How do you bid a 4=4=4=1 hand when partner has a misfit?

[ais523]

This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
main lines of thought on how the system should work:

a) In 4-card major systems, the standard is to open 1H, and when partner
bids 2C, bid 2D or 2NT (depending on what the range of 2NT is and on
system). This is going to end up distorting your hand no matter what;
the 2NT bid implies a second club (probably not a massive issue) and
will often be out of range, the 2D bid implies a fifth heart (something
more of an issue). At least there isn't much strain on the rebid,
though.

b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2C. Now, if 2NT is out of range, it seems like you're completely stuck:
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5
stretching it to 4 is much more of a stretch; 2NT shows the wrong
strength; raising clubs on one card is ridiculous; and anything else
would be a reverse (which you have the wrong shape for, and if not
playing a weak NT, also have the wrong strength for).

c) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT forcing (and 2C game
forcing), responder will reply 1NT to your 1D, and just as in b) above,
you have no good way to describe your hand.

I tried to look at my usual sources for a range of systems online, but
almost none of them covered opener's second round action with a 4=4=4=1
hand after responder makes their appropriate response for their
primary-club hand. (The one exception is, oddly, the SAYC definition,
which is normally the least detailed of any of them; it perhaps
accidentally defines opener's rebid in this case as 2D, which I guess is
the least of all evils here. In SAYC, that 2D is a 1-round force, so
there is at least a possibility to end up in a better strain than
diamonds, but it's unclear what the future bidding would look like.)

I find this a particularly interesting case because it happens very
early on (opener's rebid), a point in the bidding that I'd expect most
published systems to cover in detail, and yet it seems to be a hole in
pretty much every natural system at the same time (despite the varying
bidding sequences). Perhaps people get away with it in practice because
the frequency seems to be low (based on my simulations, around 1 in
8000 of happening to one particular player, 1 in 4000 to one particular
partnership, 1 in 2000 on one particular board).

[Co Wiersma]

In The Netherlands, almost everybody would bid 1D-2C-2NT.
This could even be one of the reasons we do not play a weakNT

How a 2/1 absolutely gameforce system bids this I do not know

Co Wiersma

Post by ais523
This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
a) In 4-card major systems, the standard is to open 1H, and when partner
bids 2C, bid 2D or 2NT (depending on what the range of 2NT is and on
system). This is going to end up distorting your hand no matter what;
the 2NT bid implies a second club (probably not a massive issue) and
will often be out of range, the 2D bid implies a fifth heart (something
more of an issue). At least there isn't much strain on the rebid,
though.
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5
stretching it to 4 is much more of a stretch; 2NT shows the wrong
strength; raising clubs on one card is ridiculous; and anything else
would be a reverse (which you have the wrong shape for, and if not
playing a weak NT, also have the wrong strength for).
c) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT forcing (and 2C game
forcing), responder will reply 1NT to your 1D, and just as in b) above,
you have no good way to describe your hand.
I tried to look at my usual sources for a range of systems online, but
almost none of them covered opener's second round action with a 4=4=4=1
hand after responder makes their appropriate response for their
primary-club hand. (The one exception is, oddly, the SAYC definition,
which is normally the least detailed of any of them; it perhaps
accidentally defines opener's rebid in this case as 2D, which I guess is
the least of all evils here. In SAYC, that 2D is a 1-round force, so
there is at least a possibility to end up in a better strain than
diamonds, but it's unclear what the future bidding would look like.)
I find this a particularly interesting case because it happens very
early on (opener's rebid), a point in the bidding that I'd expect most
published systems to cover in detail, and yet it seems to be a hole in
pretty much every natural system at the same time (despite the varying
bidding sequences). Perhaps people get away with it in practice because
the frequency seems to be low (based on my simulations, around 1 in
8000 of happening to one particular player, 1 in 4000 to one particular
partnership, 1 in 2000 on one particular board).

[Eddie Grove]

Post by ais523
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5

First off, 2-over-1 for majors has nothing to do with 1D-P-2C.
How you choose to address this is entirely separate.

It is feasible to play that the 2D rebid shows 5+ and 2H/2S/2N deny 5.

For example, at least a third of responders chose this approach in
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-1d-2c-2d/

The question wasn't worded perfectly. E.g. it seemed to say a 3D rebid
would deny 5. It is possible a fair number of people would follow the
general idea most of the time, but had a specific exception or two.

The final synopsis was
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-final-conclusions/
and said "After 1D-2C" "Tend to rebid 2D with 5+D Bidding a major
usually not 5D and could be dead minimum".


Eddie

[ais523]

Post by Eddie Grove

Post by ais523
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5

First off, 2-over-1 for majors has nothing to do with 1D-P-2C.
How you choose to address this is entirely separate.
It is feasible to play that the 2D rebid shows 5+ and 2H/2S/2N deny 5.
For example, at least a third of responders chose this approach in
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-1d-2c-2d/
The question wasn't worded perfectly. E.g. it seemed to say a 3D rebid
would deny 5. It is possible a fair number of people would follow the
general idea most of the time, but had a specific exception or two.
The final synopsis was
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bw-21-final-conclusions/
and said "After 1D-2C" "Tend to rebid 2D with 5+D Bidding a major
usually not 5D and could be dead minimum".

I think you misread my post. I'm assuming that responder has something
between an absolute-minimum response and a game force; the section
above is talking about systems where 1NT would be signoffish and thus
isn't appropriate. If you play 1NT as forcing (as you would in, say,
2/1), that's what the subsequent section is about.

Obviously, after 1D, 2C=GF, there's a lot more bidding space to sort out
opener's shape than there would be in a nonforcing auction, so it's less
of a problem there.

[Travis Crump]

Post by ais523
This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing,

1 NT opener 15-17:
Strive to open 1N when possible. ie KJxx KQxx Kxxx A
After 1D-1N:
a) with 12-16(bad 17), pass.
b) with good 17-19, bid 2N
1D-2C is GF
Responder raises diamonds with 10+, and 4+ diamonds
Problem hand for responder is 6+ clubs. Either overbid with 2C or
underbid with 1N or temporize with a 3 card major.

1 NT opener 12-14:
After 1D-1N:
a) with 12-17, pass. Responder expects a balanced 17 count to pass
b) with 18-19, bid 2N.
1D-2C is good 9+. Opener will generally bid 2D with a minimum.
Responder raises diamonds with 9+, and 4+ diamonds.

We may miss some marginal 3Ns or end in 1N when 2D might play better,
but neither are likely to be disasters.

[Fred.]

Post by ais523
This is a question that came up when I was thinking about some
theoretical system design issues, but realised that the problem exists
in many more normal systems too. Suppose your hand has 4=4=4=1 shape,
and your partner has no 4-card major, primary clubs, and a good hand
that's short of a game force. In natural-ish systems, I can see three
a) In 4-card major systems, the standard is to open 1H, and when partner
bids 2C, bid 2D or 2NT (depending on what the range of 2NT is and on
system). This is going to end up distorting your hand no matter what;
the 2NT bid implies a second club (probably not a massive issue) and
will often be out of range, the 2D bid implies a fifth heart (something
more of an issue). At least there isn't much strain on the rebid,
though.
b) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT nonforcing, you have to
open 1D, and if partner's hand is too good for 1NT, they have to reply
2D would preferably show 6 cards, and although it's often stretch to 5
stretching it to 4 is much more of a stretch; 2NT shows the wrong
strength; raising clubs on one card is ridiculous; and anything else
would be a reverse (which you have the wrong shape for, and if not
playing a weak NT, also have the wrong strength for).
c) In 5-card major systems with responder's 1NT forcing (and 2C game
forcing), responder will reply 1NT to your 1D, and just as in b) above,
you have no good way to describe your hand.
I tried to look at my usual sources for a range of systems online, but
almost none of them covered opener's second round action with a 4=4=4=1
hand after responder makes their appropriate response for their
primary-club hand. (The one exception is, oddly, the SAYC definition,
which is normally the least detailed of any of them; it perhaps
accidentally defines opener's rebid in this case as 2D, which I guess is
the least of all evils here. In SAYC, that 2D is a 1-round force, so
there is at least a possibility to end up in a better strain than
diamonds, but it's unclear what the future bidding would look like.)
I find this a particularly interesting case because it happens very
early on (opener's rebid), a point in the bidding that I'd expect most
published systems to cover in detail, and yet it seems to be a hole in
pretty much every natural system at the same time (despite the varying
bidding sequences). Perhaps people get away with it in practice because
the frequency seems to be low (based on my simulations, around 1 in
8000 of happening to one particular player, 1 in 4000 to one particular
partnership, 1 in 2000 on one particular board).
--
ais523

Playing a 15-17 1NT responder bids 2C knowing that opener
may have a 11,12-14 balanced hand, so a rebid of 2NT should
work with a minimum 4=4=4=1.

Playing a 12-14 1NT, I think it is necessary to drop the
6-card requirement for a minor suit rebid, so that opener
has a way of limiting a minimum unbalanced hand. Otherwise,
not only this, but many other minor suit minimums will be
anti-system. Here, I would rebid 2D on a minimum expecting
responder to require 4-card support for a diamond raise.

In either case, things work better in the context of
Walsh style responses since with a less than game forcing
hand responder would have bid a 4-card major with longer
clubs, and with a better hand can make a clear game force
by bidding the major on the next round.

Fred.

Fred.