[kenrexford]

This problem is one that is assisted by those of us who only open 1♦ when unbalanced. Sure, there are other problems, but this is a nice auction for us.

1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT will show 1444/1453 almost always (with 1354, rebid 2♣). This is a nice inference for Responder, who (1) will not rebid 2♠ unless playable opposite a stiff and (2) can rebid 2♥ to play with great assurance of a fit.

1♦-2♥-X-P-? is also not as much of a problem. Opener bids 2NT, pretty much assuring a stiff spade, although 2254 or 3262-type is technically plausible.

[awm]

Elianna and I routinely bid 1nt on hands like this one (okay, we would need another jack or so to open the hand). In fact we alert our 1nt rebids for precisely this reason. A few additional points about this style:

Rebidding 1NT with this hand is not the same as "treating 4441 as balanced." I would never consider opening 1NT with this shape. For example, if I open 1NT partner will often bid 3NT with a weak two or three-card holding in spades. This is not likely to be a good result. After 1m-1♠-1nt, partner does not have a weak two or three-card holding in spades so this is not a concern. If I open 1nt, partner will often transfer to spades and pass with a mediocre five-card suit, which is not likely to be a good result. After 1m-1♠-1nt, partner will not rebid spades unless she has six (or a very good five). These auctions really aren't the same -- if I open 1nt partner will expect that I normally have 2-4 spades (occasionally five) whereas when I rebid 1nt four spades is removed from the equation so I'll have 1-3 spades (and in fact I often raise on 3 with a suitable hand).

There are effects on the rest of your rebids. Rebidding 1nt with singleton works a lot better if you are willing to raise on three-card support and a balanced hand. If you don't raise on three, partner is somewhat stuck with a moderate five-card major and a weak hand. Opposite three card support from opener, 2M will play substantially better than 1nt. Opposite one card support from opener, 2M will be a lousy contract. On the other hand, the 1nt-rebidding style has a lot of advantages, in particular your minor suit rebids are virtually always six, your 1♦...2♣ sequences essentially guarantee 5♦+4♣, and you don't need to play reverse flannery over 1m because opener's unbalanced hands with 4♥ and minimum values extremely often rebid 1nt over 1m-1♠.

[kgr]

BillHiggin, on May 27 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

I personally like Walsh responses to 1♣ (slight preference for 5542 openings) with full xyz (and responder's reverse flannery). In that context, frequent 3 card raises and rebidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit seem to work well. With a different foundation, a different strategy may work better.

Or transfer walsh allowing to distinguish 3 and 4 card raise?

[pclayton]

awm, on May 27 2007, 08:17 AM, said:

... you don't need to play reverse flannery over 1m because opener's unbalanced hands with 4♥ and minimum values extremely often rebid 1nt over 1m-1♠.

No way Jose. Reverse Flannery is still very important.

What if opener rebids 2 minor with 6 minor / 4 hearts after 1♠?

Even 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ is a problem auction since responder could be 5-5 and stuck, or opener is 0=4=5=4 and the 4-4 heart fit is buried.

[jdonn]

EricK, on May 27 2007, 10:40 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 27 2007, 05:27 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 26 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

Here's what I hope is an intelligent question.

If you have 1-4-4-4 shape, and plan to rebid 1NT over 1♠, why not open 1♣?

Certain competitive auctions require you to bid both minors. The typical example is

1m (2♥) X (P)

Now rebidding 2NT would be absolutely sick. On top of that, partner has just four spades and there aren't that many hearts left in the deck, so you are extremely likely to have a minor suit fit. So obviously you would rather have opened 1♦ so you can bid 3♣ now rather than the other way around.

But if you have eg a 2434 hand you will (presumably) have opened 1♣, and now you are in the same position. In some ways you are in a worse position as your hand has even less offensive potential. I don't really see why 2NT is much less sick here than if you are 1444. The truth is that if an opening can be a weak balanced-ish hand, a weak distributional hand, or any number of medium strength or strong hands, you are going to come a cropper in some competitive auctions.

I am not denying that it's a bad position with that shape also, but it's not the same issue.

1: When you are 2434 there is nothing you can do about it, when you are 1444 there is something you can do (open 1♦).
2: When you are 2434 you don't have nearly as strong implication of a fit outside as when you are 1444, so the upside to avoiding 2NT is a lot lower.
3: When you are 1444 the opponent may be able to set up and or run spades on you in notrump.

[han]

jdonn, on May 27 2007, 01:46 AM, said:

Quote

I also don't agree with your statement that partner cannot have 5 spades for the negative double (Jxxxx x AQxx Qxx is a 2S bid for you?).

I didn't say partner can not have 5 spades as some definitive statement. His bid shows four exactly and that's what you will play him for, if he doubled with more than that it's not something you can concern yourself with.

Does it? My understanding is that the negative double shows 4+ spades and a hand unsuitable to bid 2S. I would also double with KQxxx xx Kxx xxx, and this is a fairly common hand type.

So if I'm doubling with 5 fairly frequently then it doesn't make much sense to say that it shows exactly 4.

I think this double is more similar to 1D-(1S)-Dbl (which is more frequently done with 5+ hearts) than to 1D-(1H)-Dbl (which shows exactly 4 in standard) or 1D-(3H)-Dbl (which shows the same strength as a 3S bid and therefore denies a decent spade suit).

What do you think Josh, do we play it the same way and are we just calling it differently, or do we really have a different understanding of what a standard negative double shows?

[jdonn]

I think you are searching hard for very unlikely examples since almost all hands with 5 spades worth acting can bid 2♠.

It is not analogous to 1♦ (1♠) DBL since there partner will make a rebid lower than your suit on all minimums and you can bid 2♥, so double is normal on a minimum with long hearts. On the given auction partner will always rebid higher than 2♠ so you won't just double on minimums with long spades.

[Fluffy]

I made the mistake of rebiding a similar hand with 1NT with ♠K as singleton.

I remeber 2♠ -2 was a cold zero, don't make those errors again, 2♣ rebid.


And I'd rather open 1♥ than 1♣ (and I play transfer walsh)

[foo]

fifee, on May 26 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

I had an interesting discussion at Vugraph this morning with another player who shall remain nameless til later.

We watched a hand at Flame's match where Flame's opp opened 1♦ in 2nd position and after partner bid 1♠, opener rebid 1NT with:

♠4♥Q932♦AQ87♣K765

at Both Vul, IMPs

Debate ensued about the NT rebid with a stiff ♠.

We agreed that we would not have opened this hand but even if your hand is not sub-minimum, what would you rebid?

I think rebidding 1N or 2N with a stronger hand should guarantee a balanced hand. The exception for me would be a hand with a stiff A or K and no better rebid.  Am I out of touch here?

1= No less than Eric Rodwell has gone down in print as saying that most < 14 HCP =1444's should be passed.

2= As for the rebid, any bid after 1m-1♠;?? is a distortion on your part.
As Dorothy Hayden-Truscott used to say "Tell the least lie".

When you are dealt this hand, you "know" that CHO is going to respond 1S if you Open; and that if you pass and CHO can Open they're going to Open 1S.
So you best have a plan to deal with it.

Your realistic choices are
a= 1C-1S;1N
b= 1D-1S;1N
c= 1D-1S;2C
d= the possibility of pa-1S;1N (assuming 2/1 GF and a Forcing NT response)

Due to the difference in the quality of the minors (♦AQ87 vs ♣K7xx), ?if? I Open, I'd use plan "d" above.
EDIT: "Freudian slip" typo. "b" or "c" are my preferences if I open this; and I like "c" slightly better.

However, like many others here I do not like opening this hand and prefer to pass.

[han]

Foo, I think you meant you'd use plan "b" if you would open.

[rbforster]

One thing to remember is that the general 4441 shape is really really rare relative to almost all other shapes. In this sense, it doesn't much matter how you treat it since it's almost an exception more than anything else. Sure it makes sense to agree on a partnership style, but I think it's a little excessive to redesign your system around it. Heck you could open it 1♥ if you really want (at least you've got no more rebid problems), and now your 5 card major style will merely be a 99.5% (or whatever) 5 card ♥ style instead of a 100% 5 card majors. The 1444 shape might even be less likely than the odds your brain glitches and you pull the wrong opening when you should have bid 1♥...

Hannie, on May 26 2007, 07:32 PM, said:

If you rebid 1NT with this (1444) and frequently raise with balanced hand containing 3-card support then partner shouldn't often pull to 2S with a 5-card major.

I see your point, but I disagree about the "often pulling to 2♠" part. Of all the hands that opener will have on the 1♦-1♠-1NT sequence, even removing some of the 3 card balanced raises, balanced hands are a lot more likely. You've got 2443, 2344, and 2353 for sure, and in my style all of the 3343 hands and maybe half of the 3442, 3244, 3352, and 3253 shapes. The balanced hands are all considerably more likely and my rough estimate using a priori probabilities for the shapes is that partner's 1NT rebid will have

1♦-1♠-1NT How many ♠s by 1NT rebidder?

#♠s ~Prob Shapes
1    7%      1444
2    43%    2443,2344,2353; half of 3442,3244,3253,3352
3    50%    3343; half of 3442,3244,3253,3352

So even agreeing to rebid 1NT on 1444 you will still almost always want to pull with 5♠ and a weak hand. Sure it will suck every once in a while playing the 5-1, but playing all those 5-2 and 5-3 fits will more the compensate in the long run.

It's much more important for example to decide how to rebid hands with 5431 shape. Those with 4♦5♣s like 1345, 2245, and 3145 - these are about 2.5x the total frequency of the 1444 shape (ignoring conditioning the probabilities on partner's 1♠ reply). There are also hands with 4♥5♦ like 1453, 2452, 3451 to consider as well. If all of these hands with 1-2♠ are rebidding 1NT, now you might have enough probability to consider revamping your partner's rebid rules.

[jtfanclub]

Hmmmm...

I wonder if it's worth revamping so that all hands with a singleton in a major without 5 cards in the other major or 6 of a minor open 1 club, while most balanced hands open 1 diamond. This is for less than reversing strength, of course.

1-4-4-4 opens 1 club
(1-3)-(4-5) opens 1 club
(1-4)-(3-5) opens 1 club.
(2-3-3)-5 still opens a club.
(3-4)-2-4 still opens a club.
4-4-2-3 still opens a club

2-2-(4-5) opens 1 diamond
any 4333 opens 1 diamond
any 5332 with 5 diamonds opens 1 diamond
any 4432 with a 3 or 4 card diamond suit opens a diamond


I don't know how useful that would be...it would be nice to know after a 1 diamond opening which didn't end up having at least 6 diamonds that partner is balanced, and it seems easier to figure out what partner has, provided you don't care, say, where the 13th card in a 3334 is. And you never open a 'could be short'. Even so, may not be useful. Oh well.

[foo]

IMHO the advice about not going overboard in redesigning System to deal with the possibility that you might you have to rebid 1N with a stiff someplace is good advice.

In addition, IMHO the principle of "telling the least lie" means that =both= shape and value location should be considered when deciding what to Open and plan for a rebid.
Which means preplanned artificial schedules end up being too restrictive.

If you want more flexibility regarding this issue than SA or 2/1 usually allows, one possibility is to play 5 card Spade openings and 4 card Heart openings.

Please note that I'm not advocating or denigrating this option. Just presenting it for consideration.

[1eyedjack]

Fluffy, on May 27 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

I made the mistake of rebiding a similar hand with 1NT with ♠K as singleton.

I remeber 2♠ -2 was a cold zero, don't make those errors again, 2♣ rebid.


And I'd rather open 1♥ than 1♣ (and I play transfer walsh)

I made the mistake once of letting one bad result dictate my system. Don't make those errors again.

I rebid 1NT knowing that there is a risk that partner may rebid 2S on an inappropriate occasion. When such an occasion arises it comes as no great surprise. If I rebid 2C there is also a risk that 1NT was the best spot.

[kenberg]

IF the only time 1N is rebid with a stiff is when opener is 1-4-4-4 then yes, there is something to be said for just hoping that it doesn't cause trouble when it arises. How about 1-4-5-3? Again there is a problem and again there seems to be two schools of thought: Rebidding 2D shows six, or at least a very good five, thus forcing 1N on a stiff (unless you get cute with your three card club suit), or else rebidding NT shows (maybe with the 1-4-4-4 exception) two spades so you are forced to bid 1D-1S-2D on some pretty crappy suits.

I have never found a way out of this and I seriously doubt that there is one. The old fashioned notion (apparently endorsed by Rodwell) that not all 12 or even 13 counts (and certainly not crummy 11 counts) have to be opened seems to me to have much merit. A few more highs can work wonders in coping with adversity.

From observation, it seems to me that the "rebid 1N on a stiff" option may well be the majority view of high level players (not counting artificial systems). But my experience is limited.

My own current policy is loose: If I hold a moderately good five card diamond suit I rebid it, if I hold a bad suit but a decent spade honor I rebid 1N, if I hold neither I sacrifice a virgin to the bridge gods and do something.

[awm]

Certainly it helps to have some flexibility. I think after 1♦-1♠, most of us rebid 1nt on:

K
AQxx
Jxxxx
Kxx

And most of us rebid 2♦ on:

x
Axxx
AKQT9
xxx

But these are extreme examples, where you have a singleton high honor in spades, or where the diamond suit is particularly awful or particularly strong. The interesting question is what to do with the more "run of the mill" cases like:

x
KJTx
AJ87x
Kxx

Your suit is not awful, but it's not "practically a six card suit." You don't have an honor in spades. What do you do? I think here we will see a difference of opinion, with some people bidding 1nt, some bidding 2♣, some bidding 2♦, and a few saying they would pass in first seat on this hand.

My point is that it helps partner to know what you typically do with these hands. If you rebid 1nt, partner might not want to correct to spades as freely on a bad five-carder (conditioned on partner having five spades, the chance of opener having singleton goes up a bit, and these spade suits don't play well opposite two small either). If you rebid 2♣, partner may want to bid over 2♣ a little more often than he otherwise would. If you bid 2♦, partner may want to try to avoid raising on doubleton honor. If you pass, partner needs to bid more aggressively over your passed-hand responses than he might otherwise.