One No Trump Opposite 4441

If one is dealt a balanced hand with 16 scattered HCPs, and has just one bid to make, what would it be? 3NT! The single most likely situation is that the remaining HCPs are divided evenly about the table, 8 HCP for each player, so it makes sense for you to bid 3NT, your best chance for a good score. Some theorists feel the invitational 2NT is a wasted bid as little useful information has been added, so they think of other uses for that bid. How many choose to stop in 2NT and profit thereby?

‘The No Trump Zone’ by Danny Kleinman, gives a conversational overview of personal experiences that varies between extreme fussiness and extreme fuzziness. Kleinman suggest the NT bidder holding ♠75 ♥ AQ85 ♦ QJT ♣ AKJ7 should bid 3NT over an invitation 2NT, unconcerned about the weak spade holding. Attempts at refinement may do more harm than good, he notes. Responder probably has a spade stopper, but even if a spade is the killing lead, the opening leader may choose a passive heart lead after an uninformative auction. Also, bridge is easier if, rather than watch partner sweat, you guess early yourself, going with the odds given the information you have at the time.

4441 – Strong

Sooner or later a player makes a decision based on the assumption that partner holds, as far as his bidding allows, a balanced hand as this provides the most card combinations, hence is most probable. It would seem that responder is generally in the best position to make the final decision as a limited, balanced hand opposite is guaranteed. This is the advice given to beginners (see page 46 of the Dec 2015 issue of the ACBL Bulletin).

To the contrary, Kleinman gives us the Principle of the Balanced Hand: when one player holds a balanced hand and his partner holds an unbalanced hand, the player with the balanced hand should be the captain as he can better tell how the hands mesh. This sounds fine if holder of the unbalanced hand has given a good description of the unusual nature of his holding through an informative sequence of bids. This goes against the widely held idea that players should hide their weaknesses and merely bid what they hope they can make, either because they think they can make a score, or because the opponents may not discover how to defeat the contract until it is too later, which yields an even better score. Herein lies the fundamental conflict partnerships face.

To show 4-4-4-1 naturally may use up several levels of bidding and partner may not correctly interpret the ambiguous messages. To overcome this problem, some pairs use a jump to 3 of a major to show shortage in the suit named plus slam interest in any of the 4-card suits. Here is how it works on a good day:

Opener makes the final decision based on the expectation that partner’s points are distributed evenly between his 4-card suits, probably on average 4 HCP in each. He assumes the spade suit is poorly held. Slam depends largely on the diamonds splitting 3-2, so it is a good slam. If the distribution of HCPs is not up to expectations, slam may be a poorer proposition: ♠ K ♥ AQT4 ♦ T952 ♣ AT73. On such a hand responder should take a different route planning to settle for 3NT or 4♥, as the hand is weak in one of the trump candidates, a condition that the opener could not anticipate. The 1NT bidder is not in control as the shortage has been hidden and he will be surprised when the dummy appears. Many BBO commentators warn against 50% minor suit slams, such as this one.

4-4-4-1 – Invitational

Some system analysts admit there is no good way to invite in a minor after a strong 1NT opening bid. One reason is that most of the responses are geared to finding a major suit game, failing which they opt for a speculative 3NT, the reason being that the lucky hands have a bigger potential payoff than a sensible part score in a 4-4 minor suit fit. The argument is weaker for matchpoint scoring, as the frequency of plus scores is important.

When responder holds the unusual 4-4-4-1 shape, he is in a better position to place the contract in game or in a partial, so it is better for him to make the decisions rather than the opening bidder whose hand is limited and balanced. Here is an example from a recent club game.

Responder underbid greatly with 9 HCP as he didn’t like his shape. 2NT did not guarantee a 4-card major. Opener envisioned a flat hand opposite, so had no hesitation going to game with his very nice collection, expecting some help in the spade suit.

3NT was down 3 for a score of 3 out of 12. 2NT down 2 got an average score. The best score was 4♦ making, with 5♦ down one worth an amazing 9 out of 12. The opening leader had passed over 1NT holding ♠ AJ9754 ♥ 987 ♦ 3 ♣ J94. Those who bid 2♠ on those cards scored poorly when allowed to play in that contract going down (4 times out of 12).

As indicated in the previous blog, it is easy enough to attach probabilities to the responses if we limit the NT distributions to 4333, 4432, and 5332 with a 5-card minor. Here are examples of the 2 most likely the division of sides (shown in brackets): 8765 (36%) and 8774 (19%). In Case I, the reply to Stayman will be 2♠; in Case 2, 2♦.

	Case I			Case II
Responder	Opener	Player B	Player C	Opener	Player B	Player C
1♠	4♠ (5)	4♠	4♠	3♠ (4)	5♠	4♠
4♥	2♥ (6)	3♥	4♥	3♥ (7)	3♥	3♥
4♦	4♦ (8)	2♦	3♦	4♦ (8)	3♦	2♦
4♣	3♣ (7)	4♣	2♣	3♣ (7)	2♣	4♣

Obviously the trick is to go plus on these hands, and responder has the best estimate of the distributions around the table after the opener denies a major. Responder can expect an 8-card fit in a minor with the opponents holding an 8+-card fit in spades. The number of total tricks is 16+. No matter which defender is on lead it is likely that a spade will be led against 3NT. Therefore, it appears that playing in 3NT, or even 2NT, will not be a winning decision and it is up to the responder to reach a better contract by asking for more information from partner. 2NT is the obvious choice for locating the minor fit.

2NT as a Forcing Asking Bid

With regard to Stayman there are normally just 3 responses allowed: 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠, which roughly speaking are equally probable. If the response is 2♦, responder has a 6 in 10 chance of being in a 5-4 or 4-4 diamond fit. This isn’t satisfactory as diamonds may not be the best strain available. More importantly, responder knows the opponents have at least a 9-card fit in spades. With a mediocre hand he might try a nonforcing 2♥ hoping to stay at the 2-level in a 4-3 fit. A better tactical bid would be 2NT, asking opener to bid a minor, specifically 3♣ unless he holds more diamonds than clubs, in which case, 3♦.

The responses to 2NT are natural with 3 of a minor indicating a 4-card suit, nonforcing. Opener may even bid an uninformative gambling 3NT if he is so inclined, otherwise he makes the most useful suit bid indicating where his values principally lie. So nothing is lost, except the ability to pass 2NT, which is not much of a loss. Here is the hand that arose at our local club, this time with 2NT as an asking bid.

That would have been an easy way to score 12 out of 12. On the next 8774 combination an optimistic opener might bid 3♥, suggesting that a 4-3 heart fit would play well.

Declarer needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat in order to make 10 trick on a 4-2 trump split, losing one spade, one heart and one club, but stranger things have happened. With good hands rich in controls the minor suits come back into play. Here slam in diamonds is a much better proposition than 4♥, so opener should show the quality of his diamonds rather than try for 3NT or 4♥. He has a maximum with 6 controls, worth the equivalent of 20 HCP. It shouldn’t hurt to bid informatively.

After 3♦ responder was in the better position to make the final decision knowing that there is no wastage in the spade suit. The key descriptive bid is 5♣ by the opener. If responder has a weak hand and wishes only to razzle-dazzle the silent opposition he’ll be content to pass 3♦, but he will be concerned about playing in a 4-3 heart fit at the 3-level.

What about the Opposition?

On many hands where the opposition have a 9-card spade fit, they will be bidding early. The absence of activity has only a slight effect on the probability of the division of sides, the actual distribution under 8774 being less likely than Case II. Passing with a decent 6-card spade suit is possible but unexpected, but that doesn’t greatly alter opener’s decision to go to 3NT. One shouldn’t hold back because of an ungrounded fear of bad breaks. Responder knows the opponents have a 9-card spade fit, so he is in a better position to make the final decision, contrary to Kleinman’s Principle of the Balanced Hand. The invitational 2NT based on point count alone is a bad bid under the circumstances as it implies a balanced hand.

Note that after a 2♠ overcall, using Lebensohl, responder can bid 3♠ as ‘Stayman without a Stopper’, the additional information making it easier to get to 4♦, the best contract. Only one pair managed to overcome all predispositions and achieve that happy result- which doesn’t make it wrong.