Bidding the Dreaded 4441 Hand Pattern

[kenrexford]

If playing a strong club system, I like a minor-suit core where 2♣ shows any three-suited hand, where 2♦ handles the minor two-suiters (and possibly aso 2NT for lighter but more shapely), and where 1♦ is catch-all (if non-canape then like Nebulous but nevr both minors but possibly eithr inor long; if canape then cubs or diamonds or diamond+longer major).

 

In response to 2♣ as three-sited, I like 2♦ as the ask back. Opener bids 2♥ with a minimum and hearts, 2♠ a minimum 4-1-4-4, or 2NT+ with a maximujm (bid one under the stiff). After 2♥ rebid (4414, 4441, or 1444), 3♦ asks for specific stiff (3♥ if 1444, 3♠ is 4441, 3NT if 4414). There is more to this, though.

 

------------------------------------

 

If playing a natural system I like 1♦ as unbalanced. Thus,with 4441, 4144, or 1444, I'd open 1♦, promising a stiff or void smewhere. The unwinds are fairly easy to handle. This leaves only 4414 as a "problem." I open 1♣ with that and have few problems

[Zelandakh]

The method outlined doesn't allow for a natural 2NT rebid, and I don't like that at all for a standard system. It is a little different if you play some sort of strong Club/Diamond system, but I assumed we were talking standard systems.

To get around this in Standard systems you generally need to use a forcing 2♦ opening in addition to 2♣, either a Benji-style base or a Multi. The example I linked to uses a Multi 2♦.

 

 

I'm pretty sure all 4 were designed to plug in holes in the Roman system (thanks to canape). They couldn't open the Major and then bid the minor, because that would be distorting the 4441 hands. They also couldn't go through 1♦ and bid the Major, because THAT would show 5+ in the Major and only 4 Diamonds. Because of the 1♣ multi-way opening, 12-16 HCP hands with 5+ of a Major and 4+ Clubs were also troublesome, so they were assigned to 2♥ and 2♠ respectively. You can use a Mini-Roman 2♦ in standard, but that is silly.

Could be, it is not a system I ever had a lot of interest in. I remember the 2M opening because of Ben's system. The 2m openings were 3 suiters of different strengths. I doubt that was optimal but since we are talking about a 1950s bidding system that is not really surprising.

 

 

From what I have read online, Weak-only multis are the best way to go. If what you say is accurate, then I am surprised that a jurisdiction would deny a weak-only multi, but would allow it if it included any super-strong 4441 into it. Of course, I belong to the ACBL, which doesn't like the Multi at all for 99% of the events.

I also prefer to play a weak-only Multi and have that as part of my system. I also have a back-up plan that includes an Acol 2 in clubs for jurisdictions that disallow this. The EBU is one such jurisdiction, and since I am English I perhaps give the possibility more weight than I should. I have not yet checked the rules in my current jurisdiction (Germany) but have not seen any weak-only Multis played yet. There were a fair few Multis with strong options at the bridge festival and one of my local clubs (Bamberg) has its own Multi (weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 not in hearts I think, probably some balanced option too).

 

 

If you had to include strong hands in the Multi for it to work, then I would throw in strong 4441 hands and strong balanced hands. I know Power Precision (Sontag - Weichsel) used 2♦ as either a Weak 2♥, any 4441 16-24 HCP, or a 24-25 balanced hand with a lot of Quacks.

The local "trick" in England is to include as your strong option a strong 2 in diamonds with a solid suit. Then Responder can legally pass with any diamond honour knowing that a weak hand is held. As far as I know the idea was first put forward by BBF's own FrancesHinden and Jallerton.

 

 

Now we're talking! I had forgotten to mention this kind of 2♦ opening. I have my own write-up - a three-way 2♦ that encompasses a Strong 2♦, any GF (semi)-balanced hand, or any 4441 with 22+ HCP. It doesn't come up that often, but it does fill those very small holes in standard systems, and it allows me to discard the Weak 2♦.

The funny thing about this convention is that I came up with it before I had ever played "live" bridge. I had heard of the Roman 2♦ opening but not Benji. My first partner (university) had played Reverse Benji with his school partner but could not remember it, only that both 2♣ and 2♦ were strong. I came up with this idea about 5 minutes later and we played it the whole season, sadly without the 3-suiter coming up at all. However, I managed to persuade my next partner to play it to and it came up in my first session at the local (posh) club. We reached 7♦ without a natural bid being made besides the last. The opponents managed to lead out of turn and the grand rolled in for a top. The opps were (very) unhappy, my partner was embarassed. I never went back.

 

 

If anyone ever plays against me, don't use the Weak 2♦ opening. I get horrible results playing against it...

There is a general rule that whatever you use your 2♦ opening as, it will be more effective (as a preempt) than the 2♥ opening. A weak 2♦ is often underestimated.