[32519]

With a 4441 distribution falling into your 1NT range (15-17 HCP), would you open 1NT? The arguments in favour are -
1. It conveys your hand strength
2. It conveys your approximate shape

[lycier]

If the singleton is K or Ace in any minor suit,I open 1nt .
If the singleton is in any major,I open 1♦, and then 2♣.
If the singleton is small card,open a minor suit,only.

[helene_t]

Something like A-KQTx-QJxx-KJxx but it has to be about that extreme

[32519]

lycier, on 2013-March-26, 01:45, said:

If the singleton is K or Ace in any minor suit,I open 1nt.

helene_t, on 2013-March-26, 02:31, said:

Something like A-KQTx-QJxx-KJxx but it has to be about that extreme

Both of you seem to be putting emphasis on the fact that the singleton needs to be an Ace or a King. Lycier went a step further and includes "any minor suit." What is the reasoning behind this rigidity? A crappy singleton is surely no worse than a crappy doubleton?

[gwnn]

when you have a singleton instead of a doubleton, 66% of the time your opps will gain possession of that card and suits previously split 4-4 cannot split 4-4 anymore.

[ArtK78]

In Bridge, as in most endeavors, one should never say never.

Having said that, never.

[han]

It depends. Holding a king or ace in spades I would usually open 1NT, and sometimes with a queen. If the singleton is in hearts I might also open 1NT. I have never opened 1NT with a singleton in a minor. I don't like the idea at all.

[han]

32519, on 2013-March-26, 04:07, said:

Both of you seem to be putting emphasis on the fact that the singleton needs to be an Ace or a King. Lycier went a step further and includes "any minor suit." What is the reasoning behind this rigidity? A crappy singleton is surely no worse than a crappy doubleton?

If you have a small singleton and 15-17 HCP, your hand is better in support for one of the other three suits than partner should reasonably expect. To me this is the main reason not to open 1NT with a small singleton.

Moreover, if you should be in 3NT then there is a good chance that it should be from partner's side. If your singleton is an honor then it is often better to play it from your side.

Playing 2M in a 5-2 is much better than playing 2M in a 5-1 with a small singleton.

[gnasher]

In some partnerships I currently play that all 15-17 4441-types open 1NT, but I think it's quite a poor idea. The biggest problem is that it makes it more dangerous to skip Stayman with a 4M333.

han, on 2013-March-26, 08:28, said:

It depends. Holding a king or ace in spades I would usually open 1NT, and sometimes with a queen. If the singleton is in hearts I might also open 1NT. I have never opened 1NT with a singleton in a minor. I don't like the idea at all.

Interesting. I'd be happy to open 1m with a singleton heart, because I can painlessly bid 1m-1♥;1♠. With a singleton club, on the other hand, you face an awkward problem after 1♦-1NT, so with a 15- or 16-count I'd be more inclined to open 1NT.

[mikeh]

Rebid decisions dominate this issue for me.

As others have implied, having a stiff minor means that opening 1N is a poor decision.

With 4414 or 4441, open the minor and nothing bad can happen. Partner bids a major, and we jump raise.....perfect.

Partner bids 1♦ over our 1♣ and we bid 1♥.

We may reach some 4-4 major fits that we would miss after 1N, when partner is too weak to respond stayman. And we may avoid the problem of partner deciding his 4333 12 count made 3N attractive, and they run the first 5 or 6 tricks in our stiff.

Having a stiff heart is basically the same: we can always rebid 1♠.

1=4=4=4 is the problem hand. We open 1♦ and partner responds 1♠. We can rebid 2♣ but we'd definitely be nervous that we are beginning to stumble about.

Having said that, I'm with those who want an honour in the stiff suit before bidding 1N. Partner will often transfer into that suit, and I want a card that has the playing value of xx. Normally that would be an Ace or a King, but I could see doing it with a Queen, especially if my strongest suit was hearts.....because the alternative of opening one weak 4 card minor and rebidding the other weak 4 card minor induces a feeling of nausea.

[WellSpyder]

mikeh, on 2013-March-26, 10:31, said:

With 4414 or 4441, open the minor and nothing bad can happen. Partner bids a major, and we jump raise.....perfect.

Partner bids 1♦ over our 1♣ and we bid 1♥.

I don't see any suggestion for what to do if partner bids 2♣ over our 1♦....

[wyman]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-26, 11:38, said:

I don't see any suggestion for what to do if partner bids 2♣ over our 1♦....

A very reasonable treatment:
You don't have 5+ diamonds, so you bid your 4cM if you have one: 2H. You bid 2D with any hand with 5+ diamonds, even if you do have a 4cM.

[mikeh]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-26, 11:38, said:

I don't see any suggestion for what to do if partner bids 2♣ over our 1♦....

The sequence 1♦ 2♣ has been described by better theorists than me as a morass or quagmire in standard bidding.

I have had several agreements over time. My personal preference is:

2♦: essentially a waiting bid. It promises no more than 4 diamonds and an inability to make a more descriptive bid

2M: shows shape: at least 4=5 in the Major and diamonds. Doesn't need extras, but will not be a horrible minimum (2♦ for that)

2N: balanced hand, may hold a 4 card major, promises no stiff or void. Doesn't deliver stoppers: when playing a strong 1N, delivers a weak notrump, and vice versa. However, with 5332, should have at least a semi-stopper in both majors, else bid 2♦.

3♣: will almost always deliver 4+ clubs. Will be balanced or either horrible or very good.

3M: splinter, limited to decent to sound openings: really good hands or horrible hands go through 3♣

3N: balanced 18-19, values in all suits, denies 5 diamonds or 4 clubs or a 4 card major, so will be 3343.

Experience suggests that the drawback from lack of certainty as to diamond length for 2♦ is of low significance/frequency, and certainly less than the gain from being able to differentiate other hand shapes and strengths.

After 2♦ or 2N, responder can introduce a 4 card major. If at the 2-level, then opener can raise with 4 card support, and if at the 3-level (over 2N) opener can raise to game or with a 'good' hand in context, cue something beyond 3N. This can cause problems if responder has say xx in the unbid major and opener has no stopper, but given that opener will have at least 3 cards in the suit (else he would have rebid 2♦ on some 5332 with a major unstopped), this isn't a big deal, and 3N will usually make as or more often that any other game anyway.

In answer to the post that prompted this one: with 4441, I would rebid a waiting 2♦.

[fromageGB]

No. With a singleton diamond I open 1♣, and have 3♦ as a splinter when partner "transfers" to a major. This is agreed as 15-16 (1NT strength) 4 card support shortage bid.

With any other singleton I open 1♦ which guarantees a shortage if I don't rebid ♦. Again a splinter is possible, but 1NT if partner bids my singleton major. Partner can find out if I have 12-14 or 15/16.

[han]

Mikeh and gnasher, you both painlessly rebid 1S after 1m - 1H with a 16-count 4144. If partner rebids 1NT (surely the most common rebid) what is your plan? I think you are both putting to much emphasis on having a painless first rebid and not enough emphasis on getting to the best contract. At least mikeh and I agree that we would not open 1NT with a singleton club. I think you would too often play 1NT cold for 4M. Gnasher is right that after 1D - 1NT you are in an awkward position. But much more often partner will bid one of the majors, after which opening 1D will often leave you better placed than opening 1NT.

To me opening 1NT with a singleton honour in a major is much more attractive than opening 1NT with a singleton in a minor. We'll be less likely to miss a major suit game, and there is more reason to open preemtively.

[mikeh]

han, on 2013-March-27, 03:51, said:

Mikeh and gnasher, you both painlessly rebid 1S after 1m - 1H with a 16-count 4144. If partner rebids 1NT (surely the most common rebid) what is your plan? I think you are both putting to much emphasis on having a painless first rebid and not enough emphasis on getting to the best contract. At least mikeh and I agree that we would not open 1NT with a singleton club. I think you would too often play 1NT cold for 4M. Gnasher is right that after 1D - 1NT you are in an awkward position. But much more often partner will bid one of the majors, after which opening 1D will often leave you better placed than opening 1NT.

To me opening 1NT with a singleton honour in a major is much more attractive than opening 1NT with a singleton in a minor. We'll be less likely to miss a major suit game, and there is more reason to open preemtively.

While you are correct that after 1♦on a 4=1=4=4 16 count, I am awkwardly placed after a 1N advance of my 1♠ bid, that is a fairly narrow target, especially since (for me) my 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand. This makes 1N as a 4th bid less likely than for those who bid up the line, and could therefore be 4=2=4=3 or 4=3=4=2.

It is, however, definitely an issue.

Otoh, opening 1N is not exactly a perfect solution either. All kinds of bad things could happen. Partner could commit us to hearts at any level, and be very disappointed to find our stiff. The opps could run hearts on us when we have a minor suit game. We may languish in a bad 1N when we could have been playing a 4-4 spade fit....on a bad day we play 1N while cold for 4♠. And so on.

As with just about every choice of style/method, there are negatives lurking behind one's choices here. Identifying the negatives for the approach espoused by andy and me (and others) doesn't add to the discussion unless you can argue that these negatives are on balance worse than the negatives flowing from a different style.

My own view is as I have described: yours may be very reasonably otherwise: I don't think it is possible to 'prove' anything.

[PhilKing]

han, on 2013-March-27, 03:51, said:

Mikeh and gnasher, you both painlessly rebid 1S after 1m - 1H with a 16-count 4144. If partner rebids 1NT (surely the most common rebid) what is your plan?

1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣.

Natural, constructive.

[bluecalm]

I think opening 1NT with a singleton is about always a bad idea (the only exception is 3rd hand non vs vul for tactical reasons).
I see the reasons but those are usually caused by fixable holes in rest of the system. I went through many hands and imo people who regularly open 1NT with stiff (many American pairs, not so many European) hurt themselves by doing this.
As to specific problems:

1D - 1H
1S - 1NT
2C = 16+, any hand here is one good idea played by Lauria Versace for example.

1D - 2C
many ideas here, one is that you just bid 2NT with 12-14 and 4 diamonds; one other was describe by Mikeh. Some others require 2H as multimeaning rebid.
I don't think those problems are especially hard to solve nor frequent comapre to disasters opening 1NT with stiff yield.

[Free]

I don't have any issues with opening 1NT on any 4441. Actually I quite like a small singleton, even more than a stiff King. Usually partner stops the suit anyways. Biggest problems arise when partner wants to play 2M in a 5-1 fit or when you happen to have a nice minor suit fit (because the singleton has much potential, but you can't discover it).

[CSGibson]

Funny topic - in the silodors, partner opened 1N with a 1=4=4=4 11 count 3rd seat white with a stiff J of spades (we play a good 11-14), and later when the opponents committed an infraction later in the auction taking advantage of UI, we called the director. While the directors ruled in our favor for the UI infraction, they also decided to give us a procedural penalty, stating that the very act of opening 1N on that hand type, with no rebid problems, indicated that we had an undisclosed partnership agreement to open 1N with a singleton. This is despite the fact that there is no record of either of us opening 1N with a singleton, and that neither of us had a memory of having done so previously in our partnership.

We indicated that we were going to appeal the procedural penalty, and the directors eventually dismissed it in favor of filling out a recorder form, which I thought to be much more reasonable.