[32519]

32519, on 2011-October-21, 00:08, said:

Can the experts kindly advise on the best methods to show the 4441 hand pattern. Holding 11-16 HCP, 2/1 and SAYC players are often taught to open the bidding with the lowest minor. With 17+ HCP, the hand pattern gets moved into the 2♦ (Multi) opening bid. With 11-15 HCP, Precision players open the bidding with 1♦. With 16+ HCP I see many of them also opening with 2♦ now, Multi style, irrespective of where the singleton is. Opening 1♣ with 16+ HCP and a 4441 hand pattern distorts the continuation bidding. ACOL players are taught to open the bidding with the middle suit, followed by the higher ranking suit and then the lowest ranking suit. The problem with this approach is, you need three bids to describe your hand and by then you are often already on level 3.
1.) What do the experts use to bid the 4441 hand pattern?
2.) What does your continuation bidding structure look like?

Thanking you in advance for your assisstance.

Three other methods I've seen posted elsewhere in these forums -
1. Open 2♣ and then rebid 2NT over whatever partner responds. 16+ HCP was suggested.
2. 2NT, unspecified singleton and 8-12 HCP. The idea behind this method was to place a lot of pressure on the opponents? Especially when you hold both majors?
3. Over whatever suit partner opens, a jump to 2NT by responder shows 4441, 12+ HCP and a singleton in the suit opened. The bid is game forcing.

Conventional openings to show the 4441 that I know about are -
1. Roman 2♦
2. Mini-Roman 2♦
3. Multi (which includes strong options)
4. Precision 2♦
5. The "Impossible Negative" in response to a Precision 1♣ opener

Seems like everyone has their own favourite method for dealing with the 4441 hand pattern.

[chasetb]

I am going to respond to your post bit by bit.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

Three other methods I've seen posted elsewhere in these forums -
1. Open 2♣ and then rebid 2NT over whatever partner responds. 16+ HCP was suggested.

This is disgusting. 2♣, assuming it is strong, should NEVER be opened on a 4441 hand with less than 22 HCP, and I only do it if I have a really chunky 4-card Major or will rebid 2NT. It is impossible in any casual or semi-serious partnership to show a 4441 via 2♣, and any serious partnership won't even bother with it.

3 different times in the past 2-3 years, I have opened 4441 hands with 22+ HCP at the one level. The first time, I reached 6♦ on a 5-4 fit with 29 HCP, and made it. The second time, I played in 1♣ making 4 in a 4-4 fit; I had 24 HCP, while partner was 3334 and only had the ♣J. The third time, LHO interfered, and I rebid and made 3NT after finding out partner had that suit stopped.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

2. 2NT, unspecified singleton and 8-12 HCP. The idea behind this method was to place a lot of pressure on the opponents? Especially when you hold both majors?

All I can say is 'Yikes'! I would love to play against anyone who does that.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

3. Over whatever suit partner opens, a jump to 2NT by responder shows 4441, 12+ HCP and a singleton in the suit opened. The bid is game forcing.

It's really silly to narrow the 2NT response to just that. You are wasting that bid, and I've never had a problem with making a simple response and then usually jumping to 3NT the next round.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

Conventional openings to show the 4441 that I know about are -
1. Roman 2♦
2. Mini-Roman 2♦

Both Roman 2♣ and 2♦ were designed to fill a hole in the Roman system, due to canape I think. Neither bid are that good, and in fact I think it would be better to reverse the bids. In Precision Today, one of the alternative openings they suggest was in fact 2♦ showing 16-24 HCP and any 4441 shape. I was enamored when I first read about it, but quickly realized that 16-20 hands can easily be covered by opening 1♣ and then just bidding the Major, provided you had a decent response structure. It also keeps you lower than the 2♦ opening on those hands. The only hands that create problems are the (21)22+ 4441 hands, and they really don't come up.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

3. Multi (which includes strong options)

The more options you put into Multi 2♦, the weaker you make it in terms of accuracy and destructiveness. Sure, the weak 2♥ and 2♠ will still make up a majority of the hands, but then you have to account for the possibility of that any 4441 hand.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

4. Precision 2♦

Again, this fills a hole in the system. It was expanded to include (34)15 hands and 4405 hands to make it more useful and come up more often.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

5. The "Impossible Negative" in response to a Precision 1♣ opener

This should have been listed right under the "jump to 2NT", though unlike that suggestion, it filled in a hole at the time. It fell into disuse as well, though if the system is very well designed I'm sure it can work.

[Zelandakh]

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

This is disgusting. 2♣, assuming it is strong, should NEVER be opened on a 4441 hand with less than 22 HCP, and I only do it if I have a really chunky 4-card Major or will rebid 2NT. It is impossible in any casual or semi-serious partnership to show a 4441 via 2♣, and any serious partnership won't even bother with it.

Sorry but you are wrong here. This is a specific convention with conventional follow-ups and it works surprisingly well. 16+ is a little light and usually only mentioned in conjunction with playing a LTC method - it would promise 5 or fewer losers. This is not the same as simply opening 2♣ with a strong 4441 hand that does not fit elsewhere, which seems to be what you are describing. A write up of one version of this is given here. My own method (see below) is a version of this.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

All I can say is 'Yikes'! I would love to play against anyone who does that.

I agree, at least theoretically. This 2NT opening is not sound but I suspect it would be highly effective against unprepared opponents. Limiting the singleton in some way (only 4441/4414 say) would naturally be trickier.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

It's really silly to narrow the 2NT response to just that. You are wasting that bid, and I've never had a problem with making a simple response and then usually jumping to 3NT the next round.

Absolutely. I am not sure who suggested this one but it seems like a poor use of a 2NT response.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

Both Roman 2♣ and 2♦ were designed to fill a hole in the Roman system, due to canape I think. Neither bid are that good, and in fact I think it would be better to reverse the bids. In Precision Today, one of the alternative openings they suggest was in fact 2♦ showing 16-24 HCP and any 4441 shape. I was enamored when I first read about it, but quickly realized that 16-20 hands can easily be covered by opening 1♣ and then just bidding the Major, provided you had a decent response structure. It also keeps you lower than the 2♦ opening on those hands. The only hands that create problems are the (21)22+ 4441 hands, and they really don't come up.

I think you are confused with the 2M opening bids in the Roman system which showed 2-suited hands with the major plus clubs. These were indeed created to fill a system hole due to canape. For a modern version of this, see Ben (inquiry)'s system. The Mini-Roman 2m opening is usually used in conjunction with a 1♦ "either minor" opening these days. Then one of the 2m openings covers 2-suiters (both minors) and the other covers 3-suiters. This ends up being quite an efficient method. Ken (Rexford) (inter alia) is a proponent of this idea.

The stronger version is essentially the origin of the 2♣ -> 2NT convention above. It is good but basically too expensive to devote an entire opening bid to. hence the idea of combining it into another forcing opening.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

The more options you put into Multi 2♦, the weaker you make it in terms of accuracy and destructiveness. Sure, the weak 2♥ and 2♠ will still make up a majority of the hands, but then you have to account for the possibility of that any 4441 hand.

Many jurisdictions do not allow a weak-only Multi so including a strong 4441 hand is quite a good option. It is rare, which is precisely what you want for the strong variant. Your arguments seem to be against including any strong option at all rather than against including a 3-suited hand per se.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

Again, this fills a hole in the system. It was expanded to include (34)15 hands and 4405 hands to make it more useful and come up more often.

More than that, it probably does not belong in this list because it only deals with a specific shortage and is not part a general way of handling 3-suiters.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 00:46, said:

This should have been listed right under the "jump to 2NT", though unlike that suggestion, it filled in a hole at the time. It fell into disuse as well, though if the system is very well designed I'm sure it can work.

It has fallen into disuse through a combination of opponents being more aggressive against strong club auctions, thus making resolution trickier, and the fact that there are alternatives which are simpler and better.

32519, on 2012-December-10, 23:35, said:

Seems like everyone has their own favourite method for dealing with the 4441 hand pattern.

Here's mine. My 1♣ opening shows 15+ natural, 15+ balanced, or 18+ any. Polish with a weak NT as someone once put it. Over this, a 1♦ response is negative and bid with (almost) any non-GF. Now Opener's 1♠ rebid shows an unbalanced GF or a strong (18+) 3-suiter. This is similar to Chris Ryall's method but somewhat more flexible, since the hands can begin at 2♣, 2♦ or 2NT according to Responder's strength. In particular, if Responder advertises a bust it is possible to get out in 2M, while if Responder has a max they can start relaying with 2♦ (over our 2♣) providing ample space for slam investigations.

Prior to this, as a junior, I played a reverse Benji version where a 2♦ opening showed an Acol 2 in any suit or a strong 3-suiter or a very strong balanced hand. That should probably be on the list too.

[fromageGB]

While I am happy with normal to very good {1444} hands opening 1♣ if the shortage is diamonds, and 1♦ otherwise, and they handle the 3-suiters well in my view, you do need something else for the game forcing hands - or a trick short when you might miss game if partner passes your one open. Building them all into 2♣ is awkward because there are so many other hand types that need to be covered and you are at a high level.

When I played a multi-2♦, and did so for many years, it was a strong option. That was OK. However, now I have switched to a 2♦ opening showing both majors, it is easier to handle 3-suiters naturally. If you have a minor shortage you just start 2♦ then (when partner shows no great interest in a major) unexpectedly bid the minor. If you have a major shortage you start 2♣, but while it is still not ideal, at least it can be managed better, as the shortage has to be a major and you can show your major first, then use an unusual rebid to show the 3-suiter.

So my thoughts on 3-suiters are that they need to be shown, but they don't all have to start with one bid. If you have an essentially natural non-strong club system without many relays/negatives and the like, build them in where they best fit.

[chasetb]

Zel, I'm glad that we agree on most points. I do have a few replies:

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 03:27, said:

Sorry but you are wrong here. This is a specific convention with conventional follow-ups and it works surprisingly well. 16+ is a little light and usually only mentioned in conjunction with playing a LTC method - it would promise 5 or fewer losers. This is not the same as simply opening 2♣ with a strong 4441 hand that does not fit elsewhere, which seems to be what you are describing. A write up of one version of this is given here. My own method (see below) is a version of this.

The method outlined doesn't allow for a natural 2NT rebid, and I don't like that at all for a standard system. It is a little different if you play some sort of strong Club/Diamond system, but I assumed we were talking standard systems.

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 03:27, said:

I think you are confused with the 2M opening bids in the Roman system which showed 2-suited hands with the major plus clubs. These were indeed created to fill a system hole due to canape. For a modern version of this, see Ben (inquiry)'s system. The Mini-Roman 2m opening is usually used in conjunction with a 1♦ "either minor" opening these days. Then one of the 2m openings covers 2-suiters (both minors) and the other covers 3-suiters. This ends up being quite an efficient method. Ken (Rexford) (inter alia) is a proponent of this idea.

The stronger version is essentially the origin of the 2♣ -> 2NT convention above. It is good but basically too expensive to devote an entire opening bid to. hence the idea of combining it into another forcing opening.

I'm pretty sure all 4 were designed to plug in holes in the Roman system (thanks to canape). They couldn't open the Major and then bid the minor, because that would be distorting the 4441 hands. They also couldn't go through 1♦ and bid the Major, because THAT would show 5+ in the Major and only 4 Diamonds. Because of the 1♣ multi-way opening, 12-16 HCP hands with 5+ of a Major and 4+ Clubs were also troublesome, so they were assigned to 2♥ and 2♠ respectively. You can use a Mini-Roman 2♦ in standard, but that is silly.

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 03:27, said:

Many jurisdictions do not allow a weak-only Multi so including a strong 4441 hand is quite a good option. It is rare, which is precisely what you want for the strong variant. Your arguments seem to be against including any strong option at all rather than against including a 3-suited hand per se.

From what I have read online, Weak-only multis are the best way to go. If what you say is accurate, then I am surprised that a jurisdiction would deny a weak-only multi, but would allow it if it included any super-strong 4441 into it. Of course, I belong to the ACBL, which doesn't like the Multi at all for 99% of the events.

If you had to include strong hands in the Multi for it to work, then I would throw in strong 4441 hands and strong balanced hands. I know Power Precision (Sontag - Weichsel) used 2♦ as either a Weak 2♥, any 4441 16-24 HCP, or a 24-25 balanced hand with a lot of Quacks.

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 03:27, said:

Here's mine. My 1♣ opening shows 15+ natural, 15+ balanced, or 18+ any. Polish with a weak NT as someone once put it. Over this, a 1♦ response is negative and bid with (almost) any non-GF. Now Opener's 1♠ rebid shows an unbalanced GF or a strong (18+) 3-suiter. This is similar to Chris Ryall's method but somewhat more flexible, since the hands can begin at 2♣, 2♦ or 2NT according to Responder's strength. In particular, if Responder advertises a bust it is possible to get out in 2M, while if Responder has a max they can start relaying with 2♦ (over our 2♣) providing ample space for slam investigations.

Prior to this, as a junior, I played a reverse Benji version where a 2♦ opening showed an Acol 2 in any suit or a strong 3-suiter or a very strong balanced hand. That should probably be on the list too.

Now we're talking! I had forgotten to mention this kind of 2♦ opening. I have my own write-up - a three-way 2♦ that encompasses a Strong 2♦, any GF (semi)-balanced hand, or any 4441 with 22+ HCP. It doesn't come up that often, but it does fill those very small holes in standard systems, and it allows me to discard the Weak 2♦.

If anyone ever plays against me, don't use the Weak 2♦ opening. I get horrible results playing against it...

[kenrexford]

If playing a strong club system, I like a minor-suit core where 2♣ shows any three-suited hand, where 2♦ handles the minor two-suiters (and possibly aso 2NT for lighter but more shapely), and where 1♦ is catch-all (if non-canape then like Nebulous but nevr both minors but possibly eithr inor long; if canape then cubs or diamonds or diamond+longer major).

In response to 2♣ as three-sited, I like 2♦ as the ask back. Opener bids 2♥ with a minimum and hearts, 2♠ a minimum 4-1-4-4, or 2NT+ with a maximujm (bid one under the stiff). After 2♥ rebid (4414, 4441, or 1444), 3♦ asks for specific stiff (3♥ if 1444, 3♠ is 4441, 3NT if 4414). There is more to this, though.

------------------------------------

If playing a natural system I like 1♦ as unbalanced. Thus,with 4441, 4144, or 1444, I'd open 1♦, promising a stiff or void smewhere. The unwinds are fairly easy to handle. This leaves only 4414 as a "problem." I open 1♣ with that and have few problems

[Zelandakh]

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

The method outlined doesn't allow for a natural 2NT rebid, and I don't like that at all for a standard system. It is a little different if you play some sort of strong Club/Diamond system, but I assumed we were talking standard systems.

To get around this in Standard systems you generally need to use a forcing 2♦ opening in addition to 2♣, either a Benji-style base or a Multi. The example I linked to uses a Multi 2♦.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

I'm pretty sure all 4 were designed to plug in holes in the Roman system (thanks to canape). They couldn't open the Major and then bid the minor, because that would be distorting the 4441 hands. They also couldn't go through 1♦ and bid the Major, because THAT would show 5+ in the Major and only 4 Diamonds. Because of the 1♣ multi-way opening, 12-16 HCP hands with 5+ of a Major and 4+ Clubs were also troublesome, so they were assigned to 2♥ and 2♠ respectively. You can use a Mini-Roman 2♦ in standard, but that is silly.

Could be, it is not a system I ever had a lot of interest in. I remember the 2M opening because of Ben's system. The 2m openings were 3 suiters of different strengths. I doubt that was optimal but since we are talking about a 1950s bidding system that is not really surprising.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

From what I have read online, Weak-only multis are the best way to go. If what you say is accurate, then I am surprised that a jurisdiction would deny a weak-only multi, but would allow it if it included any super-strong 4441 into it. Of course, I belong to the ACBL, which doesn't like the Multi at all for 99% of the events.

I also prefer to play a weak-only Multi and have that as part of my system. I also have a back-up plan that includes an Acol 2 in clubs for jurisdictions that disallow this. The EBU is one such jurisdiction, and since I am English I perhaps give the possibility more weight than I should. I have not yet checked the rules in my current jurisdiction (Germany) but have not seen any weak-only Multis played yet. There were a fair few Multis with strong options at the bridge festival and one of my local clubs (Bamberg) has its own Multi (weak 2 in hearts or strong 2 not in hearts I think, probably some balanced option too).

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

If you had to include strong hands in the Multi for it to work, then I would throw in strong 4441 hands and strong balanced hands. I know Power Precision (Sontag - Weichsel) used 2♦ as either a Weak 2♥, any 4441 16-24 HCP, or a 24-25 balanced hand with a lot of Quacks.

The local "trick" in England is to include as your strong option a strong 2 in diamonds with a solid suit. Then Responder can legally pass with any diamond honour knowing that a weak hand is held. As far as I know the idea was first put forward by BBF's own FrancesHinden and Jallerton.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

Now we're talking! I had forgotten to mention this kind of 2♦ opening. I have my own write-up - a three-way 2♦ that encompasses a Strong 2♦, any GF (semi)-balanced hand, or any 4441 with 22+ HCP. It doesn't come up that often, but it does fill those very small holes in standard systems, and it allows me to discard the Weak 2♦.

The funny thing about this convention is that I came up with it before I had ever played "live" bridge. I had heard of the Roman 2♦ opening but not Benji. My first partner (university) had played Reverse Benji with his school partner but could not remember it, only that both 2♣ and 2♦ were strong. I came up with this idea about 5 minutes later and we played it the whole season, sadly without the 3-suiter coming up at all. However, I managed to persuade my next partner to play it to and it came up in my first session at the local (posh) club. We reached 7♦ without a natural bid being made besides the last. The opponents managed to lead out of turn and the grand rolled in for a top. The opps were (very) unhappy, my partner was embarassed. I never went back.

chasetb, on 2012-December-11, 11:53, said:

If anyone ever plays against me, don't use the Weak 2♦ opening. I get horrible results playing against it...

There is a general rule that whatever you use your 2♦ opening as, it will be more effective (as a preempt) than the 2♥ opening. A weak 2♦ is often underestimated.