JLOGIC, on 2011-November-23, 16:09, said:
I'd bid 4C...I really have no interest in playing spades rather than clubs. I want to emphasize my good trumps to partner so he's not worried, and can cuebid if we have a slam.
I got to thinking more on this problem after I posted and had come to the conclusion that 4
♣ was a better call than 3
♠, and wish I had thought of it earlier. As I wrote above, 3
♠ gets us by this round, but really screws us next time, while probably endplaying partner in the auction. 4
♣, otoh, is a good description of the general nature of the hand.
Justin: would you have implied non-solid clubs on this sequence? Iow, what hand-type would you have shown via 4
♣ on your second turn? Both the immediate and delayed 4
♣ calls deny an interest in 3N (but not necessarily 6 or 7N) but could we still have solid clubs for the delayed call, and a hand that was willing to play 3N if partner could bid it, losing interest only when partner couldn't make the call?
I think I may have answered my question simply by writing it out.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari