More Unusual Sequences?

[kfay]

What does responder have?

 

1♠-1NT (forcing)

2♦-4♣

...

[Finch]

Matter of agreement, in particular what hands are included in 1NT.

If 1NT is generally any hand less than a game-force-from-strength, then I would expect responder to have a good hand (in context) with diamonds and clubs.

[gnasher]

A splinter, eg 2551 or 2461.

[pclayton]

It should be a splinter, but I wouldn't spring this undiscussed.

[han]

Either a splinter or diamonds + clubs, both are reasonable.

 

I think the meta-agreement "4C is always gerber" doesn't apply here because 1NT limited the hand.

[inquiry]

Got to have a boat load of diamonds... the number of clubs is up the air, but since responder will surely have less than 3♠, he is more likely to have longer clubs than shorter ones. So i would like this to be a fit jump showing club values and boat loads of diamonds. But I would probably take this as a club splinter with diamonds if undiscussed.

[han]

Waiting for Ken to post that this is a strong diamond raise with good hearts and xxx(x) in clubs!

[ArtK78]

A long time ago, this bid was presented in a short article in The Bridge World. I adpoted it and it has never come up.

 

With Kxx or Axx of partner's major suit and AKQxxx of a minor, it has been suggested that the way to show this hand is to bid 1NT followed by 4 of the minor. This is true no matter what partner's rebid is, as long as it is at the 2-level.

 

There really is no good reason to use a 4 of a minor bid in this sequence for any other purpose.

[cherdano]

When discussing this sequence, I prefer clubs+diamonds over the splinter. Given that you are denying 3 spades, you are much more likely to have a diamond (almost) GF with club values than diamond GF with club shortness. I also believe that would be the MSC standard interpretation.

 

It comes up more often as 1S 1N 2H 4m.

[Finch]

When discussing this sequence, I prefer clubs+diamonds over the splinter. Given that you are denying 3 spades, you are much more likely to have a diamond (almost) GF with club values than diamond GF with club shortness. I also believe that would be the MSC standard interpretation.

 

It comes up more often as 1S 1N 2H 4m.

Yes, that's why I don't play it as a splinter - because your most likely shortage is in spades.

 

However, it does depend a bit on what 1NT (forcing) could have included - I am more used to 1NT semi- or non-forcing i.e. denying a HCP game force.

[cherdano]

When discussing this sequence, I prefer clubs+diamonds over the splinter. Given that you are denying 3 spades, you are much more likely to have a diamond (almost) GF with club values than diamond GF with club shortness. I also believe that would be the MSC standard interpretation.

 

It comes up more often as 1S 1N 2H 4m.

Yes, that's why I don't play it as a splinter - because your most likely shortage is in spades.

 

However, it does depend a bit on what 1NT (forcing) could have included - I am more used to 1NT semi- or non-forcing i.e. denying a HCP game force.

Me too. When I said GF I meant hands that are now worth an upgrade to a GF.

[kfay]

I was discussing this sequence with a partner of mine and agreed that is should show the minors.

 

I was wondering if anyone felt that the auction should SPECIFICALLY show ♠ shortness. Or do we just cuebid our short suit after partner bids 4♦ inquiring? I'm not sure what's better but it seems that you're almost certainly short in spades, that this should PROMISE spade shortness.

 

The hand in question was something like:

 

void

KQx

Jxxxx

A10xxx

[kfay]

A long time ago, this bid was presented in a short article in The Bridge World. I adpoted it and it has never come up.

 

With Kxx or Axx of partner's major suit and AKQxxx of a minor, it has been suggested that the way to show this hand is to bid 1NT followed by 4 of the minor. This is true no matter what partner's rebid is, as long as it is at the 2-level.

 

There really is no good reason to use a 4 of a minor bid in this sequence for any other purpose.

If I'm playing 2/1 I probably just bid 2m with this hand.

[pclayton]

I was discussing this sequence with a partner of mine and agreed that is should show the minors.

 

I was wondering if anyone felt that the auction should SPECIFICALLY show ♠ shortness. Or do we just cuebid our short suit after partner bids 4♦ inquiring? I'm not sure what's better but it seems that you're almost certainly short in spades, that this should PROMISE spade shortness.

 

The hand in question was something like:

 

void

KQx

Jxxxx

A10xxx

One of the nice benefits of playing 1M - 2N as a GF balanced hand is to keep 1M - 1N - 2x - 3N as a splinter in opener's major.

[gnasher]

It should be a splinter, but I wouldn't spring this undiscussed.

Curiously, I would take the opposite view: because it's undiscussed, it's a splinter, even though it might well be more useful as a fit jump.

[ArtK78]

A long time ago, this bid was presented in a short article in The Bridge World.  I adpoted it and it has never come up.

 

With Kxx or Axx of partner's major suit and AKQxxx of a minor, it has been suggested that the way to show this hand is to bid 1NT followed by 4 of the minor.  This is true no matter what partner's rebid is, as long as it is at the 2-level.

 

There really is no good reason to use a 4 of a minor bid in this sequence for any other purpose.

If I'm playing 2/1 I probably just bid 2m with this hand.

Sure you would - if you didn't have some way to show this very specific hand. Besides, how do you evaluate this hand in support of spades? You might have 7 tricks in hand but you could be off 3 tops in the off suits. But if partner knows that you have 6 solid in your minor and honor third in support, it is fairly easy for him to evaluate the potential of the combined hands.

 

And, while some of the posters think they know what this sequence should show, or even if they know what this sequence shows, do any of those explanations make more sense than this one or have as much utility?

 

I liked the bid the moment I read the article. It provides a useful meaning for a bid that most partnerships never even thought existed.

[cherdano]

A long time ago, this bid was presented in a short article in The Bridge World.  I adpoted it and it has never come up.

 

With Kxx or Axx of partner's major suit and AKQxxx of a minor, it has been suggested that the way to show this hand is to bid 1NT followed by 4 of the minor.  This is true no matter what partner's rebid is, as long as it is at the 2-level.

 

There really is no good reason to use a 4 of a minor bid in this sequence for any other purpose.

If I'm playing 2/1 I probably just bid 2m with this hand.

Sure you would - if you didn't have some way to show this very specific hand. Besides, how do you evaluate this hand in support of spades? You might have 7 tricks in hand but you could be off 3 tops in the off suits. But if partner knows that you have 6 solid in your minor and honor third in support, it is fairly easy for him to evaluate the potential of the combined hands.

 

And, while some of the posters think they know what this sequence should show, or even if they know what this sequence shows, do any of those explanations make more sense than this one or have as much utility?

 

I liked the bid the moment I read the article. It provides a useful meaning for a bid that most partnerships never even thought existed.

And it hasn't come up yet, and it is not a hand that is difficult to bid in 2/1...

The jump showing values+support has come up for me.

[han]

I find these posts about bidding a forcing notrump with gameforcing hands very disturbing.

 

I don't think the actual hand a good example for the 4C jump. The hearts are better than the clubs! I think that 4D is less misdescriptive.

[gwnn]

Don't worry Han, in Romania there are people who bid forcing NT and then 4NT to show 20-21 balanced.

[han]

That doesn't worry me, it makes me want to play against them.