[baabaa]

I've been wondering how to open the bidding with this shape, and what is the best "lie" to tell, as it seems that you often have to do that during the course of the bidding. It seems to get even harder if you have a 20+ hand and p responds 2!d after your 2!c bid.

Do you open in NT with some hands if you have a singleton ace or king for example?

Does anyone have some general tips on this, or even better, could link to an article dealing with this subject?

[nige1]

 baabaa, on 2020-July-22, 01:19, said:

I've been wondering how to open the bidding with this shape, and what is the best "lie" to tell, as it seems that you often have to do that during the course of the bidding. It seems to get even harder if you have a 20+ hand and p responds 2!d after your 2!c bid.Do you open in NT with some hands if you have a singleton ace or king for example?Does anyone have some general tips on this, or even better, could link to an article dealing with this subject?

There are sometimes problems with a (4441), if you employ a natural system like Acol; but it's fairly straight-forward with other systems. eg using 2/1, with a singleton

• M: open 1♦,
• m: open the other minor... or 1N with 15-17 especially if the singleton is an honour.

There was a recent thread on what to do with a 4441 hand and 12-14 HCP, after a 2♣ response io 1♦

• IMO, you should rebid 2N -- or perhaps rebid 2♦ although only 4-cards..
• But the BBO consensus seems to be that you should reverse into 2♥

.

[Cyberyeti]

 nige1, on 2020-July-22, 02:36, said:

There are sometimes problems with a (4441), if you employ a natural system like Acol; but it's fairly straight-forward with other systems. eg using 2/1, with a singleton

• M: open 1♦,
• m: open the other minor... or 1N with 15-17 especially if the singleton is an honour.

There was a recent thread on what to do with a 4441 hand and 12-14 HCP, after a 2♣ response io 1♦

• IMO, you should rebid 2N -- or perhaps rebid 2♦ although only 4-cards..
• But the BBO consensus seems to be that you should reverse into 2♥

.

I think Nigel's point about the 12-14 hand over 1♦-2♣ is when playing a strong NT 2/1, playing weak you have to hold your nose and rebid 2♦.

Playing Acol, we follow Nigel's rules for what you open, diamonds if you have them, clubs if you don't, but we have one unusual bid in our arsenal, 1x-1y-3N is not the long solid suit punt
that it is for many, we play it as 4441 with support so that some of our other bids guarantee 5+ of opener's first suit.

Another treatment is that on the odd occasion I play precision, we will open 1N with precisely 4414 hands meaning 2♦ will always have exactly 5 clubs.

[nullve]

My solution is, roughly, to

* open 1♣ with 4144 and 1♦ with 1444;
* play "switched" major suit responses to 1♦, i.e.

1♦-1♥ = "4+ S" (also with 44xx)

and

1♦-1♠ = "4+ H" (never with 44xx);

* let 1♦-1♥; 1♠ = "hearts" (incl. 1444, any strength).

[FelicityR]

From your online BBO profile I see that you play 2/1. This discussion on BBO took place a few years back.

https://www.bridgeba...rn/page__st__20

There are few heavyweight forum contributors discussing the pros and cons of what to do.

In answer to your question generally, many 4441 hands, even up to and above 20 HCPs would be opened at the one level in a minor. It is usually responder that has to 'lie' here, sometimes responding in a major suit with as little as Kxxxx.

4441 hands are notoriously awkward to bid as you could have a fit in any of the three suits: add extra HCPs to the hand and they are a nightmare except if you incorporate a Multi or Roman Two Diamonds bid into your repertoire.

[helene_t]

Depends on your notrump range and whether you play 4-card or 5-card majors.

In a 5-card major system with 15-17 nt, it is standard to open 1♦ with a singleton in a major. With weak hands it doesn't matter so much as you are probably going to rebid 1NT, but with 16-17 it is nice to be able to rebid 2♣ and then show your values and shape by bidding your 3rd suit in the 3rd round. If you open 1♣ you might have to reverse in 2nd round and then partner might put you in 3♣ in a 4-2 fit.

With 18-20 it is maybe better to open 1♣ and then reverse with 2♦ to preserve bidding space.

Stronger hands I would normally describe as balanced.

[mikeh]

With a minimum hand, assuming a strong notrump method, and playing 5 card majors, one typically opens 1D with 4441 or 1444 or 4144, and 1C with 4414.

Obviously with a fit for responder’s hypothetical 1M response, one raises. With 4144, one bids 1S over 1H, and with 4414, 1H over 1D.

The main problem hand is the 1444 with a 1S response. Some pairs allow a 1N rebid with that shape, but be aware that this approach has significant drawbacks that, in the view of many very good players, outweigh the benefits. Personally, I see it as very close, but in my serious partnerships we do not rebid 1N.

If you do not rebid 1N, you have to open 1D in order to allow you to rebid 2C. I happen to think that 1D is (almost) always the correct choice when 4-4 minors, but some players (I think typically more European than North American) disagree.

With an in-range for 1N opening, I have no problems opening 1N with a stiff king or ace. Depending on the hand, I might do it with a Queen. Otherwise I open the appropriate minor (normally diamonds)

As for 20 plus hands, again if the stiff is an ace or king, I might open 2N (20-21) or 2C, intending to rebid notrump. However, it is a mistake to assume that one should open 2C simply because one has a lot of hcp.

Many years ago, I held a 5431 4=1=3=5 hand with a stiff king of hearts and 23 hcp. In the tournament we were in, only one pair reached the cold 7S: and we did it after I opened 1C. Opening 2C seems to have preempted the hand, since spades as the ‘second’ suit for both of us. Obviously that is a different holding, but the point remains. Don’t feel obliged to stuff all powerful hands into 2C when doing so may distort your ability to show shape.

Btw, I noted nullve’s suggestion to switch the meanings of 1H and 1S as responses to 1D. I have played that, with two very strong partners. In my current main partnership, we gave up on it. It most often breaks even, but the follow ups have to be complex, adding to memory load, or poor: not a good idea in either event. Plus you have to (imo) pre-alert every time you play.

As for 1D 2C, holding 4441, the ‘correct’ rebid is a matter for partnership agreement. I have very strong feelings about 2N. Imo, partner should now be entitled to assume at least 2-3 clubs, without which assumption he cannot properly evaluate for slam, or even the best game, when holding a good but not completely solid 6+ club suit.

My strong preference is to use the rebid of 2D as a sort of waiting or mark time action, reserving other calls for specific hands. Thus 2M always shows at least 4=5 in my suits, with a hand worth at least a king more than a bad minimum. Again, this is because (in my partnerships) we are especially interested in accurate slam bidding. We play very little matchpoints and our partnerships are focussed on imp play. 2N shows something in both majors, so as to avoid wrong-siding the most common game after this start.

[mikeh]

With a minimum hand, assuming a strong notrump method, and playing 5 card majors, one typically opens 1D with 4441 or 1444 or 4144, and 1C with 4414.

Obviously with a fit for responder’s hypothetical 1M response, one raises. With 4144, one bids 1S over 1H, and with 4414, 1H over 1D.

The main problem hand is the 1444 with a 1S response. Some pairs allow a 1N rebid with that shape, but be aware that this approach has significant drawbacks that, in the view of many very good players, outweigh the benefits. Personally, I see it as very close, but in my serious partnerships we do not rebid 1N.

If you do not rebid 1N, you have to open 1D in order to allow you to rebid 2C. I happen to think that 1D is (almost) always the correct choice when 4-4 minors, but some players (I think typically more European than North American) disagree.

With an in-range for 1N opening, I have no problems opening 1N with a stiff king or ace. Depending on the hand, I might do it with a Queen. Otherwise I open the appropriate minor (normally diamonds)

As for 20 plus hands, again if the stiff is an ace or king, I might open 2N (20-21) or 2C, intending to rebid notrump. However, it is a mistake to assume that one should open 2C simply because one has a lot of hcp.

Many years ago, I held a 5431 4=1=3=5 hand with a stiff king of hearts and 23 hcp. In the tournament we were in, only one pair reached the cold 7S: and we did it after I opened 1C. Opening 2C seems to have preempted the hand, since spades as the ‘second’ suit for both of us. Obviously that is a different holding, but the point remains. Don’t feel obliged to stuff all powerful hands into 2C when doing so may distort your ability to show shape.

Btw, I noted nullve’s suggestion to switch the meanings of 1H and 1S as responses to 1D. I have played that, with two very strong partners. In my current main partnership, we gave up on it. It most often breaks even, but the follow ups have to be complex, adding to memory load, or poor: not a good idea in either event. Plus you have to (imo) pre-alert every time you play.

As for 1D 2C, holding 4441, the ‘correct’ rebid is a matter for partnership agreement. I have very strong feelings about 2N. Imo, partner should now be entitled to assume at least 2-3 clubs, without which assumption he cannot properly evaluate for slam, or even the best game, when holding a good but not completely solid 6+ club suit.

My strong preference is to use the rebid of 2D as a sort of waiting or mark time action, reserving other calls for specific hands. Thus 2M always shows at least 4=5 in my suits, with a hand worth at least a king more than a bad minimum. Again, this is because (in my partnerships) we are especially interested in accurate slam bidding. We play very little matchpoints and our partnerships are focussed on imp play. 2N shows something in both majors, so as to avoid wrong-siding the most common game after this start.

[KingCovert]

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 11:12, said:

If you do not rebid 1N, you have to open 1D in order to allow you to rebid 2C. I happen to think that 1D is (almost) always the correct choice when 4-4 minors, but some players (I think typically more European than North American) disagree.

This may have something to do with whether players are used to playing a Strong NT or a Weak NT. When playing 2/1, I've held the same position as you for a long time. I take it to a bit more of an extreme. If my hand cannot reverse, I open 1♦ with all hands that have 4♦ and no 5-card major. I suppose on the odd occassion where I have some x=y=4=7 hand with a club holding that needs to be spoken for, I would deviate, but, otherwise it's just simply better. (Edit: And, honestly, I'd be pretty comfortable reversing with such a hand if I didn't want to bury the diamonds)

For those that aren't convinced. I think there is more value having 2♣ as a rebid and allowing partner to take preference between the minors. Also, the value of the inferences on 1♣ opening bids when you know partner must hold either reversing values or 3-♦ is incredibly useful.

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 11:12, said:

As for 1D 2C, holding 4441, the ‘correct’ rebid is a matter for partnership agreement. I have very strong feelings about 2N. Imo, partner should now be entitled to assume at least 2-3 clubs, without which assumption he cannot properly evaluate for slam, or even the best game, when holding a good but not completely solid 6+ club suit.

My strong preference is to use the rebid of 2D as a sort of waiting or mark time action, reserving other calls for specific hands. Thus 2M always shows at least 4=5 in my suits, with a hand worth at least a king more than a bad minimum. Again, this is because (in my partnerships) we are especially interested in accurate slam bidding. We play very little matchpoints and our partnerships are focused on imp play. 2N shows something in both majors, so as to avoid wrong-siding the most common game after this start.

This makes sense to me, and is identical to how I treat similar sequences in a vastly different system, but, I wonder what you'd bid with a hand that was 2=4=4=3 with two small spades? 2NT anyways? Should your partner be offering a major suit contract on their way to 3NT?

I guess my point is, it's not clear to me that bidding a major really does show 4=5 shape in your two suits? Although, it often will, I'd agree.

[mikeh]

 KingCovert, on 2020-July-22, 12:06, said:

This makes sense to me, and is identical to how I treat similar sequences in a vastly different system, but, I wonder what you'd bid with a hand that was 2=4=4=3 with two small spades? 2NT anyways? Should your partner be offering a major suit contract on their way to 3NT?

I guess my point is, it's not clear to me that bidding a major really does show 4=5 shape in your two suits? Although, it often will, I'd agree.

i play that 2D is the default bid, as I said above. Therefore your 2=4=4=3 hand is trivial: 2D.

This style has disadvantages when partner has some diamond fit, and can't tell (yet and maybe never for sure) how many you have, but this cost is, in my experience, a small price to pay for the far more informative meanings given to other actions.

However, in my most serious current partnership, it rarely arises: we open 1C with balanced hands and 4-2 majors. 1D is either 5 or unbalanced. We still do this 2D rebid with 4441 and a minimum.

[KingCovert]

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 13:26, said:

i play that 2D is the default bid, as I said above. Therefore your 2=4=4=3 hand is trivial: 2D.

This style has disadvantages when partner has some diamond fit, and can't tell (yet and maybe never for sure) how many you have, but this cost is, in my experience, a small price to pay for the far more informative meanings given to other actions.

However, in my most serious current partnership, it rarely arises: we open 1C with balanced hands and 4-2 majors. 1D is either 5 or unbalanced. We still do this 2D rebid with 4441 and a minimum.

I see. Okay, so, this is one of those hands that you catch with 2♦. Fair enough. I agree that it's not too consequential to muddy the waters with the 2♦ bid, it seems like most hands bidding 2♦ would benefit from seizing captaincy and having Responder describe their hand further.

Out of curiosity, can Responder have 4-card diamond support with your agreements? I'm wondering if you play Inverted Minors, and how you'd treat a 2=2=4=5 hand let's say. Does 2♣ deny 4-card support? Certainly the 1♦ opener can hold clubs, so, it wouldn't be the weirdest thing to bid 2♣ while holding diamonds I guess.

I'm wondering what the auction 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ would show? Seems like it shows a hesitancy to play 3NT, and I'm unclear on how much diamond support it shows. Is this still a game force?

[mikeh]

I play inverted minors here and because we always have real diamonds, and have a sophisticated inverted structure, we’d always bid 2D with 4+ support (well, maybe with some huge club suit we might not) so the problem of 1D 2C 2D 3D will rarely arise and, when it does, responder is unlikely to hold more than 3 cars support. That auction is either looking for 3N or has slam interest (or both😃)

2C is unequivocally gf

[mikeh]

Also, the concept of captaincy is, IMO, given far too much significance by many advancing players

I have played relay methods where, initially at least, the relayer has captaincy and of course there are captaincy situations in many ‘standard’ situations. However, my approach is, generally, to regard bidding, especially constructive bidding, more often as a dialogue or conversation rather than an asker and teller enquiry. Captaincy evolves from such a dialogue, assuming that either partner even becomes captain. On that latter point, I suppose that one could argue that the last person to express an opinion is captain. So that 1N 3N has responder as captain, but that trivializes the concept imo

Btw, captaincy can pass back and forth during an auction

[KingCovert]

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 15:26, said:

I play inverted minors here and because we always have real diamonds, and have a sophisticated inverted structure, we’d always bid 2D with 4+ support (well, maybe with some huge club suit we might not) so the problem of 1D 2C 2D 3D will rarely arise and, when it does, responder is unlikely to hold more than 3 cars support. That auction is either looking for 3N or has slam interest (or both��)

2C is unequivocally gf

I mostly asked those questions because you expressed the possibility of an ambiguity as to how many diamonds Opener holds when bidding 2♦, but, this ambiguity seems to have little consequence since Responder's diamond holding is limited by other agreements. Not that you need my seal of approval, but, that constraint is definitely key in raising the quality of these agreements.

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 15:36, said:

Also, the concept of captaincy is, IMO, given far too much significance by many advancing players

I have played relay methods where, initially at least, the relayer has captaincy and of course there are captaincy situations in many ‘standard’ situations. However, my approach is, generally, to regard bidding, especially constructive bidding, more often as a dialogue or conversation rather than an asker and teller enquiry. Captaincy evolves from such a dialogue, assuming that either partner even becomes captain. On that latter point, I suppose that one could argue that the last person to express an opinion is captain. So that 1N 3N has responder as captain, but that trivializes the concept imo

Btw, captaincy can pass back and forth during an auction

Yeah, it's always best to accurately communicate your hand, both explicitly through the calls you make, and implicitly through the calls you don't make. Captaincy only really seems to be relevant to me when there are hands where the description of one player's hand is far more relevant than the other, or establishing some captaincy makes handling the situation much easier/effective.

Thanks for breaking down your agreements, they seem like they would work well. I often create my own structures/conventions depending on how tailored the system I play is, and it's nice to get some insight into the usage of a waiting bid in this sort of scenario. I can easily find myself recalling this when designing something else... Who knows, I may just decide to play it.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2020-July-22, 11:12, said:

Btw, I noted nullve’s suggestion to switch the meanings of 1H and 1S as responses to 1D. I have played that, with two very strong partners. In my current main partnership, we gave up on it. It most often breaks even, but the follow ups have to be complex, adding to memory load, or poor: not a good idea in either event.

Either poorer or more complex than standard follow-ups after 1♦-1M? If so, why?

I mean, doesn't the following structure,

1♦-1♥("4+ S"); ?:

1♠ = "4+ H, F1"
1N/2♣/2♦: same as 1N/2♣/2♦ over 1♦-1♥("4+ H") but with majors switched
2♥/2♠: replacing 2♠ over 1♦-1♠("4+ S")
2N+: same as 2N+ over 1♦-1♠

1♦-1♠("4+ H"); ?:

1N/2♣/2♦: same as 1N/2♣/2♦ over 1♦-1♠("4+ S") but with majors switched
2♥/2N+: same as 2♥/2N+ over 1♦-1♥("4+ H")
2♠ = spade reverse,

look about as simple and good (poor) as the standard structure over 1♦-1M? (Having two ways to raise spades (blue part) might weigh up for the awkwardness of the spade reverse (red part).

[KingCovert]

 nullve, on 2020-July-23, 11:10, said:

Either poorer or more complex than standard follow-ups after 1♦-1M? If so, why?

I think over 1♦ it can become a bit more difficult to find the right fit when responder has both majors? Not impossible or anything, but, more difficult than you're leading on. Especially if you want to do so at the appropriate level and in order to preserve room for slam investigations etc. I may well be wrong, but, the descriptions you've posted don't inspire confidence in this scenario as described.

[mikeh]

 nullve, on 2020-July-23, 11:10, said:

Either poorer or more complex than standard follow-ups after 1♦-1M? If so, why?

I mean, doesn't the following structure,

1♦-1♥("4+ S"); ?:

1♠ = "4+ H, F1"
1N/2♣/2♦: same as 1N/2♣/2♦ over 1♦-1♥("4+ H") but with majors switched
2♥/2♠: replacing 2♠ over 1♦-1♠("4+ S")
2N+: same as 2N+ over 1♦-1♠

1♦-1♠("4+ H"); ?:

1N/2♣/2♦: same as 1N/2♣/2♦ over 1♦-1♠("4+ S") but with majors switched
2♥/2N+: same as 2♥/2N+ over 1♦-1♥("4+ H")
2♠ = spade reverse,

look about as simple and good (poor) as the standard structure over 1♦-1M? (Having two ways to raise spades (blue part) might weigh up for the awkwardness of the spade reverse (red part).

1D 1S showing hearts. Opener has a shapely minimum with 4S.

Obviously this is similar to a standard situation with 1D 1S catching opener with a shapely minimum with hearts. However, there are ways to minimize the standard conundrum that don’t work quite as well when you switch the majors. At least, that was our view.

We experimented with responding 1H with 4=4 majors and with some limited range 4=5 majors (showing the shorter major first) and the structure worked reasonably well, but was complex.

Finally, we play a fairly complex method, don’t play a huge amount, and neither of us has played much serious bridge in years. Add that we’re both 67, and we opted to drop this particular complexity. It wasn’t that the method is unworkable: just that one needed a lot of discussion/memory and it did not seem to afford any technical gain. It’s main advantage was that it seemed to confuse the opps, and I’ve never liked the idea of adopting methods for which th3 main advantage is that one’s opponents are unfamiliar with the methods

[nullve]

 KingCovert, on 2020-July-23, 15:04, said:

I think over 1♦ it can become a bit more difficult to find the right fit when responder has both majors? Not impossible or anything, but, more difficult than you're leading on. Especially if you want to do so at the appropriate level and in order to preserve room for slam investigations etc. I may well be wrong, but, the descriptions you've posted don't inspire confidence in this scenario as described.

 mikeh, on 2020-July-23, 19:09, said:

1D 1S showing hearts. Opener has a shapely minimum with 4S.

Obviously this is similar to a standard situation with 1D 1S catching opener with a shapely minimum with hearts. However, there are ways to minimize the standard conundrum that don’t work quite as well when you switch the majors. At least, that was our view.

I know mikeh likes Reverse Flannery in response to 1m, and Reverse Reverse Flannery = Flannery could be used to solve the analogous problems (and the brand new one, over 1♦-1♠; 1N) when 1♦-1M = "4+ OM".

 mikeh, on 2020-July-23, 19:09, said:

We experimented with responding 1H with 4=4 majors and with some limited range 4=5 majors (showing the shorter major first) and the structure worked reasonably well, but was complex.

That is also what I do in my (complex, not very natural) system.

[Zelandakh]

Mike, have you tried skip responses over 1♦, so 1♥ denies 4 hearts; 1♠ shows 4+ hearts and denies 4 spades; and 1NT/2♣ are weak/strong with both majors? That simplifies some of the issues of the standard switch structures I think.

[Douglas43]

Playing a 4 card major system gives you more options, but still doesn't make it much easier. On the plus side you can tactically open a suit you want led, but opening anything other than a minor can give rebid problems. I do occasionally resort to a 1NT rebid with 1=4=4=4.