responding 4-4 majors

[helene_t]

2nt is forcing asking pd to describe his hand further in this case i will bid 4s.

Huh? What system are you playing? Standard is 2♦, fsf.

 

This hand is a 6-LTC hand. It might have 11 HCPs (don't know how to count HCPs in a major-suit-fit situation, I never do that) but 6 LTC is enough to force to game unless p opens very light, even with quarky minor-suit hands.

 

I'm surprised that some say that 4♣ is a splinter. I never splinter in partner's suit. If this sequence does not promise four clubs by opener, maybe it could be argued that clubs is not a "suit", but that sounds dangerous to me. If clubs is not a suit, 2♦ would probably be natural and non-forcing and I would have to bid 3♦ (or 3♣, ugh) on a fony suit if I wanted to do something forcing.

 

Another reason why 4♣ is not a splinter is that 3♣ is not forcing in standard methods. A splinter is per definition a jump one level higher than the game-forcing bid in that suit.

[Echognome]

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.

To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

I don't know what country you are from, so what I am saying only pertains to the US as far as I know for sure. If you are from somewhere else then I have no idea.

 

4♣ is a splinter bid on that auction even though partner opened 1♣, that is standard. I don't even know where this controversy is coming from. Slam tries in clubs go through 4th suit forcing, or bid 3♣ if you have agreed that is forcing instead.

I think it might depend somewhat on what 1♠ promises. Many play it shows 4♠ and 5+♣. In that case, using 4♣ as a splinter doesn't make much sense. However, if you bid 4 card suits up the line so that 1♠ can be anything from a 4=3=3=3 hand to a 4=2=1=6 hand, then a splinter makes more sense.

[whereagles]

thou speakst ze truth!

[the hog]

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.

To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

I don't know what country you are from, so what I am saying only pertains to the US as far as I know for sure. If you are from somewhere else then I have no idea.

 

4♣ is a splinter bid on that auction even though partner opened 1♣, that is standard. I don't even know where this controversy is coming from. Slam tries in clubs go through 4th suit forcing, or bid 3♣ if you have agreed that is forcing instead.

I am originally from Australia. 4C would ALWAYS be taken as showing C and indeed to splinter in a suit of partner's is llogical to me, and would be so to everyone I have ever played with, and this includes a number of internationals.

 

BTW now I live in Laos!

[skjaeran]

I never considered 4♣ splinter, are you sure you wont be playing 5♣?  :)

I've never had a partner who'd misinterpret 4♣ here - that's a splinter in my environment, period. B)

[mikeh]

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

 

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

 

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

 

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

[han]

I would not hesitate to make a 4C splinter undiscussed, at least not with North American or Dutch or German partners. Of course, if it leads to an accident then I will apologize and then educate partner (just kidding).

 

I don't find Echo's argument (That a splinter in a suit in which partner has shown length doesn't make sense) very convincing. Won't partner be able to evaluate better after the splinter? Couldn't partner have Axxxx as well as KJxxx?

 

Perhaps Echo meant that using 4C as a natural slam try makes more sense if 1S guarantees club length? That I would somewhat understand, but when playing XYZ (as he and I do) you can just bid 3C with strong hearts and clubs, so I think the splinter is still more useful.

 

Also, I would not assume that partner is unbalanced for 1S, again there seems to be no worldwide standard.

[han]

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak .... So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

 

...

 

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I also wouldn't splinter on this hand, and I like to play that 1S promises 4+ clubs.

[jdonn]

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

 

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

 

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

 

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I suppose we will just agree to disagree. The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

 

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it :P

[mikeh]

BTW, if I held Axxx AKxxx xxx x, I would splinter, so I suspect that jdonn and I are not miles apart.

[skjaeran]

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

 

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

 

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

 

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I suppose we will just agree to disagree. The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

 

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it :P

100% agree with Josh.

[Apollo81]

I'm going to throw in with the splinter crowd.

 

I'm not sure if that includes anyone other than jdonn since I'm too lazy to read all the posts =)

[hrothgar]

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it :P

Jesus Christ

 

You two are arguing about local custom and usage... In a shocking development the Aussies don't interprete a 4♣ jump in the same was as the North Americans. Will wonders never cease?

 

In all seriousness, if a random partner sprung the auction

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 4♣

 

on me, I'd expect that it was a splinter. Even so, I can see a lot of validity to the alternative interpretation. As an analogy, many schools of cue bidding state that you should not cuebid shortage in partner's known suit since fitting honors are much more useful. If you extend this logic, I think that you can make a viable case that 4♣ should show some kind of picture jump showing Hearts, Spades, and a club fragment.

[Echognome]

I don't find Echo's argument (That a splinter in a suit in which partner has shown length doesn't make sense) very convincing. Won't partner be able to evaluate better after the splinter? Couldn't partner have Axxxx as well as KJxxx?

 

Perhaps Echo meant that using 4C as a natural slam try makes more sense if 1S guarantees club length? That I would somewhat understand, but when playing XYZ (as he and I do) you can just bid 3C with strong hearts and clubs, so I think the splinter is still more useful.

My cursory discussion was not even worthy of being called an 'argument'. I was just trying to state why there might be some differences in approach. I really don't know what the best treatment is, as I haven't thought about it much. Certainly, having 4♣ agreed as splinter is better than having no agreement at all. I also agree with Han that under my current xyz structure (thanks Mike) we can bid not only 3♣, but also 2NT to raise clubs naturally. Thus, using 4♣ as a splinter probably makes more sense.

[whereagles]

I think one should discuss with pard a little more than "let's play splinters". You can play those in a dozen different way (limited, unlimited, slam invite, merely shape-showing, etc), so you really need to settle which version you're playing :P

[cherdano]

Another reason why 4♣ is not a splinter is that 3♣ is not forcing in standard methods. A splinter is per definition a jump one level higher than the game-forcing bid in that suit.

I have never heard of this definition. 1S 4C is a splinter, even though 1S 3C is no longer GF in standard. 1C 1S 3H is a splinter, but 1C 1S 2H is not GF.

[cherdano]

The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

I feel odd, because usually I would 100% agree with your first sentence, and I still would not splinter here. I think the difference is that if you splinter in a side suit, you will often have slam opposite a fitting hand with mild extras. Here, even opposite KQxx xx AKx Axxx (yeah ok that's a strong NT, but...), slam is extremely bad, when partner has at least an ace extra and a perfect fit.

 

I think it's better to think of the shortness in partner's suit as a slow value, unless we have a big fit; and with slow values we are allowed to jump to game non-descriptively.

[han]

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it :P

Jesus Christ

 

You two are arguing about local custom and usage... In a shocking development the Aussies don't interprete a 4♣ jump in the same was as the North Americans. Will wonders never cease?

 

In all seriousness, if a random partner sprung the auction

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 4♣

 

on me, I'd expect that it was a splinter. Even so, I can see a lot of validity to the alternative interpretation. As an analogy, many schools of cue bidding state that you should not cuebid shortage in partner's known suit since fitting honors are much more useful. If you extend this logic, I think that you can make a viable case that 4♣ should show some kind of picture jump showing Hearts, Spades, and a club fragment.

I think Josh should apologize again, this time to the Australians and all others that are not sane.

[jdonn]

The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

I feel odd, because usually I would 100% agree with your first sentence, and I still would not splinter here. I think the difference is that if you splinter in a side suit, you will often have slam opposite a fitting hand with mild extras. Here, even opposite KQxx xx AKx Axxx (yeah ok that's a strong NT, but...), slam is extremely bad, when partner has at least an ace extra and a perfect fit.

 

I think it's better to think of the shortness in partner's suit as a slow value, unless we have a big fit; and with slow values we are allowed to jump to game non-descriptively.

Yeah I was thinking about it, we really won't have slam if partner is balanced, he would need 5+ clubs for it to be good. In a sense it's weird that I don't even mind if he has club wastage, it's more that if he has good slam cards himself he will know we have very few losers. Say KQxx x Ax AJTxxx, where if we just jump to game he might have to worry about hands with a doubleton club and KQJ of hearts for example, say AJxx KQJx Qxx xx.

 

Mike, agree I like that hand a fair amount better! (the 4531). With that one I would move toward slam if partner can merely bid 4♦ for me, with this one I think I would just reply 4♥ and let partner take control if he wants.

 

Richard, don't have a cow man. And your bridge logic does not follow to me (why can't strong hands with clubs go through 4th suit? why wouldn't the hand you describe splinter in diamonds? what do cuebidding auctions have to do with anything?)

 

Hannie, I am all apologized out for the week (with my grand total of 1). Apologizing without sarcasm is hard, especially when I'm right :P

[cherdano]

The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

I feel odd, because usually I would 100% agree with your first sentence, and I still would not splinter here. I think the difference is that if you splinter in a side suit, you will often have slam opposite a fitting hand with mild extras. Here, even opposite KQxx xx AKx Axxx (yeah ok that's a strong NT, but...), slam is extremely bad, when partner has at least an ace extra and a perfect fit.

 

I think it's better to think of the shortness in partner's suit as a slow value, unless we have a big fit; and with slow values we are allowed to jump to game non-descriptively.

Yeah I was thinking about it, we really won't have slam if partner is balanced, he would need 5+ clubs for it to be good. In a sense it's weird that I don't even mind if he has club wastage, it's more that if he has good slam cards himself he will know we have very few losers. Say KQxx x Ax AJTxxx, where if we just jump to game he might have to worry about hands with a doubleton club and KQJ of hearts for example, say AJxx KQJx Qxx xx.

Well but the key point here is not the club shortness, but that our cards are suitable opposite heart shortness. Change your example hand to KQxx x Ax KQJxxx, and you have the same problem, partner wants to go to slam opposite Axxx AKxx and out, and stop opposite Axxx KQJx unless we have the club ace. Your example hand, KQxx x Ax AJTxxx also doesn't care so much about doubleton vs singleton club unless, it's the ♥AK that matter.

 

I think what you want is a forcing raise, not a splinter.

 

I guess one point is that to establish a 5-card suit opposite a singleton when you only have a 4-4 fit, you often have to give up one trick anyway. Which almost sounds like the definition of a slow value.

[the hog]

The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

I feel odd, because usually I would 100% agree with your first sentence, and I still would not splinter here. I think the difference is that if you splinter in a side suit, you will often have slam opposite a fitting hand with mild extras. Here, even opposite KQxx xx AKx Axxx (yeah ok that's a strong NT, but...), slam is extremely bad, when partner has at least an ace extra and a perfect fit.

 

I think it's better to think of the shortness in partner's suit as a slow value, unless we have a big fit; and with slow values we are allowed to jump to game non-descriptively.

Yeah I was thinking about it, we really won't have slam if partner is balanced, he would need 5+ clubs for it to be good. In a sense it's weird that I don't even mind if he has club wastage, it's more that if he has good slam cards himself he will know we have very few losers. Say KQxx x Ax AJTxxx, where if we just jump to game he might have to worry about hands with a doubleton club and KQJ of hearts for example, say AJxx KQJx Qxx xx.

 

Mike, agree I like that hand a fair amount better! (the 4531). With that one I would move toward slam if partner can merely bid 4♦ for me, with this one I think I would just reply 4♥ and let partner take control if he wants.

 

Richard, don't have a cow man. And your bridge logic does not follow to me (why can't strong hands with clubs go through 4th suit? why wouldn't the hand you describe splinter in diamonds? what do cuebidding auctions have to do with anything?)

 

Hannie, I am all apologized out for the week (with my grand total of 1). Apologizing without sarcasm is hard, especially when I'm right :)

Well on this one I for one don't think you are right. I will reiterate, I think it is absurd to splinter in a suit in which partner holds 5+ cards. The odds are that your singleton will be of little use to partner. Even a holding of Axxxx is nowhere near as useful as xxxxx opposite a stiff.

 

Good bidding system design should be based on frequencies. Partner will more frequently hold a hand with wasted values.

 

The misguided splinter bidders ahve to go via a convoluted 4th suit forcing sequence to show a strong hand with C support. How much easier is the jump to 4C?

 

I am not offended Richard, rather I am surprised that some US players, and some others as well, bid so badly and illogically. And, no Josh on this point you are full of crap. YOU are NOT right! I am right!

 

BTW what does "Having a cow" mean?

[han]

Well on this one I for one don't think you are right. I will reiterate, I think it is absurd to splinter in a suit in which partner holds 5+ cards.

We all play absurd bridge. And what's even worse, after you tell us what the correct way to play bridge is, we still stick with our absurd agreements.

 

The odds are that your singleton will be of little use to partner. Even a holding of Axxxx is nowhere near as useful as xxxxx opposite a stiff. Good bidding system design should be based on frequencies. Partner will more frequently hold a hand with wasted values.

 

Let me see if I can follow your argument. I'll go with you that 1S shows 5+ clubs because playing otherwise would be, well, absurd. I agree with you that most of the time partner will be able to see that the singleton is bad news. No disaster though, as partner will sign off an all will be well. Once in a while partner will have Axxxx, Jxxxx or even xxxxx and that would be great. We might find a slam that's very difficult to find without the splinter. It is true that even if he has xxxxx then he won't be able to ruff all, but at least all of partner's honors will be where we appraciate them.

 

I think that this splinter comes up fairly often.

 

The misguided splinter bidders ahve to go via a convoluted 4th suit forcing sequence to show a strong hand with C support. How much easier is the jump to 4C?

 

No we don't. We can bid a forcing 3C, or bid 2NT (puppet to 3C) to show a slam try in clubs (see mikeh's XYZ structure elsewhere in this forum). Jumping to 4C may be easier, but surely you can have a better slam investigation after 3C or 2NT.

 

I am not offended Richard, rather I am surprised that some US players, and some others as well, bid so badly and illogically. And, no Josh on this point you are full of crap. YOU are NOT right! I am right!

 

You are right, and we are absurd. We bid badly, illogically, absurdly, and ok, Josh is full of crap. :)

[jdonn]

Well on this one I for one don't think you are right. I will reiterate, I think it is absurd to splinter in a suit in which partner holds 5+ cards. The odds are that your singleton will be of little use to partner. Even a holding of Axxxx is nowhere near as useful as xxxxx opposite a stiff.

Thank you for reiterating, we weren't sure how you felt yet.

 

Good bidding system design should be based on frequencies. Partner will more frequently hold a hand with wasted values.

All splinter auctions lead to game more often than slam, I guess we should throw them all out the window. No wait I have it, jumps that use up 2 and a half levels of bidding should be used for the most frequent hands, now I understand!

 

The misguided splinter bidders ahve to go via a convoluted 4th suit forcing sequence to show a strong hand with C support.

Using words like misguided and convoluted where at best they are just your personal opinion is...misguided and convoluted? I suppose I could throw a lot of desperate adjectives in front of my words too and then I would be able to seem more correct.

 

How much easier is the jump to 4C?

If by "easier" you mean "faster" then you win! But I don't base my auctions on whether I have a bus to catch. Is it convoluted to be able to show your club support on the 3 level instead of the 4 level? Is it easier to force partner to make his third bid on the 4 instead of the 2 level?

 

I am not offended Richard,

you are speaking rather strongly if this is the case

rather I am surprised that some

all

US players, and some

most

others as well, bid so badly and illogically. And, no Josh on this point you are full of crap. YOU are NOT right! I am right!

.......

This is how my 4 year old stepsister makes arguments. YOU ARENT RIGHT I'M RIGHT! IF YOU DON'T DO IT MY WAY YOU ARE BAD! It's true I am always full of crap, maybe that's why you are so defensive in this case, in response to an obviously lighthearted comment in a post that was replying to someone else.

 

Is Mike full of crap? Is Hannie full of crap? Is Skaeran full of crap? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all those players are from 3 different countries, none of which are the US.

 

Look don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask Fred, I haven't asked him so I'm not setting you up.

 

BTW what does "Having a cow" mean?

Pop culture reference. It would be good advice to you too. It means CHILL DUDE.

[kenberg]

I would bid 4S since I expect there to be a play for it and it won't confuse anyone. I see the merits of 4C and I think any partner I have would take it to be a splinter but I prefer to keep it simple. The biggest use of the splinter could well be to keep us out of slam when partner realizes his club holding isn't worth as much as he might play it as over a direct 4S. As to 3S, I want my partner, holding this, to raise to 4 when I open a club and rebid a spade. If he sees things differently we can talk about it.

 

So 3S, 4S, 4C all make sense to me, I choose 4S. I'm not a fan of 2D since when I eventually bid 4S partner will start wondering why I didn't just bid 4S if I wanted to play 4S. I fear the answers that might occur to him.

[hrothgar]

why can't strong hands with clubs go through 4th suit? why wouldn't the hand you describe splinter in diamonds? what do cuebidding auctions have to do with anything?

1. Cuebidding auctions

 

Consider the following auction playing a standard 2/1 system

 

1♠ - 2♦

2♥ - 2♠

3♠ - 4♣

4♦

 

In the cuebidding structures that I prefer, the 4♣ cue bid could be either

 

A first or second round control

An A/K or a singleton/void

 

In contrast, the 4♦ cue bid unambiguously promises a Diamond honor (Ace or King). The difference between the two cue bids is that responder bid the Diamond suit naturally. He (presumably) has a 5+ Diamonds and values in the suit. We prefer to show a fragment and fitting honors rather than shortness. If we wanted to "load" anything else into the bid, it would (probably) be the Queen of Diamonds rather than Diamond shortness

 

2. Why wouldn't this hand splinter in Diamonds?

 

Switch now to the auction

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - 4♣

 

Lets assume that you wanted to define the 4♣ rebid as "fragment" or some such. One possible extension would be that a Diamond splinter would explictly deny a Club fragment. Even if you decided that you didn't like this interpretation, there's always the possibility than one might get dealt a 4=4=2=3 hand (or even a 4=4=3=2 pattern). (For what its worth, I used to play a fair amount of Blue Club. Blue Club had lots of specialized cue bidding sequences - the Neopolitan 2♣/2♦ come to mind - that explictly described holdings in more that one suit.)

 

3. Why can't strong hands with clubs go through 4th suit?

 

I never claimed that strong hands with clubs couldn't go through 4th suit. I am simply suggesting that there is no requirement that they do so. I suspect that one can construct a wide variety of different structures all of which will be perfectly servicable.