4441 rock

[nickf]

Matchpoints unfavourable

 

RHO deals and passes. You hold:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sakq2hjdajt8cakq5]133|100[/hv]

 

You open 2C, partner responds 2D (say any hand without a clear cut positive).

 

What now?

 

nickf

sydney

[Hanoi5]

2NT. Hopefully partner won't bid 3NT without a heart stopper or not try to find a fit. 2♠, if it shows 5 would be my second option but NT looks so much better.

 

Isn't this the typical problem hand that comes up once every 5 years and the Italians (60's and 70's) had a system for it and some people have gadgets or opening bids specially for it?

[MrAce]

Matchpoints unfavourable

 

RHO deals and passes. You hold:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sakq2hjdajt8cakq5]133|100[/hv]

 

You open 2C, partner responds 2D (say any hand without a clear cut positive).

 

What now?

 

nickf

sydney

 

If there is no custom toy available 4441 giants has always been an issue. You need to either lie on your ♠ length or your shape. I'd personally bid 2NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Standard system 2N.

 

My system 2♥ Kokish style as we play 2N good 19-21, 2♣-2♦-2N 22-23, 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-2N 24-25. This has the advantage that I get to find out if partner is very unbalanced (he won't bid 2♠) before committing to NT and avoids the possibility of partner having a bad hand with 6m and us just ending up in 3N with matching stiffs in the heart suit.

[whereagles]

I think I would get creative here. I'd try 2♠. Reason: if pard now happens to bid 3m, I'll be in excellent shape for a minor suit slam. I could hardly get there after a 2NT rebid.

 

If pard happens to raise spades on a 4-3 fit, it should nevertheless be enough to make game.

[Cyberyeti]

I think I would get creative here. I'd try 2♠. Reason: if pard now happens to bid 3m, I'll be in excellent shape for a minor suit slam. I could hardly get there after a 2NT rebid.

 

If pard happens to raise spades on a 4-3 fit, it should nevertheless be enough to make game.

The danger of this is that he raises spades with 3 and a 4 or 5 card minor (what would you do with Jxx, Qxxx, x, Jxxxx ? where 6♣ is almost cold and 4♠ has work to do on a heart to the 10 and a small heart)

[brian_m]

2NT. Hopefully partner won't bid 3NT without a heart stopper or not try to find a fit. 2♠, if it shows 5 would be my second option but NT looks so much better.

 

Isn't this the typical problem hand that comes up once every 5 years and the Italians (60's and 70's) had a system for it and some people have gadgets or opening bids specially for it?

 

All but the most basic strong 1C systems should have a way of handling the strong three suiter types. That extra level of bidding (assuming 1C-1D) makes life so much easier. The early versions of the Multi 2D catered for strong 3-suiters too, but as you say, they come up so infrequently that better uses were found for those sequences.

 

As regards Nick's hand, my vote is for 2NT, provided I can trust pard to look for a 4-4 major fit. If pard has he habit of banging 3NT on anything even semi-balanced "so as not to help the defence", that would probably talk me into putting a club in with the spades.

 

 

Brian.

[kenrexford]

Tough hand. I'd likely bid Kokish, then 2NT.

 

Good hand for my "New Frontiers" approach, where Opener would start with 2♦, strong forcing and 4+ spades. If a spade 4-4 or better fit exists, that is found immediately. If not, Responder usually bids 2♥, after which the 4-4-4-1 can be handled in a number of manners, including ideally a jump rebid of 3♠, showing this exact pattern.

[whereagles]

When are you going to come up with your system "Space: The Final Frontier"?

[Cyberyeti]

The early versions of the Multi 2D catered for strong 3-suiters too, but as you say, they come up so infrequently that better uses were found for those sequences.

I still play this form of multi (weak 2M, strong bal, strong 4441) with one partner, 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows 20+ 4144, and partner can bid 3♥ and I'll show range over this if he has any slam interest.

[kenrexford]

When are you going to come up with your system "Space: The Final Frontier"?

 

Bridge is way too evolutionary to ever have a final frontier, of course.

[whereagles]

Well, after the 'Space' system you could devise another one as 'To infinity and beyond!'

[Cascade]

Any one for 1♣ initially?

[aguahombre]

This is the "OR" part of our Mini-Roman. It comes up only when one doesn't have a way of handling it. So, for us it occurs maybe every five years. If we didn't have the toy, it would occur much more often.

[inquiry]

With out other agreement, I would bid 2nt also.

 

For what it is worth, I use the method of Chris Ryall (speling) where a 2nt rebid after a 2♣ opener to show a three suited hand (it does't have to be anywhere near this strong, or it could be much stronger). That method has been describe before in this forum in detail with examples, so I will not repeat the subsequent details here.

[JLOGIC]

I will buck the trend and rebid 2S.

[Zelandakh]

There seem to be 4 popular approaches with big 4144 hands when the system does not have a gadget for them:-

 

1. Treat the hand as balanced. This is the most populat approach when the singleton is an ace or king, less popular with weaker holdings in the shortage.

2. Open 1 of a minor. This works, usually surprisingly well, up to a certain point after which the risk of it being passed out and of misleading partner over strength just becomes too great.

3. Open 2C, rebid 2S. Misleads over spade length but keeps the maximum bidding room open to sort things out.

4. Open 2C, rebid 3C. Misleads over club length which is less serious than a major, but also gives less bidding space.

 

On this hand I can see plusses and minuses for all of methods 1, 3 and 4. Since noone else has suggested it maybe I should pick option 4 :D .

 

In truth I have had a method of showing strong 3-suiters in almost every system I have played. The very first was an opening 2D as a strong 2 in any suit or a strong 3-suiter or 27+ balanced. Follow-ups were basic because I did not know any better.

 

In my currently preferred methods I use 1C - 1D - 1S to show an unbalanced game force or 18+ 3-suited. This gets me a Roman 2C opening opposite 6-8, a Roman 2D opening opposite a bust, and a Roman 2NT opening opposite ~3-5. The follow-ups are now alot more sophisticated too, influenced by Chris Ryall's but somewhat easier to remember as I found a better way around his "trick". How do your follow-ups work Ben?

[aguahombre]

We just had another one; so, I can forget about it for the next year or so:

 

KTXX

X

AKQJ

AKQJ

 

Luckily we had the tools to make it a no-brainer with 2 bids only, by each of us.

And, extra luckily we got to it from the correct side (because that hand had both aces and led neutral.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♣ on the OP hand. I don't want to play 4♠ opposite xxx 10xxx xx xxxx, or 3NT opposite xxx xxx Kxxxx xx.

[tolvyrj]

3♣, ugly 3- suiter and if u have a gadget for that, congratulations :) . Prds 2♦ response can be waiting without any clear cut positive bid, so lets find out if that is the case.

We had a pair here in Finland who had a nice system for these kind of situation; they have two game forcing openings 2♣ and 2♦; not sure if my memory serves me correctly but first opening denied and second one promised 4 card or longer spade suit.

[kenrexford]

3♣, ugly 3- suiter and if u have a gadget for that, congratulations :) . Prds 2♦ response can be waiting without any clear cut positive bid, so lets find out if that is the case.

We had a pair here in Finland who had a nice system for these kind of situation; they have two game forcing openings 2♣ and 2♦; not sure if my memory serves me correctly but first opening denied and second one promised 4 card or longer spade suit.

Interesting idea. B-)

[MrAce]

I'd bid 3♣ on the OP hand. I don't want to play 4♠ opposite xxx 10xxx xx xxxx, or 3NT opposite xxx xxx Kxxxx xx.

 

OP said 2♦ is any hand without a clear positive response, i assume this includes total trash hands. How on earth with std methods will you achieve not to play 3 NT with your 2nd example ?

 

2♣--2♦

3♣-- Now 3♦ will be 2nd negative with std methods and u will bid 3♠ and he will bid 3 NT.

 

You may reply that the "standart" i am talking about is not your standart, and knowing you i will take your word on it without a doubt but thats why i will start a new topic suggesting that we should create a comitee and prepare a BBO Forum standart, so we can debate better without slippery ground. Then we can debate the logic with same tools available, instead of debating "my method-your standart-our agreement - their agreement etc etc "