[pescetom]

As promised in the other thread, here is the hand that caused discussion here last week.

MP

---

Your bid as East with preferred partnership methods?

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2026-February-23, 16:17, said:

As promised in the other thread, here is the hand that caused discussion here last week.

MP

---

Your bid as East with preferred partnership methods?

If I am going to treat this as a balanced 17 then I can open it one club


If a balanced 16 then 1NT, except that may not be a legal bid in ACBL

If a reverse into hearts then, 1D

Heck I could even open it one club and reverse into hearts....

[DavidKok]

Currently I play a relatively simple version of Full Dutch Doubleton, so I'll stick with that. I've previously played more complicated versions that can address this hand type in full, but in my current system this hand still slips between the cracks and causes problems.
I will open 1♣. In Dutch Doubleton a 1♠ answer shows a positive hand with spades, and I can somewhat comfortably make a game forcing reverse after. With weaker 1=4=4=4 hands I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ over 1♠ instead - not ideal.
If partner responds 1♦ to my 1♣ opening I can show this hand reasonably well after by presenting it as a clubs-hearts reverse (1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠; 2♥). This shows the strength of the hand and my only major suit, while giving partner maximum room in our bidding system.
More likely is that the opponents will interfere and I get to make a takeout double of spades.

There's a good case for treating this hand as balanced, but I'm not a fan of that with a singleton in a major suit.

[mw64ahw]

As previously with my esoteric unbalanced ♦
1♦-1♥ either/ both Majors weak
2♥ various (denies 3♠) - 2♠/2N GI/GF asking for shape
2N s4(53), s444
3♣ xx55 GI
3♦ x46x GI
3♥ xs55 GF
3♠ sx55 GF

Or

1♦-1♠ GI
2♣ (4441)-responder shows strength, followed by opener showing the shortage.

Again
2♣-2♦
3♥ is a possibility with 6 controls

[mikeh]

Close decision. I can open an unbalanced 1D or treat it as balanced 17-19, as I did in David’s earlier thread.

This hand is different from that (Q AKJx K98x KQJx) in two small but, to me, important aspects. The spade J rates to be less valuable, in spades, than does the Queen. And the point count is on the low end of the range. Yes, I have some often useful 10s but this hand will not usually be what partner s playing me for if I start 1C and, if he bids 1 H, showing spades, I bid my 17-19 1N.

The David hand was close to a gf if partner can scrape up a response…we stretch to respond to 1C so it’s not gf. It was, however, too strong to fit neatly into our 1D structure, that is based on 1D always being unbalanced…. 5422 is the most balanced it can be. With his hand, I’d be worried after 1D 1S 1N, showing clubs and not promising any extras. Sort of like 1D 1S 2C for standard bidders. He will pass 1N with many hands on which 3 N has play. 5=3=2=3 for example. Or 4=3=2=4. Both around 7-9 hcp. 1N implies fewer than 3 spades. 1N will often be the best spot.

I’m not so worried with this weaker hand so I’ll open 1D. What I do next depends on how auction proceeds

[mike777]

mike777, on 2026-February-23, 16:24, said:

If I am going to treat this as a balanced 17 then I can open it one club


If a balanced 16 then 1NT, except that may not be a legal bid in ACBL

If a reverse into hearts then, 1D

Heck I could even open it one club and reverse into hearts....

I guess I will try 1D, I think I used up all of my wait time at the table on this one, smile.

[Cyberyeti]

1♦

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2026-February-23, 17:12, said:

Close decision. I can open an unbalanced 1D or treat it as balanced 17-19, as I did in David’s earlier thread.

This hand is different from that (Q AKJx K98x KQJx) in two small but, to me, important aspects. The spade J rates to be less valuable, in spades, than does the Queen. And the point count is on the low end of the range. Yes, I have some often useful 10s but this hand will not usually be what partner s playing me for if I start 1C and, if he bids 1 H, showing spades, I bid my 17-19 1N.

The David hand was close to a gf if partner can scrape up a response…we stretch to respond to 1C so it’s not gf. It was, however, too strong to fit neatly into our 1D structure, that is based on 1D always being unbalanced…. 5422 is the most balanced it can be. With his hand, I’d be worried after 1D 1S 1N, showing clubs and not promising any extras. Sort of like 1D 1S 2C for standard bidders. He will pass 1N with many hands on which 3 N has play. 5=3=2=3 for example. Or 4=3=2=4. Both around 7-9 hcp. 1N implies fewer than 3 spades. 1N will often be the best spot.

I’m not so worried with this weaker hand so I’ll open 1D. What I do next depends on how auction proceeds

Very much my feelings about the spade J. I opened 1NT. That doesn't make me much more nervous about 1NT and does push me away from spades if that elephant is in the room.
But I can live with a more orthodox 1♦ playing 4+ too.
Interesting that our pair playing 1♦ 5+ and TW still preferred 1♣.
One pair opened Multi to show a 3-suiter and another pair 2♣ (Milan diamonds system) to show the same.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2026-February-24, 13:35, said:

Very much my feelings about the spade J. I opened 1NT. That doesn't make me much more nervous about 1NT and does push me away from spades if that elephant is in the room.
But I can live with a more orthodox 1♦ playing 4+ too.
Interesting that our pair playing 1♦ 5+ and TW still preferred 1♣.
One pair opened Multi to show a 3-suiter and another pair 2♣ (Milan diamonds system) to show the same.

I’ve played multi as including a strong 3 suiter. This one isn’t, imo, ideal…counting the stiff Jack to get to the (for us) requisite 17 hcp seems poor to me, but their ranges might differ. The real problem is that 4441 hands make up 3% of possible holdings and 16+ ones much fewer. So responder has to cater to a low frequency shape and thus can’t take full advantage of one of the main benefits of the weak only multi…being able to blast to game on a wide range of hands…a preemptive sacrifice or expecting to make.

After a couple of poor results I refused to play any string option and haven’t regretted it since. I do think that a lot of players very estimate the problems with bidding 4441 hands. Are they always easy to bid? No. But that’s true for all hands that fall into the seams of any method….and every method has seams.

[mw64ahw]

I still play a Multi-2D, but the strong options are 25-27 balanced or some hands with strong ♦. This reduces the probability that passing 2♦ will be an issue although I've yet to play enough to run into trouble on this. At the moment with one partner we play 2♦ as Ekren since our Weak2 continuations are well defined. I've also simulated a variety of other weak combinations and personally prefer a 5M approach.

[pescetom]

Here are both hands.

MP

---

How would things progress (opponents silent) in your usual partnership and are you comfortable about where you end up?

[mikeh]

In my main partnership, with 1D always being unbalanced, west has a close call between a simple non- inverted 2D and an aggressive limit raise.

I can’t be objective. After a limit raise the main issue will be avoiding the inferior slam and playing in 5D. I don’t see any risk of our being in 3N, although at mps that could work very well if they don’t lead spades

I’m confident we’d reach 5D after a 2D bid…east won’t pass and now west will be aggressive, holding a super max for 2D

[DavidKok]

1♣-1♦; (Dutch Doubleton)
1♥-1♠; (Dutch Doubleton)
2♥-3♣; (♣+♥ reverse, GF confirming clubs and implying [4+ diamonds or 3=3=3=4])
3♦-3♠; (3♦ natural, usually 1=4=3=5 or 0=4=3=6 but here the smallest lie. 3♠ nebulous)
4♣-4♦; (4♣ waiting, 4♦ control)
4♥-?? (4♥ control)

Here it gets difficult. West hasn't shown the ♠A yet and knows of the double fit (expecting a 9-card club fit and 8-card diamond fit, which actually happens to be the other way around), but also has an absolute minimum. If West cuebids 4♠, which I would probably do, I think I end up in 6♣. If West decides to skip it I think I end up in 5♣. On my start I fail to find the superior diamond contract.