kenberg, on May 27 2007, 08:43 AM, said:
This is such a basic issue that surely high-level partnerships and probably many mid-level partnerships have settled the matter both in how they begin and, importantly, in how they deal in the later auction with the problems created by their initial choices. It doesn't seem to me this is simply a matter of whether you love or hate rebidding 1NT with a stiff. It needs to be a package deal.
I have never seen this adequately dealt with in print. Often people point out the advantages of their approach and pretend the downsides don't exist. Sample question: If, after 1D-1S-1N opener might hold one, two or three spades, under what circumstances does responder, holding a modest hand and some spade length, rebid 2S?
Yes, understand the implications with regard to the whole system.
As others have pointed out, frequently bidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit works better when opener can often raise the major with 3 card support (and then a checkback is needed for forward going continuations).
Those who choose the 1
♦ 1
♠; 2
♣ style need to examine closely the 4th suit implications (how often does a heart fit get lost).
I personally like Walsh responses to 1
♣ (slight preference for 5542 openings) with full xyz (and responder's reverse flannery). In that context, frequent 3 card raises and rebidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit seem to work well. With a different foundation, a different strategy may work better.