[ahydra]

I have a system which I play with one partner, and my regular partner is interested in learning as well. It's pretty simple - weak NT, 5 card 1S 1H 1D, such that all 4441 hands are treated as balanced. Over 1C (either NAT or 15-19 BAL/4441) we use transfer responses with a 1NT rebid for all 15-19 hands, since responder might want to take out 1C on a weak hand with major(s).

My regular partner has shown interest in this system but is worried about weak (12-14) 4441s, for some reason particularly those with singleton clubs, but I think his concerns really apply to all weak 4441s. Tonight - I estimate the odds on this are about 1 in 50,000 - I had two 4441 12-14 hands. Per system, I opened them both 1NT. The second one ended badly but that's because apparently half the field didn't find the obvious lead against the obvious 3NT... The first, on the other hand, might well suggest that opening 1NT on these is a bad idea, and some simulations I've been doing also suggest that. I had 10xxx A10xx AKJx x and it went 1NT-(p)-p-(X) all pass, partner had a 3433 4-count, that was -500. Maybe she should have run, but in any case we weren't going for 500 if I'd opened 1 of a suit.

I'd be grateful to the forum bidding theorists therefore if they can suggest which method is best for handling this hand type. I notice Andrew Robson and Alex Allfrey play this system too, but they use a strong NT. This obviously copes better, but ruins the 1NT catch-all-balanced rebid since that's now 12-14 or 18-19, and how are you supposed to know whether to make an invite opposite that? (Allfrey/Robson's card doesn't explain what a 1NT rebid means - I might e-mail Robson and ask him!)

Other ideas I've had are:

- opening them all 1C, rebidding 2C on a 4-card suit if necessary (when 1444)
- opening red suit singletons 1C and black suit singletons 1D (or maybe all 1C except the singleton spade), effectively turning the system into standard 5-card majors (5542)
- switching to a strong NT, losing the ability to respond weak, and just bearing the pain when you play 1C in a 2-1 fit; also this loses the defintion of 1C-red transfer-2NT as a BAL raise rather than 3M as UNBAL, since 1C-1x-2NT is now 18-19 BAL

The issue then becomes whether responder can get confused about opener's club length. Take the first option for example, a hand that bids 1C-1D (4+♥); 3H (NAT UNBAL ~15-17 heart raise) may contain one club or seven. Responder holding a few clubs himself is either looking at a huge double fit or just an ordinary hand.

Thanks,

ahydra

[Flem72]

ahydra, on 2013-February-21, 17:50, said:

My regular partner has shown interest in this system but is worried about weak (12-14) 4441s, for some reason particularly those with singleton clubs, but I think his concerns really apply to all weak 4441s.

some form of Mini-Roman 2D? Removes the need to rebid 1N with 1-4-4-4, and easy solution for 1D-2C when O holds 4-4-4-1. I have an easy one, which you may (obviously) ignore:

MINI-ROMAN 2D: Only with short in a black suit, so guarantees H & D; AK & A = 12.

P,2H = to play WE MUST ALERT R'S CALLS THAT ARE NOT FORCING, AND PROBABLY
ALSO INCLUDE THAT POINT IN THE ALERT AFTER 2D.
2S = to play with 6+; O may raise with short C and max ALERT, NF
2N = starts all inv or potentially strong sequences, and some weak ones(R
may be weak with length in black suits: 5224, 4225 or 5(21)5), and
asks short and strength by steps: 3C = S (O may pass), now 3D asks
range: 3H = min, 3S = max, 3N = S void; 3D = C, 12-13; 3H = C, 13-14;
3S = C void.

Now: Any 3-level call is to play; R's 4C or 4D is to play
Games are to play, even 4S or 5C.
4N = RKCB for non-short black suit (NOTE: This works also
if you hold a solid or one or ½ loser 6+ suit in the stiff.)

3C = to play with 6+; O may raise with stiff S and max
3D = to play, either preemptive or to make
3H = to play, either preemptive or to make
3S = RKCB for H
3N = to-play
4C = RKCB for D
4,5D = to play, either preemptive or to make
4H = to play, either preemptive or to make

[awm]

Of course 4441 hands in a specific range are not all that common. However, opening 1NT on these hands is really quite awful when they come up. The main problems:

(1) These hands have huge playing strength opposite a fit. You could easily miss game if partner passes 1NT and you have a 4-4 major fit or 5-4 minor fit.
(2) Partner's two-level signoffs in five-card suits will leave you in a pretty silly place (violates Burn's law).
(3) You will play the wrong game pretty often; for example if partner has a 4333 hand with three small opposite your stiff. In principle you could investigate on such hands, but then you end up giving opponents a lot of info on the more frequent hands where opener doesn't have a singleton.
(4) You will definitely need a way to locate the singletons in slam investigations (since they are hugely important). Certainly you can devise such a method, but it means a lot of "bash" hands may need to go slow.

To give an example, say I hold ♠KQx ♥Ax ♦KQxxx ♣xxx opposite a 12-14 notrump. Normal bridge is to bid 3NT. But if partner has ♠Axxx ♥KJxx ♦AJxx ♣x I'm ice cold for 6♦ and 3NT will fail on a club lead. There are a lot of hands like this one where I either bash and risk a big loss opposite the 4441 hand, or I go slow and help the opponents on defense when partner doesn't have the 4441.

----------

Anyway, for solutions I'd recommend opening 1♦ on the 4441s that include a diamond suit. Again, these are rare hands so you can basically assume partner has 5♦. The only difference in your results will be when you actually hold a 4441, and I suspect you will do a lot better on those 4441s playing this way. Sure there is the occasional loss when you raise diamonds too aggressively (expecting five) but this seems way less common/serious than the problems when you open 1NT on those hands.

The specific 4414 hand is a bit more problematic. Probably the least of evils is to open 1♣. Usually partner will show a major suit, and then you bid basically as if you were 3415 with four in his major (i.e. you raise appropriately). The fact that partner might expect you to have five clubs instead of four in your unbalanced hand is not going to make a big difference most of the time. The one remaining bad case is when you open 1♣ and partner makes the major-denying response, and you are not in the right range to rebid 1NT (i.e. you have 12-14 playing weak notrump opening). Here you rebid 2♣ (again pretending to the 3415-ish shape). Obviously there are some specific minimums for partner where you are in the wrong partial (i.e. partner 3352, 3343) but again you will survive more often than not. I'd expect big gains when you find a major suit fit that you'd have missed after the 1NT opening.

Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention.

[PrecisionL]

awm, on 2013-February-21, 20:24, said:

Anyway, for solutions I'd recommend opening 1♦ on the 4441s that include a diamond suit. Again, these are rare hands so you can basically assume partner has 5♦. The only difference in your results will be when you actually hold a 4441, and I suspect you will do a lot better on those 4441s playing this way. Sure there is the occasional loss when you raise diamonds too aggressively (expecting five) but this seems way less common/serious than the problems when you open 1NT on those hands.

The specific 4414 hand is a bit more problematic. Probably the least of evils is to open 1♣. Usually partner will show a major suit, and then you bid basically as if you were 3415 with four in his major (i.e. you raise appropriately). The fact that partner might expect you to have five clubs instead of four in your unbalanced hand is not going to make a big difference most of the time. The one remaining bad case is when you open 1♣ and partner makes the major-denying response, and you are not in the right range to rebid 1NT (i.e. you have 12-14 playing weak notrump opening). Here you rebid 2♣ (again pretending to the 3415-ish shape). Obviously there are some specific minimums for partner where you are in the wrong partial (i.e. partner 3352, 3343) but again you will survive more often than not. I'd expect big gains when you find a major suit fit that you'd have missed after the 1NT opening.

Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention.

I agree with most of what Adam says in the above quotes.
I never understood the usefulness of an opening bid of 1♦ showing 5 or more diamonds (The Kennedy System of Bridge, by George Kennedy, 1965)

There are three publications that have systems where opening 1♦ may have an unbalanced hand (a singleton or void) and no 5-card Major. Of course, these systems are based on some sort of forcing club. Two(Edited 2/22/13 @ 13:33 EST) One of these systems use the opening bid of 2♦ to show the unbalanced single-suited hand with ♦s.

MY SYSTEM: THE UNBALANCED DIAMOND, by Marshall Miles [RIP], Canada, 2007 by Marshall Miles, or
A New Approach to MATCHPOINTED PAIRS, Nottingham, England, by Carl G. Samuelson, 1997, (edited by Sally Brock), or
GUS: Graovetter Unified System, by Pam and Matthew Granovetter, 2012.

For details e-mail me.

[chasetb]

ahydra, what you have in principle is An Unassuming Club, which is more or less a Polish Club with a weak NT + a few minor changes. This Link is more concise, and easier to understand. Just change your 1♣ to include 4414 (which Polish does) and change your 1♦ to 4+ (which Polish changed to because 5+ was way too difficult) and you should be set.

Don't use Mini-Roman. It had a specific purpose, to fill in a gap left by the Roman system. It is worthless otherwise.

EDIT - Actually, now that I think about it your system is really close to Nightmare Club, since they use transfers and all that. However, they have 18-19 bal. hands in 1♦ (so technically they only promise 2+), and 2♣ contains all the 5+ Clubs and 4M hands.

[rbforster]

1♦ with 4 is fine, it doesn't need to be 5.

If you don't want to open 4414 as balanced/clubs, you can always just pass since we're talking about the min opening hands anyway.

[Flem72]

awm, on 2013-February-21, 20:24, said:

Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention.

I can only imagine what devastating trauma must lurk here

It must have some redeeming features, in some structures, for some players: see Marshall Miles' article in latest TBW....

[MickyB]

I agree with opening 1m on 4441s. 1D on 4441 min, 1C on 4414. Even if your minimum suit lengths were 5-5-4-2 this wouldn't make your system "standard five-card majors".

I'm not a fan of the 15-19 NT rebid. If you want to respond very light to 1C then you are probably better off playing 1C:1R, 1M and 1C:1R, 1N to show two different balanced ranges - this is commonly played with a 14-16 NT, so completing the transfer shows an 11-13 NT and 1NT shows 17-19. Other potential solutions to this problem include opening 2D to show an 18-19 NT or splitting the two balanced ranges between your 1C and 1D openings, e.g. 1C = nat/17-19 NT, 1D = nat/11-13 NT.

[aguahombre]

"Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention." (AWM, above).

I don't recommend it either. It indeed is horrible in the hands of those who use it without a full spectrum of continuations, those who abuse it with other distributions, and those who don't use the inferences from failure to use it when having other partnership auctions.

Also, certainly don't admit on these fora that you use it unless willing to accept the scorn.

We have done a great deal of work on our R2DII (Roman 2♦ Jr.), and have not found a better use for 2♦ within our style.

The example hand AWM uses in his post would take a whole 3 rounds of bidding to arrive in 6D; but that is just one hand and doesn't prove anything.

[straube]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-22, 10:21, said:

"Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention." (AWM, above).

I don't recommend it either. It indeed is horrible in the hands of those who use it without a full spectrum of continuations, those who abuse it with other distributions, and those who don't use the inferences from failure to use it when having other partnership auctions.

Also, certainly don't admit on these fora that you use it unless willing to accept the scorn.

We have done a great deal of work on our R2DII (Roman 2♦ Jr.), and have not found a better use for 2♦ within our style.

The example hand AWM uses in his post would take a whole 3 rounds of bidding to arrive in 6D; but that is just one hand and doesn't prove anything.

I think it's horrible because it starts the bidding at a higher level than its strength (in terms of hcps and shape) can justify. This is why many joke that the best defense is to pass and then double the final outcome. It's especially problematic that partner doesn't know where your shortness is. The fact that most pairs use the first step responses as pass/correct bids instead of asking bids also is some evidence for a problem with the opening.

Hopefully, the gains in other openings make up for the loss with a Roman opening. Also, better continuations are (well) better...but I would expect losses most often with this opening and it would be interesting to see how passing these hands compares to opening them.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-22, 10:21, said:

"Don't play Mini-Roman. It's a horrible convention."

I agree.

I played mini-roman for several years until I finally got fed up with it and chucked it into the wastebasket.

Besides the flaws mentioned above, if you wind up on defense (which is a significant amount of the time given the strength of the opening bid) the opponents can play the hand virtually double-dummy.

[Phil]

Flem72, on 2013-February-22, 07:25, said:

I can only imagine what devastating trauma must lurk here

It must have some redeeming features, in some structures, for some players: see Marshall Miles' article in latest TBW....

I share AWM's opinion.

I have vivid nightmares about the 4441 coming into my room when I was younger. The family always held the 4441 in high esteem, and tended to overvalue it, but I knew there was always a dark side about it. It would walk around the 2nd and 3rd level like it had business being there, but I knew it didn't belong.

One rainy night, the 4441 was taken away by my mom and dad. I never asked why.

The following Christmas we got a Flannery, which loved to lay on the table. A few years later my little sister got a weak 2♦, and liked it because it would roll over and play dead.

[Flem72]

Phil, on 2013-February-22, 16:50, said:

I share AWM's opinion.

I have vivid nightmares about the 4441 coming into my room when I was younger. The family always held the 4441 in high esteem, and tended to overvalue it, but I knew there was always a dark side about it. It would walk around the 2nd and 3rd level like it had business being there, but I knew it didn't belong.

One rainy night, the 4441 was taken away by my mom and dad. I never asked why.

The following Christmas we got a Flannery, which loved to lay on the table. A few years later my little sister got a weak 2♦, and liked it because it would roll over and play dead.

Hilarious. Nominate for post of the (young) year.

[glen]

Phil's in story was nice, but when did the Mexican arrive?

In Bill Jacobs' book Fantunes Revealed, about the (11)12-14 1NT opening:

Quote

A number of semi-balanced hands are included in the 1NT opening ... 4441 shapes, 12-13 points (with 14 points, open 1♣ or 1♦)

Now it should be noted that Bill Jacobs has not won a single world championship since switching to this system, but others seem to do okay.

[Free]

I've played a system where we always opened 1NT with 11+-14 balanced, 5422, 4441 and some 6322's. Sometimes you have a bad board (for example partner transfer to your singleton and passes), sometimes you have a good one (for example when opps don't expect you to hold a singleton). In my experience it balances out quite nicely and it makes your other openings+rebids a bit better. In many situations partner has a 4 card suit opposite our singleton, which stops the suit much better than a 3-2 split for example.