[mohitz]

Let's say you hold a huge 1444 hand. What do you open and what's the plan? Does it depend on the strength?

Consider the following classification. What's your plan on each of them?

1) 16-17 count: Example: ♠x ♥AJxx ♦AKxx ♣KQxx

2) 18-19 count. Example: ♠x ♥AQJx ♦AKxx ♣KJTx

3) 20-21 count. Example: ♠x ♥AQJx ♦AKJx ♣KQJx

4) 22-23 count. Example: ♠x ♥AQJx ♦AKxx ♣AKQx

[jjbrr]

I'd open them all 1♦ except the last one. About half the forums will swear 1♣ is right. I don't think it matters.

The last one I'd open 2♣ and treat as balanced.

[aguahombre]

Same as JJ, except the last one is already part of our split-range roman 2D.
11-14 or 23-25.

Our ranges for the others are also discussed but are a little different, starting with 15. All rebids are on the slightly conservative side, because 4-4-4-1 hands play badly.

[aguahombre]

Rebids to 1M responses are probably like most others', with tending not to reverse into hearts/1S, since it is less likely to be a suit responder has --and takes up room.

the problem of a rebid after 1D-1N with a 19+range is handled by a jump to 3M showing a singleton there:guaranteed (1-4)-4-4, and letting partner's next bid be the final one.

[Phil]

I have a feeling Mohitz is more interested in our follow-up, instead of our opening bid. I doubt he cares at all if we play a Roman 2♦ opener. I will open 1♦ with all of them. Assuming partner bids 1♠:

1) Rebid 2♣, and 2♥ over a 2♦ preference. Over a 2♠ rebid, 2N.

2) 2N.

3) Willing to listen to others, but I really like 2♥ in spite of only having 4 diamonds. Over 2♠, 3♣ (and not moving past 3N), and 4♣ over 2N. 3♣ over 1♠ preempts us and if pard bids 3♥ I can't be 100% sure its a real suit, although a fragment is enough for 4♥.

4) Wow. Same as 3) probably, but I won't give it up in 3N. Probably a quantitative 4N at some point. 2♣ opener isn't appealing to me.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Apr 14 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

I have a feeling Mohitz is more interested in our follow-up, instead of our opening bid. I doubt he cares at all if we play a Roman 2♦ opener.

Perhaps. but since he asked both about the opening bid and the plan --and again about the plan with each range, I gave a plan. Part of planning is to envision hand types and ranges when filling out the convention card.

You gave a plan, I gave a plan. I did not presume to know whether OP was only interested in some plans, and not in others. More than one answer lets the reader choose, and I have no stake in whether he chooses one or the other.

[mikeh]

1 and 2 are really easy imo: open 1♦, rebid 2♣ and over either 2♦ or 2♠, bid 2N. That sequence shows, to me, about 17 hcp and 1=3=5=4 or 1=4=4=4 as the commonest shapes, so seems trivial. I think this is standard, btw.

3. is truly ugly and the only good news is that this hand type is extremely rare and that partner doesn't always bid 1♠ when it arises. While I am a very strong believer in the integrity of the reverse as showing longer diamonds than hearts, I simply can't do anything else here: the reverse is a distortion but it is the least distortion.

A 3N rebid might appeal to some, but in traditional bidding theory it shows something like 1=3=6=3 with side stoppers and running diamonds. I know that Justin, for one, thinks this is too restrictive, but my view of the bid is in keeping with comments made last year (I think) in a BW MSC article.

If partner responds 1N, I am bidding 3♣: we will have at least one minor suit fit and we can sort out the spade stopper below 3N if that is where we belong (well, we can maybe sort it out) As for agua's 3M showing precisely 4441, that is not my understanding of the standard meaning of that call: while I agree that it shows a stiff, it is usually (in my limited exerience) again something like 6331 with a very good hand.

4. I am not opening 1♦ with a prime 23....I have opened at the 1-level with 23 before but only with a stiff honour. I am going to put a club in my spades and open 2♣ intending to rebid 2N. Once again, a distortion and one of the very few times I wished I was playing strong Roman (hand 3 is another instance). I did play a form of multi that included strong 4441 hands for several years and the strong variant came up once in what I would guess were about 2000 hands that I played in that partnership with that method.

[Jlall]

I don't really get bidding 2C with 18-19 at all, it's non forcing and risks getting passed opp a 5413 6-9 count or something for not much reason, or even a 5512 hand(!). I would just reverse and then go from there. At least I have shown my values and the most important suit (hearts) and created a force.

Obv I'd rather be 4-5 as I am 99 % of the time to reverse, but I think 1444 with a strong hand is a normal reverse. To me 2C then 2H shows a hand that was not strong enough to reverse, like 15-16 and could easily be 1453 rather than 1444 anyways.

I would also reverse with the first hand but it's borderline and 2C then 2H could work fine also. The difference as we get weaker is that we get more and more comfortable with partner passing 2C that we aren't that likely to miss a game. I really think systemically having to bid 2C on hand 2 doesn't make much sense...our first priority should be not to miss major suit fits and not to miss games imo.

Hand 3 sucks, I actually think opening and planning to reverse is reasonable because the hand is so suit oriented, but it is also a huge underbid. The danger is not so much getting passed out and missing a game (possible but doesn't happen that often), it's simply never showing as much values as you have, even if you get to show your shape. I would probably open 1m, but 2C-2N is probably a standard way to bid it.

@phil: 2N? Really? I don't understand why one would look at a hand like this and want to bid NT, it is so great for a minor suit game/slam, and...it isn't balanced!

@mikeh: I think that 3N shows stoppers and a long running suit, not sure why I said that was too restrictive. Sometimes I might do it with a half stopper or even xxx though I guess, maybe that's what I meant. Or if you actually mean 1363 is the only possible shape, I def think that's too restrictive since you usually/often have 7 diamonds.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Apr 14 2010, 12:44 PM, said:

@phil: 2N? Really? I don't understand why one would look at a hand like this and want to bid NT, it is so great for a minor suit game/slam, and...it isn't balanced!

Agree, but it limits my hand to a 2 point range. I've done this for years and haven't had a problem - maybe its an aversion to reversing on shapes (and hands of this strength) ike this. I'd really like to stay true to reversing on 5+ in my original suit unless I'm really strapped.

Furthermore, if we are reversing on 18-19 / 20-21 and 22-23, how are you ever going to get all of your ranges across if you start 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠?

[kfay]

Is it just me or aren't I supposed to open 1♣ with a huge hand and 1444?

[mikeh]

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

Is it just me or aren't I supposed to open 1♣ with a huge hand and 1444?

It's just you...and those who play Precision and similar methods

Of course, there are a lot of players who open 1♣ with 4=4 minors, let alone 1=4=4=4. I really don't understand why...I've read all the arguments, going back decades, and none of them have seemed remotely persuasive, but now's not the time to rehash this issue.

[kfay]

mikeh, on Apr 14 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

Is it just me or aren't I supposed to open 1♣ with a huge hand and 1444?

It's just you...and those who play Precision and similar methods

Pretty sure you're wrong, Mike.

[mikeh]

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 14 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

Is it just me or aren't I supposed to open 1♣ with a huge hand and 1444?

It's just you...and those who play Precision and similar methods

Pretty sure you're wrong, Mike.

wouldn't be either the 1st or the last time

But I don't know of any authority for the proposition that one 'should' open 1444 big with 1♣, and I have read a LOT of bridge materials, primarily but not exclusively re NA treatments.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Apr 14 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 14 2010, 12:44 PM, said:

@phil: 2N? Really? I don't understand why one would look at a hand like this and want to bid NT, it is so great for a minor suit game/slam, and...it isn't balanced!

Agree, but it limits my hand to a 2 point range. I've done this for years and haven't had a problem - maybe its an aversion to reversing on shapes (and hands of this strength) ike this. I'd really like to stay true to reversing on 5+ in my original suit unless I'm really strapped.

Furthermore, if we are reversing on 18-19 / 20-21 and 22-23, how are you ever going to get all of your ranges across if you start 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠?

I guess I don't see why you consider it better to bid 2N with a stiff spade than 2H with only 4 diamonds. Assuming you have no special methods to show a stiff spade, you are basically lying about your length in partners major which seems like a much bigger "lie" than in diamonds.

Likewise I don't think it should be a lie at all to bid 2H with 1444. Partner should be aware of this shape, especially if you end up bidding clubs.

You are right that 2N limits your HCP, the problem is your hand is worth much more than 18-19 HCP if you have a fit. You could easily miss a diamond slam (because partner doesn't try) that is very good because you are prime with a stiff, you could easily miss a heart slam for the same reason, even though you will find your fit, and obv you could miss clubs.

2N just feels like a complete misbid, our hand is so suit oriented and has 3 possible suits to play in, showing a balanced 18 is not a good description imo. A lot of random hands like make slam which partner is just not going to try for when we're bal.

So I guess I feel that our hand has much more potential than 18-19 bal...and it's also not bal.

[kfay]

mikeh, on Apr 14 2010, 01:53 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 14 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 14 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

Is it just me or aren't I supposed to open 1♣ with a huge hand and 1444?

It's just you...and those who play Precision and similar methods

Pretty sure you're wrong, Mike.

wouldn't be either the 1st or the last time

But I don't know of any authority for the proposition that one 'should' open 1444 big with 1♣, and I have read a LOT of bridge materials, primarily but not exclusively re NA treatments.

Yeah true. I don't really know why either. I just had a good player tell me to do it who learned it from a REALLY GOOD player, but others might not do it anyway. Clearly you don't and no one else has commented otherwise so idk.

[jdonn]

Which minor to open with 1444 and a big hand is going to be declared by me as a ridiculously overrated issue that virtually doesn't matter. Settles it?

[Phil]

Jlall, on Apr 14 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

I guess I don't see why you consider it better to bid 2N with a stiff spade than 2H with only 4 diamonds.

Well, it depends on our expectations I guess. Certainly you wouldn't object to a 1N rebid with an Ace less? (maybe you would, but I think that's very old fashioned).

When pard rebids 3♠ and I rebid 3N, I think I strongly imply a pattern like this. If pard doesn't rebid spades and checks back for hearts, I would agree that I haven't conveyed this a great hand for hearts, but at the same time, I don't love 4441, and I certainly don't love most of my stuff in the minors, so I don't know its a great loss.

I do agree that missing slam in either minor is a concern after 2N, but I'm not sure how we are automatically getting to clubs when pard is a fair 4=3=2=4 after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥. Frequently, pard will just pick 3N and there you go.

Furthermore, you haven't explained how you are introducing clubs after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ which is a common start. 3N could just as easily be 1=4=5=3 and 4♣ sounds like a cuebid to me, not a strain suggestion.

The only time I think you are going to economically get clubs into the game is when pard bids 2♠, which will happen a fair amount of the time I admit. If pard bids 3♣ over 2♥ are you raising clubs? Could 3♣ even be a 'real' suit'?

I'm not sure I've thought about these hands in great depth, but I haven't been convinced that either way is really advantageous over the other.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Apr 14 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

Well, it depends on our expectations I guess. Certainly you wouldn't object to a 1N rebid with an Ace less? (maybe you would, but I think that's very old fashioned).

The main point of rebidding ONE notrump is to get to hearts when it's right, since 2C can often shut out hearts. Obv that's not a concern with rebidding 2H.

It is also much easier to get out of a 6-1 spade fit after one notrump rather than 2N, and easier to get back into other suits (eg 1D-1S-1N-2D(gf)-2H-2N-3C, I have now shown my shape).

So I don't think thats really a relevant comparison.

Quote

When pard rebids 3♠ and I rebid 3N, I think I strongly imply a pattern like this.

I mean yeah if you have methods to get out of a 6-1 spade fit then it's better than if you don't I guess. Playing something like transfers it is impossible (3H-3S-3N is a choice of games with 5).

Playing 3S as specifically 6 and not necessarily slam interest seems like a loss over playing it as always having slam interest...presumably if partner doesn't bid 3N he will always be cuebidding so that's information leakage already, and then responder will be forced to cue even if he just wanted to make a mild slam try because otherwise he hasn't made any slam try yet...etc etc

But yeah if you have methods to get out of spades after a 2N rebid then that's good, I wouldn't think most people do.

Quote

but I'm not sure how we are automatically getting to clubs when pard is a fair 4=3=2=4 after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥. Frequently, pard will just pick 3N and there you go.

I guess it again depends on your methods, 3N to me would show extras so I would bid 4C over it. If partner bid 2N then 3N I would pass, but it doesn't seem that likely we'd be missing a slam in just a 4-4 fit.

On the other hand if partner had five clubs he would just bid 3C over 2H so that makes it pretty easy (I was thinking mainly of a 5-4 fit slam with light HCP since the 4-4 would probably be hard to handle and would require extras).

Quote

Furthermore, you haven't explained how you are introducing clubs after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ which is a common start. 3N could just as easily be 1=4=5=3 and 4♣ sounds like a cuebid to me, not a strain suggestion.

Yes, this is definitely true, with the minimum range hands I would bid 3N. But again partner having FIVE clubs is unlikely now (it'd have to be 4135), and if it is just a 4-4 fit I would expect we need extras to make slam. If he bids 4N over 3N I will bid clubs.

However, I don't agree that 1D-1S-2H-3D-4C is a cuebid, to me that shows 1444 and a strong hand (or 0454)! With this hand we are not strong enough to go by 3N though obv, but with say 20 or 21 I would (or 23 apparantly..haha).

And as you say if partner bids 2S we can bid 3C.

I didn't mean to imply we would always find clubs after 2H, but I think we will much more often, especially if its a 5-4 fit.

Quote

If pard bids 3♣ over 2♥ are you raising clubs? Could 3♣ even be a 'real' suit'?

I have always thought so, but I guess it depends on your methods again. You don't really need 4th suit forcing except with exactly 4324 and extra values and no club stopper. On the other hand, you often have 5 or more clubs, and sometimes belong in clubs.

Also, there can definitely be problems with only having 4 diamonds when we usually show 5+, didn't mean to imply there are none there either. There is no perfect bid with this hand, I just really dislike 2N compared to 2H (as evidenced by my unwillingness to even bid 2C-2N on the last hand!).

[jdonn]

Phil, on Apr 14 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 14 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

I guess I don't see why you consider it better to bid 2N with a stiff spade than 2H with only 4 diamonds.

Well, it depends on our expectations I guess. Certainly you wouldn't object to a 1N rebid with an Ace less? (maybe you would, but I think that's very old fashioned).

Obviously the comparison is different and rebidding 1NT with a stiff is much more reasonable than rebidding 2NT.
- Reversing and 2NT both show extra values, but rebidding 1NT with an ace less is the only call that shows a minimum.
- Reversing only hides a 4 card minor. Rebidding 2♣ with an ace less as opposed to 1NT hides a 4 card major.
- After 1NT you have a lot more room to work out 3NT vs 4 of the major than you do over 2NT.

Beaten to it by 655321...

[Jlall]

Also I think most experts still rebid 2C on 1444 and a small stiff rather than 1N by far, just not most forum experts heh. A lot more will rebid 1N on 1453 though it seems.

If I played reverse flannery I would be happy to rebid 2C on 1444 and it wouldn't be close.