[MickyB]

I am posting this just for fun, I thought others might like to face the same problem as I did. I am very happy with the methods overall, so don't expect me to listen if you tell me that my system is awful!

You play that a 1C opening is natural or 17-19 balanced and a 1D opening is natural or 11-13 balanced. In response to 1C, 1S shows either 4+diamonds [no major unless GF] or 3-3-3-4, over which a 1NT rebid shows 17-19.

Let's say you are dealt a 4-4-1-4 hand with between 11 and 16 points. If you open 1C and partner bids 1S, you will have little choice but to rebid 2C. Partner will be aware that this just shows a minimum unbalanced hand, and will try to avoid passing with a doubleton club [3-3-5-2 being the only shape where she will have no choice]. She may, however, raise with three clubs and an invitational hand.

So, my first question is - do you open 1C, or try to avoid this rebid problem and treat the hand as balanced? Does it depend on strength and suit quality?

My second question - say your partner is a passed hand and you are dealt a 4-4-1-4 thirteen count. This opens up a third possible way to bid the hand [besides opening 1H or 1S] - are you tempted?

[JLOGIC]

I would just open 1C, and yes I might be tempted to pass 1S opp a passed hand depending on my exact hand.

[gnasher]

I'd treat this shape as balanced.

With 11-13, I can't see much downside to that - you'll find a major-suit fit if you've got one, and if you don't you'll usually play in 1NT. If partner has diamonds, where won't be much competition from the opponents, so you should be able to avoid playing in a stupid fit. You may occasionally play in 1NT when you have a big club fit, but that must be rarer than the mess you seem to get into after 1C-1S.

Opening 1NT on the 14-16 hands is a bit more dangerous, because you will miss game occasionally. However, it doesn't happen very often. I've been opening 1NT with all 4441 shapes in the 15-17 range for years, and the resulting bad boards have been very rare.

[Free]

I'd also treat it as balanced. I have similar experiences like gnasher.

In 3rd seat I might open 1M if my system can handle it.

[Zelandakh]

I also treat 4=4=1=4 as balanced in the 12-17 range and think it is a good method. If you do it systemically it is helpful to have a transfer super-accept assigned to this shape.

[Echognome]

What about just switching the NT ranges, so you can bid 1NT over 1♠? You will not have the same problem after a 1♦ opening. You will just have to open (41)=4=4 hands with 1♣.

[chasetb]

Zelandakh, on 2011-April-13, 22:53, said:

I also treat 4=4=1=4 as balanced in the 12-17 range and think it is a good method. If you do it systemically it is helpful to have a transfer super-accept assigned to this shape.

You aren't supposed to open 1NT with an unbalanced hand (any hand with a singleton or void), but the ACBL will let you get away with it - as long as you can't find out about the singleton (whether it's Stayman or Jacoby transfers). I'm looking for where I read that, but I'm pretty sure it's a rule.

[Echognome]

chasetb, on 2011-April-13, 23:40, said:

You aren't supposed to open 1NT with an unbalanced hand (any hand with a singleton or void), but the ACBL will let you get away with it - as long as you can't find out about the singleton (whether it's Stayman or Jacoby transfers). I'm looking for where I read that, but I'm pretty sure it's a rule.

I don't believe what you read, but it doesn't matter, since Mike doesn't play in ACBL-land.

[MickyB]

Echognome, on 2011-April-13, 23:28, said:

What about just switching the NT ranges, so you can bid 1NT over 1♠? You will not have the same problem after a 1♦ opening. You will just have to open (41)=4=4 hands with 1♣.

Hey Matt. I have already switched the ranges once, I am much happier with them this way round, for a few reasons -

We have enough room over 1D to do what we need to, and it is more preemptive on our weak NTs to bid 1D-P-1M instead of 1C-P-1R.

1D:1N leads to 2N or 3N wrong-sided opposite 17-19. 1C:1S gets the strong hand declaring and allows us to stop in 1N.

I want to be able to pass a 1M response with a weak NT opposite a passed hand.

It is simpler. You can play 1D:1M to show the other major to get 17-19 bal declaring, and you can play responder's flannery to lessen the pain from having to bid 1D:1S, 2D on a minimum (42)52, but 1D as nat/11-13 works just fine with every response as natural.

[MickyB]

BTW, I don't think the problems on this sequence are as big as people are making out.

Playing a style where the natural auction 1C:1S, 2C is routinely bid on five [perhaps because you play weak NT, or you just prefer 2C to 1N on a 5431] -

• The auction 1C:1S, 2C can be a 5-0 and is more likely to be a 5-1 than my auction is to be a 4-2
  
• Partner will respond 1S much more frequently than in my system
  
• When they have this auction, they may be missing a 5-4 diamond fit, and possibly even a 5-4 heart fit. We won't have an eight-card fit in any suit.

I think I just need to train partner to invite more soundly and to prefer 2NT to 3C when holding three-card support - I can remove to 3C on five cards if it looks right as she will be, at worst, 3-3-5-2.

Still, the alternatives I suggested only have small downsides as well IMO, with the possible exception of opening 1NT. Hence the question.

[dake50]

Am I hearing this right?!
I open 4441 as if balanced and do not inform my opponents
that 4441 is systemically "balanced"?
Or do I inform them that 80+years of 4441 is UN-balanced was wrong??
And because my partner need not know either, this is okay?
Of course the justification is that 4441 is only 3% of shapes.
Thus this category is just too small to much affect our system.
The beechers/moaners are over-stuffed with themselves -
not attempting to solve the 4441 problem without just relabeling it BAL.
What a brilliance.! Just ignore a singleton and y'all bid much better.
I DOUBT IT.!

[johnu]

Echognome, on 2011-April-13, 23:44, said:

I don't believe what you read, but it doesn't matter, since Mike doesn't play in ACBL-land.

It may be a moot point, but you should believe Chasetb. I'm not associated with the ACBL rules machinery in any way or form, but it seems pretty clear to me.

In the general convention chart definitions

DEFINITIONS
1. An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it
shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more
cards in that suit. A no trump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced
(generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

and in the Response section,

10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct
overcall, EXCEPT for natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a
lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP
(including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). See #7 under
DISALLOWED

10) is the section which allows Stayman, Jacoby transfers, etc. By definition, having a singleton or void makes a hand unbalanced, so it's not a natural notrump bid or overcall.

[Echognome]

dake50, on 2011-April-14, 08:52, said:

Am I hearing this right?!
I open 4441 as if balanced and do not inform my opponents
that 4441 is systemically "balanced"?
Or do I inform them that 80+years of 4441 is UN-balanced was wrong??
And because my partner need not know either, this is okay?
Of course the justification is that 4441 is only 3% of shapes.
Thus this category is just too small to much affect our system.
The beechers/moaners are over-stuffed with themselves -
not attempting to solve the 4441 problem without just relabeling it BAL.
What a brilliance.! Just ignore a singleton and y'all bid much better.
I DOUBT IT.!

You clearly are not hearing this right. Mike has not mentioned anything at all about disclosure. He will of course inform the opponents with an announcement or alert as appropriate.

[Echognome]

MickyB, on 2011-April-14, 01:15, said:

Hey Matt. I have already switched the ranges once, I am much happier with them this way round, for a few reasons -

We have enough room over 1D to do what we need to, and it is more preemptive on our weak NTs to bid 1D-P-1M instead of 1C-P-1R.

1D:1N leads to 2N or 3N wrong-sided opposite 17-19. 1C:1S gets the strong hand declaring and allows us to stop in 1N.

I want to be able to pass a 1M response with a weak NT opposite a passed hand.

It is simpler. You can play 1D:1M to show the other major to get 17-19 bal declaring, and you can play responder's flannery to lessen the pain from having to bid 1D:1S, 2D on a minimum (42)52, but 1D as nat/11-13 works just fine with every response as natural.

Fair enough Mike. I was just mentioning that I think that it solves this particular problem. I can certainly understand that there are other tradeoffs involved and you would prefer to deal with this problem.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-April-13, 02:57, said:

With 11-13, I can't see much downside to that - you'll find a major-suit fit if you've got one, and if you don't you'll usually play in 1NT.

You really don't see much downside? You find a major suit fit, and can never show your shortness. I forgot my goren, but I believe I singleton is worth like 2 more points than a doubleton with a fit also. That sucks when your hand is worth 16 in support of partner's major, but you can't show it. Or maybe you show your strength and then imply diamond length when you have shortness/ have to show the wrong shortness and partner can never work it out for slam purposes. It seems like a huge mess. I guess if partner is a passed hand, and you don't have to open 1N, opening 1D is fine, but otherwise count me out.

I have always thought that doing things like opening 1N or 1D is making a mountain out of a molehill. How often will it actually go 1C p 1S p ? Often an opponent will bid something and you will be ok, or partner will have a 4+ card major (how often does partner have one, it's gottabe really likely). Even if the opps don't bid, or partner has a 4+ card major, he might be able to make a non 1S bid because he has club support.

It seems like such a small %age of the time that we will have our "problem" auction that misdescribing right off the bat just in case it happens is really the wrong idea. And even when we do have the problem auction, who's to say we can't survive 1C 1S 2C?

[blackshoe]

Johnu: do not overlook the word "generally" in the definition of natural nt that you quoted.

[jallerton]

MickyB, on 2011-April-14, 01:24, said:

• When they have this auction, they may be missing a 5-4 diamond fit, and possibly even a 5-4 heart fit. We won't have an eight-card fit in any suit.

If the opponents have a 5-4 diamond fit or a 5-4 heart fit, then I assure you that your side will have at least an 8-card fit in another suit.

[MickyB]

jallerton, on 2011-April-14, 15:23, said:

If the opponents have a 5-4 diamond fit or a 5-4 heart fit, then I assure you that your side will have at least an 8-card fit in another suit.

Sorry, what I said was unclear. I was making the case that rebidding 2C on a 5431 playing natural methods put you in a worse position than rebidding 2C on a 4441 playing the methods described.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-14, 14:03, said:

You really don't see much downside? You find a major suit fit, and can never show your shortness. I forgot my goren, but I believe I singleton is worth like 2 more points than a doubleton with a fit also. That sucks when your hand is worth 16 in support of partner's major, but you can't show it. Or maybe you show your strength and then imply diamond length when you have shortness/ have to show the wrong shortness and partner can never work it out for slam purposes. It seems like a huge mess. I guess if partner is a passed hand, and you don't have to open 1N, opening 1D is fine, but otherwise count me out.

I didn't mean that we should play exactly the same methods on later rounds. If a 4414 shape is possble, then yes we should have a way to show it. After 1♦-1♠;2♠-2NT, it's not much of a loss to play 4♦ as a 4414 shape. Or you could do something more sophisticated and compress two hand-types into 1♦-1♠;2♠-2NT;3♣.

I don't know what Goren said, but if you treat a a 4441 as being worth two points more than a 4432 with the same shape, you're overstating the value of the shortage. 4441 shapes are rarely as good as they look. That is especially true when it's a game or partscore deal, because we're likely to have to lose the lead a couple of times, and they will get several chances to play trumps.

With a 4414 13-count, are you really recommending opening 1♣ and then raising 1M to the three-level? Even if you are, it's probably OK in MickyB's system to open 1♦ and then raise to the three-level on these hands, because he is probably using 1♦-1M;2NT as some kind of raise. If so, I expect he can fit in one extra hand-type without much pain.

Quote

I have always thought that doing things like opening 1N or 1D is making a mountain out of a molehill. How often will it actually go 1C p 1S p ? Often an opponent will bid something and you will be ok, or partner will have a 4+ card major (how often does partner have one, it's gottabe really likely). Even if the opps don't bid, or partner has a 4+ card major, he might be able to make a non 1S bid because he has club support.

It seems like such a small %age of the time that we will have our "problem" auction that misdescribing right off the bat just in case it happens is really the wrong idea. And even when we do have the problem auction, who's to say we can't survive 1C 1S 2C?

We wouldn't be misdescribing. If our agreement was that 1♦ showed diamonds, any 11-13 balanced, or 11-13 4414, then a 1♦ opening on a 4414 12-count wouldn't be a misdescription.

[JLOGIC]

Gnasher:

You say:

Quote

We wouldn't be misdescribing. If our agreement was that 1♦ showed diamonds, any 11-13 balanced, or 11-13 4414, then a 1♦ opening on a 4414 12-count wouldn't be a misdescription.

However, OP says:

Quote

So, my first question is - do you open 1C, or try to avoid this rebid problem and treat the hand as balanced?

Unfortunately, I chose to answer the OP's question, where you, as so often, chose to change the rules of the question:

Quote

I didn't mean that we should play exactly the same methods on later rounds. If a 4414 shape is possble, then yes we should have a way to show it. After 1♦-1♠;2♠-2NT, it's not much of a loss to play 4♦ as a 4414 shape. Or you could do something more sophisticated and compress two hand-types into 1♦-1♠;2♠-2NT;3♣.

As far as I understand it, OP is asking whether we should open our systemic bid with 4414 for 4414 which is defined as 1C, or whether we should lie and say we are balanced. I did not understand it to mean should we change our system to include 4414 in our 1D openings and take it out of our 1C openings.

Maybe I am being dense, but it seemed to me that OP was basically wondering if should make our systemic opener of 1C and risk the consequences of having to bid 1C 1S 2C, or if we would be better off treating the hand as balanced and risking the consequences of that.

Part of the risk of treating the hand as balanced to me, is that you will not be able to show an unbalanced hand later!