Damn preempts..

[jdonn]

4144 opening 1♣?  :)

American bridge player with an open mind? Where, where? :(

Kind of like if I told you to give opening 1♥ with that shape a chance! :)

[mikeh]

Yet another problem with opening 1C with 4144! I believe it is just fundamentally much sounder to open 1D when you have a stiff, sorry hanp!

 

It's difficult to talk about soundness when considering standard system but for what it's worth top Italian pairs always open 1♣ having 4-4 in the minors. It can't be that bad then...

Do they do it with 4=1=4=4/1=4=4=4?

 

If with 1=4=4=4, they rebid 1N over partner's 1♠?

 

And if LHO overcalls 1♥, and partner shows spades, they rebid 1N on xxxx in hearts?

 

I'm not arguing, and I accept that these sequences rarely cause a real problem, plus as Justin observed, having good methods over 1♣ can more than offset any minor issues.

[helene_t]

I don't think I called it "bad" and I don't think it matters much at all in the long run. Part of it depends on your system, if you have much better methods over 1C than 1D (which you probably should, eg transfers), then it becomes much more attractive.

Maybe, but transfers don't necessarily convey any advantage when open has a 3-suited hand. They are cool when opener has a balanced hand, or a hand with 3-card support. But with the 4144 hands it probably makes no difference if you play transfers or not. Obviously depends how you play them. Some pairs put the 14-16 unbalanced hands with 4-card support into the transfer accept so that jump-accepts get narrower range than without transfers.

[JLOGIC]

I don't think I called it "bad" and I don't think it matters much at all in the long run. Part of it depends on your system, if you have much better methods over 1C than 1D (which you probably should, eg transfers), then it becomes much more attractive.

Maybe, but transfers don't necessarily convey any advantage when open has a 3-suited hand. They are cool when opener has a balanced hand, or a hand with 3-card support. But with the 4144 hands it probably makes no difference if you play transfers or not. Obviously depends how you play them. Some pairs put the 14-16 unbalanced hands with 4-card support into the transfer accept so that jump-accepts get narrower range than without transfers.

True, good point.

 

Although if you play 1C 1D 1S shows an unbalanced hand (weak NT bids 1H), whereas you play 1D 1H 1S does not show an unbalanced hand, that is an advantage right there.

[hanp]

Do they do it with 4=1=4=4/1=4=4=4?

 

Not all Dutch pairs play the same system, but some typically open 1C with these patterns.

 

If with 1=4=4=4, they rebid 1N over partner's 1♠?

 

I would hope so!

 

And if LHO overcalls 1♥, and partner shows spades, they rebid 1N on xxxx in hearts?

 

I would hope so!

 

As I would rebid 1NT with many 2344 hands and three small hearts, whether I opened 1C or 1D, I don't find it a strange idea to rebid 1NT when I have 4 small hearts. Wasn't it jdonn who argued partner shouldn't fear doubling 1H when he has a good heart stopper?

 

I'm not arguing, and I accept that these sequences rarely cause a real problem, plus as Justin observed, having good methods over 1♣ can more than offset any minor issues.

 

Yes you are arguing, in the good sense of the word. I only know what a couple of Dutch pairs play, I certainly don't claim to have a good view of what's standard here. I prefer a style myself where I can open 1C with x Axxx xxxx AKJx and 1D with x Axxx AKJx xxxx.

[bluecalm]

Do they do it with 4=1=4=4/1=4=4=4?

 

I can't be 100% certain as I don't recall specific hands but one point I observed seeing Lauria Versace hands is that I've never seens them open 1♦ with 4-4 in minors (and I saw few thousands of bid hands).

Maybe some players which play similar way can offer more help here.

 

And if LHO overcalls 1♥, and partner shows spades, they rebid 1N on xxxx in hearts?

 

I honestly have no idea whatsover.

 

I'm not arguing, and I accept that these sequences rarely cause a real problem, plus as Justin observed, having good methods over 1♣ can more than offset any minor issues.

 

I am not arguing either. For what it's worth opening 1♦ is more natural to me too.

I know that they answer 1♦ having 4M-4♦ hand and the auction:

1♣ - 1♦

2♦ is natural and not forcing.

It's one problem solved for example.

 

Just because they do it does not make it fundamentally sound!

 

Yeah that's true.

My opinion is that if top pair plays some methods, especially if one of the players in this pair is theoretician and loves to play around with the system, those methods at least deserve some respect and are rarely bad meanwhile many "standard" things are just plain stupid. My point is that maybe Lauria made a mistake when designing their system but for sure he thought about it and had some sound reasons to choose one way over the other.

 

In this specific problem I have no opinion. I am used to opening 1♦ playing standardish methods and I am used to rebidding 2♣ after 1♠ from partner having 1-4-4-4 shape. I think being able to do that (and thus having 1NT to show balanced hand with 2-3 spades) is quite advantageous. I just pointed out that there is another way to play at least worth thinking about.

[whereagles]

Dbl and hope for the best. These things really have more to do with luck than anything else.

[Trinidad]

Sorry can't do, I'm Dutch now.

he, most of the IMP panel opens 1♦, I think being Dutch is a bad excuse.

There are two groups of players in The Netherlands who will open 1♣ with a 4144 or 1444.

 

1) People who have learned to bid four card suits up the line. (A simple concept, part of a popular teaching method. Not necessarily best, but very simple.)

 

2) People who want to open 1♣ as often as possible. They play conventional responses (e.g. T-Walsh) and think that having a good system of responses to 1♣ is a good reason to open 1♣ when you really have a 1♦ opening. ;)

 

Rik