HHxx-A-HHxx-HHxx

[kgr]

With 4=1=4=4 or 1=4=4=4 , singleton A in S or H, and points in your 2NT opening range.

Do you open 2NT or do you prefer to open 1C / 1D?

Yesterday I opened 2NT with 4=1=4=4:

[hv=d=s&n=sq8xxhxxdxxxc987x&s=sakxxhadktxxcaqjt]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

2NT was down on a Heart lead and ♣K wrong, while 4♠ would make.

 

My concern: When you open 2NT with a singleton then either partner will insist to play in that suit with length OR opps will lead it against 3NT.

[Jlall]

I hate a 2N opener with this hand.

[Fluffy]

2NT is often the best way to describe your hand. With a minor opening it could take forever to describe your hand, and you will never show your strenght acuratelly. It doesn't always work of course.

[effervesce]

I hate a 2N opener with this hand.

What would you open instead?

 

Everybody would hate a 2NT opening with this hand, but what would you choose as an alternative? Hmmm... looking at it 1m looks reasonable but looks slightly underbidding to me.

 

I think I'd open 2NT.

[andy_h]

I would prefer opening 1m (which minor depends on partner) much much more than 2NT with 4441's. If partner doesn't respond (I'm in the camp of responding light) then I don't think we are missing anything.

[pooltuna]

I hate a 2N opener with this hand.

So what miracle bid do you have to replace it? 1♦ ? Well at least you have a chance to make that. 1♣(non Precision version)? see previous response to 1♦. 2♣? Now there is a bid to hate! Well I have to admit I am not too wild about 2NT myself but it may be the best lie.

 

If partner transfers into ♥ either have an agreement that 3NT shows this hand (i.e. not a super accept) with the subsequent system effects or just take the transfer and hope for the best.

[fred]

Considering that 6D will be a great contract opposite just about any hand with Axxxx of diamonds, that 6C will usually be a good spot opposite Kxxxx of clubs and the Queen of diamonds, that on some of these 6C/6D hands 3NT will go down, and that you will be tempted to force to slam if your partner transfers to spades over 2NT, I agree with Justin that 2NT is a bid that is worthy of hatred. It is not hard to find other reasons to hate 2NT.

 

I don't think you need to concern yourself that opening 1 of a minor is an "underbid" or that it will sometimes be hard to "describe your hand". These things don't really matter much - what matters is the result you get. My judgment strongly suggests that, in the long run, opening 1 of a minor will lead to better results than opening 2NT. But if you want to continue to focus on largely irrelevant statements instead of results, consider that 2NT could be described as a "misbid" or an "underbid" (perhaps not in terms of HCP but certainly in terms of playing strength opposite a fit) and that 2NT hardly does a great job of "describing your hand".

 

In terms of what minor to open, if you tend to open 1C with 4-4 in the minors then you should look no further than that. I am a believer in opening 1D with 4-4 in the minors, but I would consider opening 1C with this hand (because partner will probably respond 1D to 1C with a weak hand, club shortness, and diamond length, but would likely Pass 1D with a weak hand, diamond shortness, and club length).

 

However, opening 1C when you normally open 1D with 4-4 in the minors might also work out badly - if you are later able to make natural bids in spades and then clubs (thereby "describing your hand"), partner will not expect 4144.

 

My (distant) third choice (behind 1C and 1D) would be to open 2C and rebid 2NT. 2NT would be an even more distant fourth choice for me.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lilboyman]

Amen! Fred

[Jlall]

FWIW I purposely avoided the 1C vs 1D issue because I thought it would detract from my much bigger point that imo opening 2N is very bad. If you open 1C or 1D I will not fault you either way and it might depend on system.

 

One reason for opening 1D would be if you always do that with 4-4 in the minors and choose to open 1C on this hand and later make a t/o X of hearts, partner will play you for 4135 more often than 4144. This could be a problem if partner is 2443 or 3343 or something sometimes and bids clubs rather than diamonds in response to your X.

 

Anyways I prefer 1C as long as my system allows for a 1C opener with this shape largely because the clubs are much better.

 

Edit: Sorry I just realized I basically reiterated what Fred posted.

[Jlall]

What are these supposed rebid problems we have after opening a minor? If partner bids 1H we can just bid 2S. I think 1C p 1H p 2S is a very good start to describing our hand. We are unbalanced and suit oriented, and have bid 2 very strong suits and shown a strong hand. As far as I'm concerned 4144 is a possible shape for this auction, so we haven't even misdescribed.

 

Even more often the opps might bid hearts, and we might get to double, and then later show more strength, showing a 3 suiter short in hearts that is very strong. Seems good to me.

 

Sometimes partner will do something other than bid hearts and we will be well placed to splinter and have a good auction.

 

Sometimes we will play 1 of a minor which is undoubtedly better than playing in 2N.

 

If the goal is to describe our hand and find better contracts I don't understand what the problem is with opening 1m. I think the biggest gains of 2N will be concealing your hand and arriving somewhere quickly without giving away much information (and even giving some misinformation).

 

I think that having a stiff heart and such a prime hand opposite an unlimited partner, this is way too big of a distortion to try to get away with at such an early point in the auction.

 

I'm all for opening 1N with K Kxxx AQxxx KJx when you truly have no palatable rebid as a least of evils call, but opening 2N with this hand in the name of rebid problems makes no sense to me.

[aguahombre]

Sometimes partner will do something other than bid hearts and we will be well placed to splinter and have a good auction.

 

Sometimes we will play 1 of a minor which is undoubtedly better than playing in 2N.

 

His whole reply was a work of art --so I will screw it up with additional thoughts on these two parts:

1) Or if a Splinter would be too limited you could strongly bid around the shortness.

2) Anyone who uses a 2D opening to show 18/19 balanced (instead of 1m) should read this.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers!

For those who prefer 1m above 2NT:

Is that a preference with this particular example hand or is that a general preference with a 1-4-4-4 hand a a singleton A?

 

We normally open 1D with 4-4 in the minors and we also play T-walsh. I think I would open 1C on this particular hand.

[fred]

For those who prefer 1m above 2NT:

Is that a preference with this particular example hand or is that a general preference with a 1-4-4-4 hand a a singleton A?

In general my preference is to open 2NT with balanced hands that contain 20-21 HCP ;)

 

A statement like this could be made of any bid of course, but IMO 2NT is one bid that you really should go out of your way not to mess with. That is because it is notoriously hard to bid over 2NT openings regardless of how good your methods happen to be - 2NT is simply "too preemptive".

 

That is why I never understand the motivation behind the not uncommon practice of opening 2NT with indifferent 19-counts when playing 20-21.

 

However, it is the case that some hands are essentially square pegs that don't really fit into any of your round holes. It then becomes a judgment call as to what will work out best. On some non-classic hands (including some 4441 hands) it is reasonable IMO to judge that 2NT will work out best.

 

But not this hand (at least according to my judgment), mostly because this hand is SO strong in support of 3 suits that 2NT does not come close to doing justice to it. With a "softer" hand with similar HCP, especially if my singleton was the King, I would be much more inclined to open 2NT.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

FWIW, AS AN ASIDE, this is a hand pattern that is easy to handle with a method I am surrently working on. Strangely, you would still have two options, but each would be radically improved.

 

The relevant core idea is to open 2♦ with any strong hand containing 4+ spades. With this actual layout, the work is already done, because the 4-4 spade fit is immediately found.

 

However, assuming that Responder lacks four spades, he will usually respond a waiting 2♥, after which Opener has two decent options.

 

Option #1 would be a 3♠ call, showing both minors. As he already promised at least four spades, this shows 4-1-4-4. With 4-0-4-5 or 4-0-5-4, Opener could either bid 3♠ to show both minors (and then maybe four of the longer minor later) or bid the longer minor first and then maybe the shorter minor later.

 

Option #2 would be 2NT, but only with the right range (22-23, unless opting a 22-23 2NT opening). In that event, the structure is so much more tightened by the restriction on possible major patterns that finding/exploring 4-4 or better minor fits without bypassing 3NT is easy.

[Phil]

FWIW, AS AN ASIDE

I'm working on a system too.

 

It calls for opening a natural 1♦ and making a jump shift of 2♠.

 

Seems to handle this hand quite nicely.

[peachy]

Others have already said it, but I open 1D. I like to be honest about shape with strong hands.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, AS AN ASIDE

I'm working on a system too.

 

It calls for opening a natural 1♦ and making a jump shift of 2♠.

 

Seems to handle this hand quite nicely.

True, except for a few problems that might arise.

 

The first problem is that partner might well pass, and the end contract might well be 1♦ if the opponents make no calls. 2♦!-P-? No problem -- he's forced.

 

The second is that the opponents might intervene by overcalling some number of hearts, followed by some degree of raise, with 4♥ or so coming back to you, partner silent throughout. 2♦!-4♥-4♠-P-? That's an easier problem.

 

The third is when your ideal auction gets to partner, clubs is the ideal fit, but you have the burden of electing between bypassing 3NT to show clubs or not after a call by partner above 3♣, like a raise with a three-card diamond "fit."

 

The fourth is for when your diamond King is the Ace, or the King is the Ace and the Ten the Queen, or even stronger. Now, whatever more is needed to cause shuffling in the chair makes the problem more so.

[awm]

It seems pretty obvious that by devoting more openings to strong calls (i.e. Romex) you can do better on some awkward strong hands like this one.

 

But with that said, is this a winner on frequency grounds? 21+ hcp hands only come up maybe once every two-three sessions, and a lot of them are easy to bid with a standard 2♣/2NT opening (for example all the balanced ones). Even when you get an awkward pattern like this one, opening one of a minor will work most of the time. It seems like the strong hand method is getting a very small number of pickups. In the same time period that you wait for an awkward big hand that you can bid accurately with this method and not otherwise, you could've probably opened a weak 2♦ a dozen times and picked up substantially more IMPs.

[Cascade]

Not that I am suggesting that 2NT is ideal it is far from that but the 1minor openers have two problems:

 

1. The auction may end at a very low level in not your best fit

 

2. 4-4-4-1 hands are notoriously difficult to bid accurately if your fit is not found early

[Jlall]

But with that said, is this a winner on frequency grounds? 21+ hcp hands only come up maybe once every two-three sessions

Really? Kinda surprised by this, maybe it's because my memory lumps in very strong playing hands that are equivalent to 21+ as in that group also when obviously they aren't.

[Jlall]

Not that I am suggesting that 2NT is ideal it is far from that but the 1minor openers have two problems:

 

1. The auction may end at a very low level in not your best fit

Why is this a problem if your other option is to play 2N? I guess it's possible 2N is better sometimes but I would rate playing 1m (especially clubs) to be right way more often. It's not like you can magically get to 3 of your best fit after opening 2N.

[Cascade]

Not that I am suggesting that 2NT is ideal it is far from that but the 1minor openers have two problems:

 

1.  The auction may end at a very low level in not your best fit

Why is this a problem if your other option is to play 2N? I guess it's possible 2N is better sometimes but I would rate playing 1m (especially clubs) to be right way more often. It's not like you can magically get to 3 of your best fit after opening 2N.

I don't think I said that. I think I acknowledged that 2NT was not ideal.

[awm]

But with that said, is this a winner on frequency grounds? 21+ hcp hands only come up maybe once every two-three sessions

Really? Kinda surprised by this, maybe it's because my memory lumps in very strong playing hands that are equivalent to 21+ as in that group also when obviously they aren't.

Hands with 21+ actual hcp have a frequency of 0.8% or 8/1000 = 1/125. So I expect to hold such a hand about once every five sessions. Of course, we need to add in the times that partner has a hand in this range too, so the partnership has one about once every 2.5 sessions. Occasionally someone opens in front of us (albeit less frequently when we have a big hand, but they could open a preempt or something). So the opportunity to use our specialized methods for 21+ hcp hands will be pretty infrequent. It may also be worth mentioning that of these 21+ hcp hands, more than half are balanced (under a strict definition where balanced hands contain no singleton or void and at most one doubleton).

 

For comparison, the frequency of holding a weak two in diamonds (under a fairly strict definition where only six card suits are allowed) is about 2.4%. Combined with partner, one of us has a weak 2♦ bid on average more than once a session. Of course, some of these our opponents will open ahead of us (and such is substantially more frequent than when we hold the big hand), but it's still a good bet that weak 2♦ openings outnumber 21+ hcp hands substantially. Keeping in mind that a fairly high percentage of 21+ hcp unbalanced hands are easy to bid without special gadgets, my numbers shouldn't be too far off.

[Jlall]

Keeping in mind that a fairly high percentage of 21+ hcp unbalanced hands are easy to bid without special gadgets, my numbers shouldn't be too far off.

Yeah, I agree with your totally point and I didn't doubt your numbers, was just surprised because if you had asked me "how often do you or your partner have 21+HCP" I would have said once every 20 boards or something lol. Again, I just think it's my brain associating other very strong hands with less HCP as being in that range.

[fred]

For comparison, the frequency of holding a weak two in diamonds (under a fairly strict definition where only six card suits are allowed) is about 2.4%. Combined with partner, one of us has a weak 2♦ bid on average more than once a session. Of course, some of these our opponents will open ahead of us (and such is substantially more frequent than when we hold the big hand), but it's still a good bet that weak 2♦ openings outnumber 21+ hcp hands substantially. Keeping in mind that a fairly high percentage of 21+ hcp unbalanced hands are easy to bid without special gadgets, my numbers shouldn't be too far off.

Hi Adam,

 

How did you come up with 2.4%? You sure that is right?

 

The reason I am asking is that the next version of the web-client will have the ability to make computations like this. I asked it the odds of a hand with:

 

- 0 to 3 cards in each major

- 0 to 4 cards in clubs

- exactly 6 diamonds

- between 5 and 10 HCP

 

The answer I got was 1.33%.

 

I am not completely confident that the algorithm I designed to solve such problems or the code I wrote to implement this algorithm is correct. That's why I am wondering how you got your number and if you have strong reason to believe that is correct.

 

By the way, I agree with the basic point you are making - the purpose of this post is to try to make sure I don't have a bug ;)

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com