuming they are playing a ‘normal’ method, where 1N is either forcing or semi forcing.

Why? Because shape matters.

I’ve begun playing 1N as semi forcing, using a 2C response as including a 3 card limit raise of partner’s major. That allows 1M 1N 2C to show 4 clubs…opener passes 1N with a minimum opening bid and 5332. I’d also pass if I’d opened 1H and was 4=5=2=2. We haven’t yet discussed 4=5=3+1/4=5=1=3. I’m thinking we’d probably pass 1N, to preserve the integrity of 2m as promising 4.

I’ve seen a number of club level players distort shape. It rarely ends well.

If you play 1N as F1 by an unpassed hand, it is a common, but probably not universal, expert treatment for 1M 1N 2C to promise 2+ and 1M 1N 2D to be 4 plus. It is a good idea to use a form of Bart over the 2C response. I also use Bart over 2D, if partner opened 1S, but this is not as common as using Bart over the 2C bid. 4=5=3=1, 1H 1N….sometimes I bid 2D but I’ll usually bid 2C since 2C is very rarely passed.

[steve2005]

Is a clear 2♦ even not playing 2/1 where the 1NT is not forcing
If partner has a diamond fit, 2♦ will play better than 1NT often
With a doubleton ♠ partner will normally put you back to 2♠, which again will often play better than 1NT

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-November-03, 08:43, said:

We haven’t yet discussed 4=5=3+1/4=5=1=3. I’m thinking we’d probably pass 1N, to preserve the integrity of 2m as promising 4.

I am a fan of this, passing with hands up to (but not including) reverse strength because of the known two-suit misfit.

mikeh, on 2026-November-03, 08:43, said:

I’ve begun playing 1N as semi forcing, using a 2C response as including a 3 card limit raise of partner’s major.

I think this exposes you to a lot of risk if fourth seat interferes. In my opinion it is preferable for the support hands in 2♣ to be slammish, not invitational.

[steve2005]

bluenikki, on 2026-November-03, 06:57, said:

I was taught that when you play 5-card majors, you pass a nonforcing 1NT _only_ with 5332.

1♥-1N also is passed with 4-5-2-2 shape as you have no rebid with a minimum hand
5422 with a 4 card minor can be passed with a minimum with honours in the doubletons.

[mw64ahw]

1N non-forcing (I played forcing for a long time)
2♣ ♦, 52x4 or strong ♣
This may be unusual, but not sure what else could be new.
Any significance to West's 9♣?

[pescetom]

I assume you mean:

---

If so could you please put it in this format ?

All it takes is to add "&d=s&a=1sp1np?" after the hands.

Or you can add the auction at the time of creation of the diagram and add a final call by South, then edit the handviewer code here to change that call to a question mark.

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-November-03, 13:41, said:

I assume you mean:

---

If so could you please put it in this format ?

All it takes is to add "&d=s&a=1sp1np?" after the hands.

Or you can add the auction at the time of creation of the diagram and add a final call by South, then edit the handviewer code here to change that call to a question mark.

Don't know how to add bidding

I do click add bidding but have no idea what to do next.

Don't understand your directions but ty.
-------------------

Anyway this past week was told I should rebid 2C with this hand type to find out partners suit. Told this was expert standard. That was news to me.....

[DavidKok]

I would rebid 2♦ with this, but I know for a lot of players the 2m rebids do not promise four cards in that suit. Possibly that makes the decision more difficult.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-November-03, 15:16, said:

Don't know how to add bidding

I do click add bidding but have no idea what to do next.

Don't understand your directions but ty.
-------------------

Anyway this past week was told I should rebid 2C with this hand type to find out partners suit. Told this was expert standard. That was news to me.....

I would be wary of anyone claiming it is Expert Standard or even standard. It's played, I like it, but if partner wants to bid their 4 card diamond suit here that's ok too. At my level I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
What I want to know is what you will bid with 5332

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 16:47, said:

I would be wary of anyone claiming it is Expert Standard or even standard. It's played, I like it, but if partner wants to bid their 4 card diamond suit here that's ok too. At my level I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
What I want to know is what you will bid with 5332

I always thought standard was to bid the 3-card suit

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 16:47, said:

I would be wary of anyone claiming it is Expert Standard or even standard. It's played, I like it, but if partner wants to bid their 4 card diamond suit here that's ok too. At my level I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
What I want to know is what you will bid with 5332

Probably pass, if not then 2C, never 2D

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on 2026-November-03, 17:02, said:

Probably pass, if not then 2C, never 2D

Either Pass, or bid the 3 carder.

Anyway, ..., be in sync with your p.
I would also assume, that the supposed expert standard means, that it is common
to play 2C in this seq. as art. / waiting, and not, that it is common to bid 2C
on a 2 carder in a natural way.

It also is important, do you open 5332 with 1 NT, or do you open the major,
if you always open 1 NT in range, that you will pass with a weak NT, the meaning
of a given bid is always depend, on the meaning of previous bids, and it is
dangerous to take a bid and claim it is standard, if the context is different.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2026-November-03, 11:47, said:

I am a fan of this, passing with hands up to (but not including) reverse strength because of the known two-suit misfit.

I think this exposes you to a lot of risk if fourth seat interferes. In my opinion it is preferable for the support hands in 2♣ to be slammish, not invitational.

That is indeed the main concern we have. So far, no issues but we’ve only played it a few times. It’s become quite popular in NA, and I recall seeing a strong Australian (iirc) pair doing it in an event where I was doing commentary on BBO, so a long time ago

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-November-03, 16:47, said:

I would be wary of anyone claiming it is Expert Standard or even standard. It's played, I like it, but if partner wants to bid their 4 card diamond suit here that's ok too. At my level I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
What I want to know is what you will bid with 5332

Bidding 2C rather than 2D suggests a deep dislike of partner. Why else would one lie to partner in such a straightforward auction? In what up universe is partner going to play us for 4 diamonds and shorter clubs?

Bridge is a complicated game, and it becomes ever more difficult once players start randomizing their actions in ways that completely distort their shape…especially when the situation is so pedestrian. I think some players see experts have complex agreements and think that ntroducing strange actions makes them look as if they too are expert. But the complex methods played by experts aren’t random. Everything fits together in a coherent system. Sure, every method has hand types with which it struggles, but underlying every system played by expert partnerships is a solid, sensible foundation in which, when bids arise, the players consistently get the simple ones right. Bidding 2C here is just silly unless playing something very artificial, which doesn’t seem applicable given the OP

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-November-04, 16:17, said:

Bidding 2C rather than 2D suggests a deep dislike of partner. Why else would one lie to partner in such a straightforward auction? In what up universe is partner going to play us for 4 diamonds and shorter clubs?

Bridge is a complicated game, and it becomes ever more difficult once players start randomizing their actions in ways that completely distort their shape…especially when the situation is so pedestrian. I think some players see experts have complex agreements and think that ntroducing strange actions makes them look as if they too are expert. But the complex methods played by experts aren’t random. Everything fits together in a coherent system. Sure, every method has hand types with which it struggles, but underlying every system played by expert partnerships is a solid, sensible foundation in which, when bids arise, the players consistently get the simple ones right. Bidding 2C here is just silly unless playing something very artificial, which doesn’t seem applicable given the OP

Mike, have you ever considered that lesser players pick up random actions not to appear expert, but because it is something an "expert" partner introduced them to?

The frightening Forcing 1NT response was taught to me this way, and apparently taught to many others too—seemingly to such an extent that it has now become "Expert Std." (humour intended!). I have played this short club response for many years and it has not caused significant problems. I am not saying it is a superior or even logical method, but it is what is played by many of my partners.
We have had this very discussion before and I was convinced shape was better, but when it comes to playing with my partners at the table, many don't bid that way. If my contributions here are coming across as considering myself to be an expert, I need to change the tone. I am having a lot of fun and I'm improving, but I doubt that I will ever be able to call myself an expert at this game.