Idea that I think is new?

[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]

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]

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

[Finch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jdonn]

Yes that's what I meant. Exceptions only for the best hands in that range. And as responder I bid game over that very aggresively.

[straube]

Yes that's what I meant. Exceptions only for the best hands in that range. And as responder I bid game over that very aggresively.

Ron Klinger's Modern LTC lists Axxx x AJx KQxxx as qualifying for a jump raise of spades. It meets his requirement of 14 HCP and 6 losers (I count 5.5 or so)

 

I inferred from his book that the 18-19 HCP hand averages 5.5 losers, but I think they tend more toward only 5 losers.

 

In either case, the 18-19 would usually have a little in reserve for a jump to 3M.

 

So I'm uneasy about 1m-1M, 3M as my typical path for the 18-19. I also wonder about the exceptional 18-19 pt hand that feels a jump to 4M is warranted. It's only a 2-point range and I'd been planning a 2N rebid. I'm wondering how often it really can be right to want to differentiate hands of such a narrow point range when partner hasn't really asked me to do so. Perhaps if the hand is exceptional enough to want to bid 4M then I should have opened it 2N to begin with.

 

Anyway, I've been trying to come up with a solution for the 18-19 and thought I had it in the jump reverse. Now I'm starting to wonder if the jump reverse would do better to show loser count. But while Klinger said that the jump to 3M showed a 6-loser hand, all three examples he gave were 5.5 loser hands. I'm thinking that most 6-loser hands will raise to 2 quietly. So...

 

1C-1H, 3H=5.5 losers

1C-1H, 3D=5 losers

 

Responder can still show shortness or ask for shortness.

[straube]

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?

As others have said, the 4M6m definition has to be agreed by both partners for it to be useful. I thought it was a hand like AKxx x xx AKJxxx, denying controls in the stiff and doubleton while a splinter suggested a control in the third suit. However, if my partner had different ideas, then we might have done better to use 1C-1S, 4C as something else.

 

You could arrange things different ways...

 

1C-1S, 4C=diamond shortness

.....4D-asks

..........4H-singleton

..........4S-void

1C-1S, 4D=heart singleton

1C-1S, 4H=heart void

 

Not sure if that's better or worse.

 

When hearts are raised, you have 1m-1H, 3S as a multiple bid. You can show more than 2 things.

3N asks

......4C-void lower

......4D-void higher

......4H-4/6?

 

I think I still like to be able to show the pure 4/6 or 5/6 or 4/7 type hand. It's true that this hand poses some guesswork for partner as to the residues, but it creates guesswork for the opponents as well and more importantly warns/informs partner as to the nature of your raise to game.

 

I like a lot of artificial continuations for standard auctions, but at some point it just makes more sense to go to a strong club system.

[lowerline]

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?

The article (http://dannykleinman.com/Documents/FOUR%20STRONG%20WINDS.pdf) does not say that. I guess it is because of symmetry.

 

Steven

[Fluffy]

the problems with kleimann's four wind thing are:

 

1m-1M-4M is artificial, you cannot gamble

1m-1M-4M is nor forcing, you cannot show an overstrong hand