Open 1NT with 4-4-4-1 Hands (and other Variants)
#1
Posted 2016-January-21, 01:02
#2
Posted 2016-January-21, 01:57
FWIW I've never had good results opening 1N on 4441. One example where you might want to is say 6432 A AKJ3 K875, since after 1m-1H you don't particularly want to mention those spades, and you have a solid stop in the singleton. But even then I think I would rather open 1D and rebid 2C.
ahydra
#3
Posted 2016-January-21, 03:16
#4
Posted 2016-January-21, 03:35
#5
Posted 2016-January-21, 03:59
#6
Posted 2016-January-21, 04:19
A singleton is only acceptable as a very rare and completely unexpected thing (for your partner). If you restrict it to hands with a singleton king (or ace?) as Rowland suggests, you may be OK with the regulations as long as you don't have bidding methods to reveal the singleton.
#7
Posted 2016-January-21, 04:27
Qxx K KJxx AQxxx
#8
Posted 2016-January-21, 06:08
#9
Posted 2016-January-21, 08:12
fromageGB, on 2016-January-21, 06:08, said:
This has nothing to do with ACBL regulations. In countries where it is permitted to open1NT with a singleton, nobody is required to do it!
#10
Posted 2016-January-21, 08:30
I guess I would say that if you open this 1NT you would probably open just about any 4=4=1=4 with 1NT. I don't know what that leads to with acbl rules but, myself, I say be my guest if that is your choice.
#11
Posted 2016-January-21, 08:48
Online you can have the agreement to open some or all 4441s in range 1NT if you like but there are some good reasons not to do so in a natural system. One issue is that a common response from partner will be to transfer into your singleton, which will often lead to a poor contract. Having the singleton in a minor is less problematic but the case of 4=4=1=4 is fairly pointless, since the rebids after a 1♣ opening are easy. For 4=4=4=1 it can be worth considering although the negatives still usually outweight the positives.
In a strong club system it makes more sense still, since 4=4=1=4 hands can now pose a problem. Putting these hands into 1NT allows the system to avoid being pushed into the Precision-style 2♦ (or 2♥) opening, which can be a worthwhile trade-off. On the other hand, there are also other solutions available so even here you need to think about whether it is the right direction. As it happens I personally do choose to do this in a (strong club) system I play but it is not somethign I would recommend for most pairs.
#12
Posted 2016-January-21, 09:10
#13
Posted 2016-January-21, 09:29
#14
Posted 2016-January-21, 09:59
Elyk25, on 2016-January-21, 09:10, said:
Are you playing a 13-15 nt? If you are playing 15-17 I cannot see why passed hand partner is unlikely to invite or force to game. But anyway, if he has the values to invite you will find any major suit fit that you have, It is when he passes, say with a 3=4=2=4 shape and a 6 count that you might regret the 1NT opening. Assuming 13-15 I think that I would be more likely, not less likely, to open 1C instead of 1N. But since I would open 1C with either range, it's a little hard to be sure about this.
As I say, I don't object to an opponent opening this 1NT but I am unsure of how the acbl would see it. Unfortunately, it probably varies with who is directing. I figure I will bid my way, my opponents can bid their way. Although at some point I am entitled to an alert.
#15
Posted 2016-January-21, 11:14
lycier, on 2016-January-21, 03:59, said:
What ACBL regulation is this?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#16
Posted 2016-January-21, 11:23
kenberg, on 2016-January-21, 09:59, said:
I don't think you can agree to open this hand 1NT systemically. So if they alert, the explanation would be "we have an illegal agreement". If they don't have an agreement, and this is a rare thing, then you're not entitled to an alert, nor will you get one, because opener's partner will not be any more aware than you are that his partner might do this. Unless you want an explanation of the sort "well, two years ago — I think it was a Tuesday — he opened 1NT with a singleton".
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#17
Posted 2016-January-21, 11:23
blackshoe, on 2016-January-21, 11:14, said:
Advanced China Bridge League perhaps?
#18
Posted 2016-January-21, 14:38
blackshoe, on 2016-January-21, 11:23, said:
Yes, you are right here, or at least I think so. My own view, as to regs, is that as long as a person opens NT expecting to play in NT I don't much mind how he comes to that expectation. But I realize the acbl has a different view. Actually the acbl has had several views over time and the directors have held an uncountable array of views. I regard myself as very restrained when it comes to off shape NT openings but I have no interest in telling others what to do.
The hand presented by OP is not even close to a 1NT for my money, but it's his hand.
#19
Posted 2016-January-21, 20:08
Trust demands integrity, balance and collaboration.
District 11
Unit 124
Steve Moese
#20
Posted 2016-January-21, 21:04
SteveMoe, on 2016-January-21, 20:08, said:
Added: I seem to have misunderstood here. just skip this. I am getting out of legal arguments.
The fact that this document was revised in September of 2013 says something. This discussion has been going on for approximately 35 years. Maybe longer. You might think that the acbl had come to something before 2013 that did not need revision.
In their current version they say that a big club system might require a 1NT opening on 4=4=1=4 shapes and 3=4=1=5 shapes. They also say that a partneship cannot have an agreement that a 1NT opening does not promise a balanced hand, where by balanced they seem to mean one without a singleton. They say it's ok if it does not happen often, no more than 1% of the time. I have not calculated what percentage of hands would be opened 1NT with a stiff if all hands of the shape mentioned above, with appropriate strenght, were to be opened 1NT. Maybe they have and maybe it comes out to less than 1% but they don't say. At any rate it seems to be to be an agreement that 1NT does not promise balance.
this was a big controversy years ago and the ACBL Bulletin ran some articles about it, some of which were in direct contradiction to some of the others. I think that most people just tired of the argument, certainly I did. One article, one I liked, was by Bobby Wolff. Wolff indicated, as the article cited above partly but only partly reflects, that the 1NT opening can be a matter of reasonable judgment.
The trouble arises when people have different ideas of reasonable judgment. I would not open the OP hand 1NT, not even close, as I have said. But some would. The OP, for example. My solution is to say let him. If, as I think, it is a bad choice then he will after a while give it up. If it is actually a good choice then who knows, maybe we will all be doing it. Not everything has to be a matter of law.