[pescetom]

Getting better, but still not quite right, in terms of methods at least.

MP

---

Your bid?

[DavidKok]

2NT 20-21 and hope to survive. I have a (superior) alternative in 1♣ with my Dutch Doubleton, but let's keep it closer to standard.

[TMorris]

2nt seems sensible to me. At least it's not a major suit singleton.

[Cyberyeti]

1♣ or 2N, can cope with either

[steve2005]

1♣ then 4♦ over 1M, You have a very strong hand opposite a 1M bid
3Nt over 1♦ or 1N
if passed you unlikely to miss game as you have a lot of losers for a 20+ hand

[mike777]

2NT

Don't hate 1C
Btw. If I open one club I will treat my hand as balanced after 1C-1M and not splinter

[apollo1201]

I was gonna say easy 1C but 2NT will certainly ease the sequence.

[jillybean]

1♣ , why not.
2nt is ok

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2026-July-09, 08:32, said:

Getting better, but still not quite right, in terms of methods at least.

MP

---

Your bid?

When did bridge players stop adding a point for four aces? And why?

[mike777]

4441 hands tend to play a trick less

[Cyberyeti]

steve2005, on 2026-July-09, 10:09, said:

1♣ then 4♦ over 1M, You have a very strong hand opposite a 1M bid
3Nt over 1♦ or 1N
if passed you unlikely to miss game as you have a lot of losers for a 20+ hand

If your club is 2+, does partner pass with ♣Kxxxx and out ?

[mikeh]

The problem with this hand is that, if partner has a major or he has 5+ clubs, 2N is a woeful underbid, and don’t get me started with 1C. I defy anyone to persuade partner that we have 9 controls!!!! A typical 2N has around 6 or 7. And 1C followed by anything will never be read by partner as being this strong.

Yes, I’m aware that 4441 hands usually don’t play well opposite balanced hands, but this is not a 21 count.

To me it’s a choice between 2C then 2N or 2N. 2N is ok if partner holds crap but could easily miss a slam…and unless he transfers at the 3 level we’re never going to be able to show our slam suitability.

At mps I opt for the underbid of 2N. At imps, I will opt for the overbid of 2C. While there’s no case for bidding slams that aren’t at least 50%, there is a small possibility that he will pass 2N when opening 2C would allow us to find a major suit game when we have a 4-4 fit with his holding weak values. Of course, we may go down.

[mike777]

Off topic a bit but in looking at the GNT matches going on it surprised me how often one team bids game and the other team stops short. Time and time again the team bidding game makes it.

Even in slam bidding, the slams make.

I don't have any at the table bidding, so perhaps in some cases the opponents are in the auction.

I see this from the top bracket all the way down to C.


Perhaps this confirms two things
1. Bid close games, even for us intermediates
2. Obstructive bidding works, even for us intermediates

[mw64ahw]

This old chestnut with the shape/singleton seemingly excluded from the bidding arsenal of many. Often shown via a multi-2♦, but I take it via 2♣. The control count is too high for a 1♣ bid.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2026-July-09, 17:02, said:

To me it’s a choice between 2C then 2N or 2N. 2N is ok if partner holds crap but could easily miss a slam…and unless he transfers at the 3 level we’re never going to be able to show our slam suitability.

I think this is a fair assessment but I'm slightly less optimistic about our trick-taking potential, especially when it comes to finding slams (that is - giving partner accurate strength information in the bidding for slam investigation. I'm not super concerned about making it conditional on partner pushing for slam). The aces and kings are incredible, but the lack of 10s, 9s (and I guess even 8s) and the 4x1 pattern make me much more cautious. I think either action could win at either form of scoring but I'm happy to stick with the 20-21 range.

[awm]

I like 1♣. Some reasoning:

1. We are not likely to miss a game. This might happen if partner is the sort of player who always passes with less than six high card points, but I've seen how modern players respond to 1♣ (basically never pass it with a major suit to bid).
2. If partner responds in one of a major, I have a sequence for this hand. I'll start with 3♦ (shortness, at least invitational). If partner accepts my "invite" I'll bid keycard. If partner rejects by bidding three-major, I can cue-bid over that (and will let partner out in 4M if I get no help).
3. If partner raises clubs (say preemptively with xx xx Jxx Kxxxxx) this might be our only shot to find slam. I wouldn't expect partner to do anything over 2NT or 2♣..2NT except raise to 3NT on these cards.
4. If opponents jump into the auction, I might get to double them for penalty on some sequences, which could easily be better than bidding something our way.

[pescetom]

We don't have a gadget for strong 4441 hands, which does not cause me to lose sleep (unlike some other system gaps).
My first thought here was 2NT, then "this is too strong", then "no it isn't" for the shape and lack of intermediate texture.

If you open 1♣ then partner responds 1♦, uncontested. Your rebid now?

My partner responded 3♠ to 2NT. Is 3NT forced for you and if not do you bid it anyway?

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2026-July-10, 06:17, said:

My partner responded 3♠ to 2NT. Is 3NT forced for you and if not do you bid it anyway?

My 3♠ shows a GF hand with at least (54) in the minor suits either way. I will bid 4♣ setting clubs as trumps for slam investigation. Instead I would bid 3NT with a hand that is unsuitable for a minor suit slam, but this hand is great for clubs.

[Cyberyeti]

1♣-1♦-1♥ this is forcing unless you didn't really have a response and don't have 4 hearts, so only passed on something like xxx, Jxx, Kxxxx, xx

2N-3♠ forces 3N for us, and that 3N is forcing allowing partner to define his hand

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-July-10, 06:24, said:

My 3♠ shows a GF hand with at least (54) in the minor suits either way. I will bid 4♣ setting clubs as trumps for slam investigation. Instead I would bid 3NT with a hand that is unsuitable for a minor suit slam, but this hand is great for clubs.

Interesting. I should have defined our 3♠ response, which is not the same, sorry.
But I don't want to spoil things for those opening 1♣.

Let's suspend the 2NT variant for now and concentrate on what the 1♦ response promises (for me it could be weak with clubs, as well as unlimited diamonds) and how one rebids over that.