4414 prime 21 count

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak95haqj8dtcak74&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp?]133|200[/hv]

[LBengtsson]

1♣ If partner cannot drag up a response you might end up in the wrong contract, but any other opening could go badly wrong. The opps. are at favorable vulnerability and could not open in 3rd. I expect partner to bid something here. The only problem is that the good hand might end up as dummy, so a 2NT opening despite the stiff might be the better opening gambit if partner has 5M. I guess partner turns up with Hxxxx and the missing cards honors in the other suits in a 7HCP hand and 6♥/6♠ is on. Tough.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

either 1C or 2NT, 2NT most likely being the better option.

 

The issue with 1C is, that you will have a serious problem with choosing a rebid, if partner happens

to answers 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

I think it’s close.

 

Were partner not a passed hand, I’d reject 1C because I can never catch up after a 1M response, and I definitely can’t drive beyond game without some sign of life from partner…who will not stretch since he won’t and shouldn’t play me for this much.

 

Since he is a passed hand, we are less worried about missing slam.

 

However, I think I slightly prefer 2N anyway.

 

Lots of good things can happen. If he was responding 1M to 1C, he’s either using stayman or he’s transferring over 2N.

 

If stayman, and playing standard (I currently play a method where 2N 3C 3S shows 4=4 majors), I’ll bid 3S and then 4H over 3N. At least he expects 20+ hcp

 

If transfer, I super accept and now slam may be biddable.

 

It he bids 3N, well the opps will strain to lead a major, plus partner may have me covered in diamonds….and maybe we can make game.

 

On a bad day, he bids 3N on his 3=3=2=5 and they run diamonds on us.

 

In short, while 1C is perhaps technically the ‘correct’ call, I think it’s losing bridge, in the long run.

[Cyberyeti]

We actually play 1x-1y-3N as this sort of thing (huge 4441 with support) rather than the traditional hand with a long minor. You can also put it into your multi.

 

Mike: may depend on your 2N range, but do you really think partner is bidding over 2N with J or Q xxx, 10xxx, xxxx, Q ? (or the (34)51 version of that) I would bid over a 2+ club with that but probably not a 20-21 2N particularly with the J rather than Q.

[mw64ahw]

You can put the strong 4441s into your Multi 2♦ or 2♣ bids giving 2X-2X+1-3Y, where Y is the suit below the short suit.

 

With the hand above

2♣ - 2♦

3♣ is 4414/44(05)

 

Another alternative is on Chris Ryall's site, but this may require tweaking other parts of your system.

[mikeh]

We actually play 1x-1y-3N as this sort of thing (huge 4441 with support) rather than the traditional hand with a long minor. You can also put it into your multi.

 

Mike: may depend on your 2N range, but do you really think partner is bidding over 2N with J or Q xxx, 10xxx, xxxx, Q ? (or the (34)51 version of that) I would bid over a 2+ club with that but probably not a 20-21 2N particularly with the J rather than Q.

No. But note that I said that if partner has a hand on which he’d respond in a major to a 1C opening, then he rates to respond to 2N. Now, in fairness, one can, I suppose, come up with a hand where he’s too weak to respond to 1C but would do so anyway because he’s very short in clubs. But one can’t cover every possibility. You have to open something and I remain convinced that 2N is the best call.

[mycroft]

I agree with Mike (again, almost by rote, when it comes to bridge judgement. When I don't agree, he usually convinced me he's right). Just a note that at least in the ACBL, you only get to use Mike's level of judgement on the Open/Open+ charts; if you're stuck in Basic+, that ♦T had better be the Q.

 

"If the law says that, the law is an..." yeah, I know. I don't disagree either. But still.

[Cyberyeti]

No. But note that I said that if partner has a hand on which he’d respond in a major to a 1C opening, then he rates to respond to 2N. Now, in fairness, one can, I suppose, come up with a hand where he’s too weak to respond to 1C but would do so anyway because he’s very short in clubs. But one can’t cover every possibility. You have to open something and I remain convinced that 2N is the best call.

 

It's a hand where there is no perfect opening bid unless you have a system bid for it. I happen to prefer 1♣, you aren't doing to enjoy 2N-3N opposite some weak hands with 5 or 6 clubs and a doubleton diamond either.

[pescetom]

Were partner not a passed hand, I’d reject 1C because I can never catch up after a 1M response, and I definitely can’t drive beyond game without some sign of life from partner…who will not stretch since he won’t and shouldn’t play me for this much.

 

I would prefer 2NT to 1♣ in either situation. But if one does choose 1♣ and unpassed partner responds 1M, what is the catch up problem you see? I'm going to splinter 3♦, now partner has some idea of my shape and the ensuing control-bid sequence is going to expose most slams, I would have thought.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak95haqj8dtcak74&w=s63hkt964dk62cj95&n=sj842h52da754c632&e=sqt7h73dqj983cqt8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1cp1sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

While I'm excited to be opening off shape nt hands, I thought my best approach here was 1♣.

I didn't want to hear 2nt:3nt. I can handle any response other than perhaps 2♣ from partner. I don't have a splinter available.

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak95haqj8dtcak74&w=s63hkt964dk62cj95&n=sj842h52da754c632&e=sqt7h73dqj983cqt8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1cp1sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

While I'm excited to be opening off shape nt hands, I thought my best approach here was 1♣.

I didn't want to hear 2nt:3nt. I can handle any response other than perhaps 2♣ from partner. I don't have a splinter available.

 

Curious, what is 4♦ if it isn't a splinter ?

 

I don't like 4♠, you really expect partner to bid up with Qxxxx, Kxx, xxx, xx which is all you need for a slam.

[pescetom]

Curious, what is 4♦ if it isn't a splinter ?

A void, as 3♦ might as well already be splinter?

[pescetom]

While I'm excited to be opening off shape nt hands, I thought my best approach here was 1♣.

I didn't want to hear 2nt:3nt. I can handle any response other than perhaps 2♣ from partner. I don't have a splinter available.

 

Make it just:

[hv=pc=n&s=sak95haqj8dtcak74&w=s63hkt964dk62cj95&n=sj842h5da754cq632&e=sqt7h732dqj983ct8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1cp1sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

and you have probably have 6♠ or even 7♣, yet would bid the same.

Time to rethink.

[Cyberyeti]

A void, as 3♦ might as well already be splinter?

 

OP said they didn't have a splinter available under the diagram where they posted the whole hand

[pescetom]

OP said they didn't have a splinter available under the diagram where they posted the whole hand

 

Yes, but nevertheless you said:

Curious, what is 4♦ if it isn't a splinter ?

and I was replying to that.

 

Splinter replies are pertinent to the thread as presumably OP is looking for alternative methods.

[jillybean]

My uncertainty on this hand was the opening. After the 1♠ response I'm somewhat constrained by not having a splinter available.

3♦/4♦ undiscussed

[P_Marlowe]

My uncertainty on this hand was the opening. After the 1♠ response I'm somewhat constrained by not having a splinter available.

3♦/4♦ undiscussed

But the good thing: Your partner did make a response, ask him, if he whould also make a response without the Jack.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, but nevertheless you said:

 

and I was replying to that.

 

Splinter replies are pertinent to the thread as presumably OP is looking for alternative methods.

 

The point I was making was if 4♦ was bid undiscussed, what else was it going to be taken as ? It doesn't matter on the actual hand, partner will sign off as fast as possible, but 4♦ has to be a splinter whether void or singleton.

[jillybean]

But the good thing: Your partner did make a response, ask him, if he whould also make a response without the Jack.

 

Give him 4 spades 842x and I'd expect him to bid 1♠ but I will check :)

 

 

Edit: yes, I will get a 1♠ response with 6 points a any 4 spades

[Cyberyeti]

Question mainly for Mike, if the borderline between your NT ranges was between 21 and 22, which would you treat it as ? my inclination would be 22-23 rather than 20-21 as it makes game opposite many 4s and some smaller hands

[mikeh]

Question mainly for Mike, if the borderline between your NT ranges was between 21 and 22, which would you treat it as ? my inclination would be 22-23 rather than 20-21 as it makes game opposite many 4s and some smaller hands

Generally speaking, 4441 hands don’t play as well as 4432 and nowhere nearly as well as 5431. So, while I love Aces and like Kings, and all the honours are supporting other honours, this isn’t a hand I’m inclined to upgrade.

 

I upgrade out of or into notrump ranges frequently, but this one is not worth 2C then 2N, showing 22-23 for me.

 

My 2N is a very good 19 to an above average 21, but not what I’d call a very good 21. This isn’t, imo, a ‘very good’ 21.

 

Edit: unless playing something like 2D showing a balanced 18-20, I don’t understand using a 2N range of 21-22

 

You want, imo, a ‘ladder’ approach to notrump, and you need to be aware of the differences between 1N (as an opening ir rebid) and 2N

 

Over 1N, responder has room to ask whether opener is min or max…min being 15-mediocre 16, max being decent 16-17. If you play ‘invite light, accept strong’ you’ll have your micrometer set a little differently on the 16 counts.

 

Over 2N, either opening or jump rebid, responder has no way to ask min-max, in terms of committing to or avoiding game

 

Therefore it is logical to use a three point range for 1N openings or rebid and a two point range for the 2N bids.

 

If one plays 15-17, and 21-22, the 2N jump rebid shows 18-20, a three point range. I strongly believe this to be a poor approach.

 

Btw, in my two partnerships, we avoid much of this.

 

Especially in the one in which we open 1C with all balanced opening hands out of range for notrump…including 3352 shape. We play transfers over 1C so

 

Vulnerable

 

1C 1R 1M, accepting the transfer, shows 2-3 card support and a minimum balanced or semi balanced hand, so if balanced then 11-13

 

1N is 14-16

 

1C 1R 1N is 17-19

 

All of these have 3 point ranges, which is acceptable because responder can invite

 

2N is 19+ - 21, with great 21’s upgraded to 2C.

 

Thus we have the 3 point ranges at the 1 level and 2 level bids are two point ranges.

[P_Marlowe]

Give him 4 spades 842x and I'd expect him to bid 1♠ but I will check :)

 

 

Edit: yes, I will get a 1♠ response with 6 points a any 4 spades

Without the Jack, he would have only 4HCP.

The point is, if he understands, that he should answer with submin values to a 1 level

opening, you know, you dont need to open 2C as much as otherwise.

[Cyberyeti]

Generally speaking, 4441 hands don’t play as well as 4432 and nowhere nearly as well as 5431. So, while I love Aces and like Kings, and all the honours are supporting other honours, this isn’t a hand I’m inclined to upgrade.

 

It plays badly in no trumps, but can be better in 4M and you have both majors.

 

♥Kxxx and out or ♠QJxx and out or ♥109xx and a black Q could easily be enough for game

 

This is why I thought it was interesting.

 

We actually play good 19- non stellar 21 for 2N and since a good majority of these are 19 or 20, I would upgrade this one, partner just passes way too many hands where game makes.

 

Plus partner raises to 3N with xx, Kx, xxx, Qxxxxx and we go off with 6♣ laydown. This is part of why I actually open 1♣