[mgoetze]

---

Your bid?

[mtvesuvius]

4♣ for me

[whereagles]

x2

[jillybean]

What is 4♣?

[whereagles]

4 card spade support with side club suit, playing strength enough for the 4 level.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 4♠ wich shows for me a gambling 4♠6♣ hand, 4♣ is stronger than that, and IMO we would need better spades.

[whereagles]

Well, the main problem of playing the 4-card suit in a 74 hand is usually the lack of entries in case the hand gets forced to ruff. But this swan has a lot of entries, so I'd say spades SHOULD play well enough to bid game.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-11, 16:19, said:

---

Your bid?

1st choice is 4C! also [ CWNN ] .

A distant 2nd choice is a wimpy 3D! ( reverse-jump splinter which can keep the bidding at the 3-level ).

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on 2011-January-12, 00:07, said:

What is 4♣?

the "convention with no name" normally shows a 46 hand not much above minimum opener. My fear is the 7th ♣ may make the hand too strong and 6♠ an even better candidate to make.

[mike777]

I will try a wimpy 3c.

good problem.

[hrothgar]

pooltuna, on 2011-January-12, 10:00, said:

the "convention with no name" normally shows a 46 hand not much above minimum opener. My fear is the 7th ♣ may make the hand too strong and 6♠ an even better candidate to make.

My understanding is that the 4♣ has fairly strict requirements regarding the quality of the club suit. As Fluffy notes, some folks also insist that the bid shows a Spade honor. You might play this differently, however, I doubt that this is standard...
I don't think your description of "the convention with no name" is accurate or adequate.

With this said and done, in this case the quality of the club suit if sufficient and it seems like the best choice of actions.
(Its certainly the most descriptive bid)

Please note: 4♣ is forcing, so if you do think that the hand offers exceptional playing strength, you can always take another action over a signoff.

[Phil]

I like Fluffy's idea of differentiating between 4♠ to show a minimum very distributional hand like 4-6 (I'd add in a 5-6), and 4♣ to be a slammish 4-6. Fluffy, do you have any suit requirements or is 4♣ simply a 'good hand'?

4♠ for me used to be the 19 or great 18 that cannot splinter, although the 4225 rock is still potentially a problem in the above method if I can't make a phony splinter.

[JLOGIC]

3 spades obviously (or if I play 3D/3H as mini splinters, and 3S as balanced generally, then 3D). You guys force to game rather than jump raise wayyyyyyyy too often. I was trying to decide if I'd rather bid 2S or force to game, it's pretty close but I guess force to game.

If you are forcing to game with all of these hands, your slam bidding becomes impossible because your range is just too wide and unmanageable. This is not really a question of getting to game or not (of course, if partner passed 3S and I had this hand, I would expect to go down rather than to make game), given the opponents silence partner will almost always have enough to bid game. It's more about not bidding 4x so often (a higher bid) and 3x so infrequently as a result of that, that good slam bidding becomes impossible.

For instance, I see a lot of people splinter after maybe 1D p 1S p with a nice prime 15 and a stiff or whatever, basically a textbook 3S bid. Then they come on and ask why they missed a slam when they had 19 and a stiff, or why they got too high when they were light, or if partner should have cuebid with just 2 good cards and a 5th trump, etc etc. It is pretty much madness at this point if we are down to a 13 count including Jxxx of trumps. Must suck when you actually pick up a hand that is actually like an ace stronger than this.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-12, 11:08, said:

I don't think you're description of "the convention with no name" is accurate or adequate.

You can call it "opener fit-rebid". Seems ok.

[whereagles]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-12, 13:43, said:

You guys force to game rather than jump raise wayyyyyyyy too often.

I actually have a definition for this

1m-1M-2M: min, bal or unbal
1m-1M-3M: unbalanced, from a good min to med
1m-1M-4M: balanced, max
1m-1M-4m: unbalanced, from good med to max

min = 11-14 hcp or equivalent in support pts/playing strength/loser count (6+)
med = 15-17 hcp or eq (5 losers)
max = 18-20 hcp or eq (4-losers)

This particular hand I evaluate as ~18 support pts or 5 losers. It's really borderline between the fit-rebid and jump support.

By the way, I don't have a problem with what to do with a hand like this an ace stronger: I'd open that 2♣. But ok, that's just me, who has very loose requirements for strong openers.

[mike777]

whereagles, on 2011-January-12, 15:16, said:

I actually have a definition for this

1m-1M-2M: min, bal or unbal
1m-1M-3M: unbalanced, from a good min to med
1m-1M-4M: balanced, max
1m-1M-4m: unbalanced, from good med to max

min = 11-14 hcp or equivalent in support pts/playing strength/loser count (6+)
med = 15-17 hcp or eq (5 losers)
max = 18-20 hcp or eq (4-losers)

This particular hand I evaluate as ~18 support pts or 5 losers. It's really borderline between the fit-rebid and jump support.

By the way, I don't have a problem with what to do with a hand like this an ace stronger: I'd open that 2♣. But ok, that's just me, who has very loose requirements for strong openers.

Using your definitions this hand is minimum in terms hcp 13-14 and a medium in terms of losers.

I assume that 18 hcp is not equivalent to 18 support pts.
AKxx...A...x.....AKxxxxx
Jxxx...A...J.....AKJxxxx

[losercover]

4S with that hand and a splinter with a better hand.

[whereagles]

mike777, on 2011-January-12, 15:56, said:

Using your definitions this hand is minimum in terms hcp 13-14 and a medium in terms of losers.

I assume that 18 hcp is not equivalent to 18 support pts.
AKxx...A...x.....AKxxxxx
Jxxx...A...J.....AKJxxxx

Yes, medium in losers. However, in the support point counts I learned the hand is 18 and 19 points respectively. (French count, not USA.)

By the way, AKxx...A...x.....AKxxxxx is a 2♣ opener to me.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2011-January-12, 13:07, said:

I like Fluffy's idea of differentiating between 4♠ to show a minimum very distributional hand like 4-6 (I'd add in a 5-6), and 4♣ to be a slammish 4-6. Fluffy, do you have any suit requirements or is 4♣ simply a 'good hand'?

4♠ for me used to be the 19 or great 18 that cannot splinter, although the 4225 rock is still potentially a problem in the above method if I can't make a phony splinter.

I never wrote down it, I'd do with any suit that will likelly run after 1 ruff if neccesary, AK 6th or AKQ 5th look like the minimum

[mgoetze]

---

I could have posted this as an ATB problem. South berated his partner for bidding 3♠ with "only 14 HCP!"