[jdonn]

Auctions like 1♣ p 1♠ p 4♣ show some strong 4-6 hand in 'standard' bidding, but I have never liked the bid. Not only do I rarely seem to get the right hand for it, but partner doesn't know which other suit you are short in, which seems important. And do you need a control in the other suit that you are not short in? How good of a minor suit do you need? What's the big gain anyway? I guess in theory it can help you find slam in the minor, but keycard isn't even for the minor and I've never actually seen it happen anyway.

In short I think that bid is almost a total waste. I don't have too many fantastic ideas about what else it should be, but my best thought is it could be a relay showing a void splinter.

1♣ - 1♠ -
4♣: Splinter with a void in either red suit. 4♦ relay to ask which.

But since of course you don't have that much room over other combinations of suits, you would have to make the cheapest of the three side-suit double-jumps the relay bid, and if needed use another bid as the substitution for the bid the relay stole.

1♦ - 1♥ -
3♠: Splinter with a void in either black suit.
4♣: Club splinter
4♦: Spade splinter

Thoughts about my idea? (Perhaps it's too costly to take what may have been a cheap 'regular' splinter and move it higher, like spades in the last example?) Other ideas about a use for the 4m rebid? Or does anyone want to defend the standard meaning?

[awm]

I agree that the jump to 4m is not very useful. Can't remember the last time it came up.

An alternative might be to try to add a cheaper bid for the direct 4M raise to allow some cuebidding. Particularly in the auction 1♣-1♠, you have the three-level "mini-splinters" available too, so the "value raise to 4♠ with space for cuebids" could be more useful for 4♣. The issue is that like Josh pointed out, some sequences give you a lot more options than others and it's not clear how to come up with a good medium between "best" and "not too complicated."

[Siegmund]

Without saying the standard meaning is best, I'll remind you that for quite a few of us, jump reverses are splinters, so we can already use e.g. 1♣-1♠-3♦ for a singleton and 1♣-1♠-4♦ for a void. If that agreement is in effect, I would play the jump to 4♣ as 4=2=2=5 (and the jump to 4♠ as 4432/4333).

If you are using the jump reverses as mini-splinters or something else entirely, your idea looks reasonable.

In defense of the standard way, I am very fond of long suit slam tries after I open 1M (1♠-2♠-4♣ = 5-card club suit with 2 of the top 3 honours, so for slam we just need running clubs+running+spades+a stray control or two), since there are other ways to start cuebidding or show shortness (if you use 2-way game tries of some kind.) If I believe showing the 5-5 with a view toward 10 fast tricks plus an ace and a ruff is useful, I should also believe showing a 4-6 with a view toward doing the same thing is useful. I cannot remember actually finding a slam on a 4-6 hand like that, however.

[dake50]

Try 4C as assumed D-splinter(or the spl that's most problem in lower auctions) then other strong calls won't have D-short case. 4C must have clear control promise eg. 2xA with 1-loser/solid clubs.
The intent of high bid is to be well-defined else would have lower force. You do have a general force with S-fit another without S-fit?

[gwnn]

it came up recently once but my partner took it as clubs and a good hand

So what do you propose for the rare hands that used to bid 4m?

[ulven]

When I play natural I use 1C-1S; 4C as big balanced raise to 4M.

[andy_h]

ulven, on Dec 27 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

When I play natural I use 1C-1S; 4C as big balanced raise to 4M.

Ditto this. Usually with the 6-4s I can just splinter and then cue.

[pooltuna]

Any changes in a system need to be done in a system context so consequently consider the auction 1m-1M. We need to define all rebids with support. In particular

simple raise
1♣-1♥-2♥
1♦-1♥-2♥
1♣-1♠-2♠
1♦-1♠-2♠

double raise
1♣-1♥-3♥
1♦-1♥-3♥
1♣-1♠-3♠
1♦-1♠-3♠

From here down all calls are at least game forcing.

direct game raise
1♣-1♥-4♥
1♦-1♥-4♥
1♣-1♠-4♠
1♦-1♠-4♠

splinters
1♣-1♥-3♠
1♦-1♥-3♠
1♣-1♠-3♥ see undefined
1♦-1♠-3♥ see undefined
1♣-1♥-3♦ see undefined
1♣-1♠-3♦ see undefined
1♦-1♥-4♣
1♦-1♠-4♣

6-4 hands
1♣-1♥-4♣
1♦-1♥-4♦
1♣-1♠-4♣
1♦-1♠-4♦

undefined (exclusion or possible splinter?)
1♣-1♥-4♦
1♣-1♠-4♦
1♣-1♠-4♥
1♦-1♠-4♥


There are 20 game forcing auctions grouped into 4 sections.
Questions
1)How are you going to define the currently undefined group?
2)Why aren't the 6-4 hands being splintered? Is there a strength/control difference? I.e. How would you bid ♠y ♥AQ92 ♦AQ9753 ♣z vs ♠A32 ♥AQ92 ♦AQ975 ♣3 vs ♠A32 ♥AQ92 ♦AKQ97 ♣3?
3)Are all the direct game raise hands balanced or semi-balanced?

[kenrexford]

Not a bad idea.

One thought, though. I would not necessarily reject the idea of 4♣ having the "standard meaning" simply because you connot know which suit is short and cannot use RKCB for the minor. These problems also could be fixed.

A simple one, after the ideal 1♣-P-1♠-P-4♣, would be for 4♦ to ask for the stiff and for 4♥ to be RKCB for clubs.

The "RKCB for clubs" alternative doesn't make any sense for the "solid clubs" folks, though, as the solid suit speaks for itself as to key cards.

On a general note, though, I obviously applaud stacking thoughts and evaluating how to do better in recurring auctions. The void-enabling stacking may well have merit.

[Cyberyeti]

Siegmund, on Dec 27 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

Without saying the standard meaning is best, I'll remind you that for quite a few of us, jump reverses are splinters, so we can already use e.g. 1♣-1♠-3♦ for a singleton and 1♣-1♠-4♦ for a void. If that agreement is in effect, I would play the jump to 4♣ as 4=2=2=5 (and the jump to 4♠ as 4432/4333).

I think 4♣ for me would be 4117, 5116 or 4(12)6 with Kx as the doubleton and say basically that the only cards that matter are the red aces and club/spade honours, my normal cuebidding style is any 1st/2nd except shortage in partner's suit, so this tells partner not to cue red kings. I don't play anything in the blackwood department that allows straight up asking for specific side suit kings and queens although we normally catch up later.

The structure we play (with a GF unbalanced 2N rebid) is:

1♣-1♠-4♦ = void (exclusion KC except 4♠ is rock bottom minimum)
1♣-1♠-2N-3♣-4♦ = 4315 or 4216
1♣-1♠-3♦ = x, x, AQ10xx, KQJxxx or similar type
1♣-1♠-3N = 4414 (open 1♦ with 4144)
1♣-1♠-2N-3♣-4♣ = 4225

[FrancesHinden]

I used to worry about this, then I started playing transfer responses to 1C (with completion showing a weak NT) and suddenly found that I had more ways of raising spades than I knew what to do with...

Anyway, forgetting that bit for a moment, I like to play 1m - 1M - 4m as 3-7. Hands with 4-card support can usually be bid in some other way. The 3-7 shape is very difficult to show in standard methods.

[straube]

Cyberyeti, on Dec 27 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

Siegmund, on Dec 27 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

Without saying the standard meaning is best, I'll remind you that for quite a few of us, jump reverses are splinters, so we can already use e.g. 1♣-1♠-3♦ for a singleton and 1♣-1♠-4♦ for a void. If that agreement is in effect, I would play the jump to 4♣ as 4=2=2=5 (and the jump to 4♠ as 4432/4333).

I think 4♣ for me would be 4117, 5116 or 4(12)6 with Kx as the doubleton and say basically that the only cards that matter are the red aces and club/spade honours, my normal cuebidding style is any 1st/2nd except shortage in partner's suit, so this tells partner not to cue red kings. I don't play anything in the blackwood department that allows straight up asking for specific side suit kings and queens although we normally catch up later.

The structure we play (with a GF unbalanced 2N rebid) is:

1♣-1♠-4♦ = void (exclusion KC except 4♠ is rock bottom minimum)
1♣-1♠-2N-3♣-4♦ = 4315 or 4216
1♣-1♠-3♦ = x, x, AQ10xx, KQJxxx or similar type
1♣-1♠-3N = 4414 (open 1♦ with 4144)
1♣-1♠-2N-3♣-4♣ = 4225

How do you show 18-19 balanced when non-fitting? Do you have multiple-meaning reverses or do you use a Cole variant?

[lowerline]

Danny Kleinman calls the following "Four Strong Winds":

1m-1♥
3♠ = singleton unbid suit (4♣ relay)
3NT = natural
4♣ = no shortness
4♦ = void lower unbid suit
4♥ = void higher unbid suit

1m-1♠
3NT = natural
4♣ = singleton unbid suit (4♦ relay)
4♦ = no shortness
4♥ = void lower unbid suit
4♠ = void higher unbid suit

1♥-1♠
3NT = singleton unbid suit or strong 6-3 (4♣ relay)
4♣ = 4-5-2-2
4♦ = void ♣
4♥ = natural
4♠ = void ♦

Steven

[glen]

lowerline, on Jan 5 2010, 04:47 AM, said:

Danny Kleinman calls the following "Four Strong Winds":

1m-1♥
3♠ = singleton unbid suit (4♣ relay)
...

He wants to play 1m-1♥;-3♠(♥ fit + unknown singleton)-3NT as natural?

[jdonn]

lowerline, on Jan 5 2010, 04:47 AM, said:

Danny Kleinman calls the following "Four Strong Winds":

1m-1♥
3♠ = singleton unbid suit (4♣ relay)
3NT = natural
4♣ = no shortness
4♦ = void lower unbid suit
4♥ = void higher unbid suit

1m-1♠
3NT = natural
4♣ = singleton unbid suit (4♦ relay)
4♦ = no shortness
4♥ = void lower unbid suit
4♠ = void higher unbid suit

1♥-1♠
3NT = singleton unbid suit or strong 6-3 (4♣ relay)
4♣ = 4-5-2-2
4♦ = void ♣
4♥ = natural
4♠ = void ♦

Steven

This seems totally backwards, the void should go through the relay since it's both more informative and less common.

[whereagles]

@josh: the idea is nice. Agree that the 6-4 doesn't come very often. Still, I think I prefer 1m-1M-4m = 18-19 bal raise, purely on frequency grounds.

[straube]

How many of us would play a structure which gave up responder's ability to show shortness after a fit has been found? Such as...

1C-1H, 2H-3S (splinter)

or

1N-2C, 2S-4C (splinter)

After all, responder is entitled to have shortness, too.

Yet, most of these structures use 1m-1M, 4M or Kleinman's 2-under
(e.g. 1C-1S, 4D) and responder can't show shortness opposite the balanced 18-19.
It's a slam-killer.

[jdonn]

I have plenty of room opposite 18-19 balanced to find shortness most of the time because I rebid 3♠.

[straube]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2010, 12:41 PM, said:

I have plenty of room opposite 18-19 balanced to find shortness most of the time because I rebid 3S.

Would you please list more of your structure? I saw that 1D-1H, 3S was an unspecified black void; perhaps that sequence is the exception.

[straube]

Oh. I think I see. You mean with the 18-19 balanced you jump raise 1m-1S, 3S.