This 4C

[ONEferBRID]

Splinters are standard. The hog and I had a long ugly argument about this in a thread some time ago.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18627

I like Justin's 4th suit argument to then make the alternate direct 4C!-double jump as a splinter.

 

I don't recall seeing that argument in the previous thread listed above ( from 2007 ), but the replies sure made enjoyable reading. Ron ( Hog) is the same-o Ron.... and then there is mention of the infamous "G-word" ( 4C! as Gerber )... lol.

[Bbradley62]

It appears to me that there are three positions that can be taken:

(1) 4♣ is natural, so you can't use it here;

(2) 4♣ is a splinter, and it's the correct response with this hand;

(3) 4♣ is a splinter, but there's a better bid available on this hand.

 

What auction would be best for each of these three positions?

[dburn]

Even if there is no agreement specifically what it is here - if splinters are on the card, this is a splinter.  When in doubt and it could be a splinter, it is.  There are other ways to support clubs and make it forcing.

One could argue, of course, that there also other ways to support hearts and make it forcing - just as one can go through fourth suit and then raise clubs, one can go through fourth suit and then raise hearts.

 

The danger with the latter approach is that if you intend to support hearts, you may be crossed up by opener rebidding at an inconvenient level. If for example you play that 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-3♠ is natural, showing a strong 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 shape, responder can still bid 4♣ to set clubs and try for slam, but if he wants to set hearts and try for slam he has no clear way to do this. Similar objections apply if it is possible for opener to bid 3NT over 1♠, though I cannot imagine many of the contributors here doing anything as uncouth as that.

 

Passing thoughts: if you do play that 3♠ over 1♠ is natural, not only can responder not easily investigate slam in hearts, he can't easily investigate slam in spades either. Maybe his 4♦ should be an end signal, and his 4M forcing. Also, if you play six-ace or double-keycard Blackwood, maybe four of opener's minor in this and analogous sequences should be that. Meanwhile, it seems to me that 4♣ is on balance best played as a splinter, although I would not object to playing it as natural if that is what partner wanted me to do.

[aguahombre]

if 1S is 4sf to game, then 3S is not a possible bid by opener.

 

If 1S is not 4sf to game, then 2S is --and would be fine with HT support, as long as opener can only single raise with spade support. HTS will be reached with patterning, the same as splintering.

 

So the hands with heart support are covered without the jump to 4C, if your partnership wants them to be.

[the hog]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

[Jlall]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

Lol obv you cannot win a bridge argument with me so you have to resort to this kind of stuff...pretty normal for you. Sad, but typical.

[CSGibson]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

This is pathetic. And, unfortunately, also typical.

[jdonn]

snipped

 

and what you should play.

Since when have you become the "Systems Nazi"?

Further, to say I am "wrong" is childish. I have already stated why I believe splintering in one of partner's suits is a losing system bid. You have added nothing to the argument.

You are lol. I call you wrong to save time, since it's precisely the same as you saying to me that the opposite "is a losing system bid". Your 'reason' seems to be that it's because natural follows a rule that you have.

 

Why should I add anything, everything that should be said has been. Just read the old thread I added plenty. Anyone with an open mind can see that playing 4♣ as a splinter gives you a descriptive heart raise that you wouldn't otherwise have at the expense of a club raise that prevents a lower exchange of information and that you would never want to use anyway.

[Jlall]

The argument that heart raises can be shown starting with 4th suit forcing is not logical, if you start with 4th suit forcing there is no way to specifically show club shortness and a heart raise later a lot of the time.

 

The argument that you can "pattern out" or bid around the shortness starting with 4th suit forcing does not make sense, 4th suit forcing is not a natural bid so 1D then spades then hearts where spades = 4th suit forcing means you've shown, 1D then a GF, then a heart raise. There is no implication of club shortness.

[jdonn]

Wait wait wait I just can't take it any more. I need to sit down, my tummy hurts from laughing...

 

Further, to say I am "wrong" is childish.

YOU are NOT right! I am right!

And on the 3 year anniversary no less hehe.

[the hog]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

This is pathetic. And, unfortunately, also typical.

 

Quote Lall frm another thread: "I;m a little drunk so sorry if this was answered already."

Yes, I totally agree with you. It is typical and it does become pathetic.

[dicklont]

Let it rest guys. Just agree to disagree.

[Jlall]

Lol,

 

The Hog's last 4 posts were:

 

-I have an inferiority complex

-The word dude is vulgar

 

Nobody responded to these, so he tried harder to get a rise out of me (and others?) about 24 hours later with:

 

-I was off my meds

 

This time he got a couple of responses, and his only response was:

 

-It is pathetic and typical that I drank ALCOHOL (zomg!)

 

He has added no bridge related content (lest there be something to actually reply content), nor replied to any of the bridge related arguments presented against his case. He just got his feelings hurt because I said he was wrong, and demonstrated why.

 

The most personal I got ever was to say that he acts like he is an authority on australian bridge and what people play there, and that I suspect he makes things up in this regard.

 

I believe this to be true, a quick google search turns up nothing on his name, even in his state. I know he hasn't lived in Australia in a while, but if he's such an expert on what goes on there then surely he should have SOME kind of results there. When he says something is standard in Australia, it is easily and often refuted by simply asking many Australian bridge experts about it.

 

I'm sure it is useful to many on the forums to know that The Hog is not an expert player, is making stuff up/delusional in general about "what everyone plays in Australia," and in general not knowledgable about bridge. Saying such things is not a personal attack, and refuting his "arguements" about why 4C should be natural is what this forum is about (there is a thread on 4C here...people can debate it.)

 

It is also completely standard for the hog to go off on vicious personal attacks on people when they say he is wrong, especially if that person is me.

 

I will say for a moderated forum the mods did a great job in this thread, and in general on the hog, leaving up his awesome bridge content in this thread. Oh wait, his last 4 posts had no bridge content at all.

 

I do not really care what the hog says about me, or what threads he derails, but it would be nice if there was any kind of legitimacy to which the mods operated on, frequently deleting posts for having a word like "ass" in it, or a link to a blog that has a link to a blog that they don't like, but allowing complete non bridge/spew to derail a thread. In most other forums The Hog would be temp banned already.

 

I also hate to think what will happen if someone who is a little bit more sensitive happens to correct the hog or engage him in a debate on something bridge related. Obviously his behavior might be less vicious than it has been towards me since it won't be me, but the consistent lack of moderation on The Hog or consequences for doing things like in this thread will just reinforce to him that he can act like this to people forever and get away with it.

 

Hog I would suggest:

 

-If you have nothing bridge related to say, don't say anything (obviously?)

-If you are too sensitive to be told you are wrong, don't post on an internet forum.

-Do not act like an authority on Australian bridge. Unless you have some kind of credentials, you will not be treated as one. If you want to say "In Australia..." do not expect people to take it at face value, since you have proven to be unreliable in that area.

[Phil]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

Ron, I have known you for a very long time here and this is way beneath you. Nothing Josh or Justin previously said comes remotely close to justifying this kind of attack.

 

Please stop acting like one of these.

[pooltuna]

Lall was just off his medication last night.

Ron, I have known you for a very long time here and this is way beneath you. Nothing Josh or Justin previously said comes remotely close to justifying this kind of attack.

 

Please stop acting like one of these.

Wow I can tell you guys have never chased a greased pig before! They are damned hard to catch and hold. And this one has lots of KY but at least he shakes a ham at you every so often daring you to try. :)

[Bbradley62]

[hv=v=b&n=sakjha753dkj642c8&s=s65hkt42da3caj953]133|200|1♣ Pass 1♦ Pass

1♥ Pass 4♣[/hv]

To get back to the actual hand... Can those with strong opinions please tell us how the auction should have gone?

[aguahombre]

Ok, let's assume that you and partner agree that 4C showed this approximate shape. Here is my strong opinion:

 

1) We should have an agreement on whether 4C showed this much strength.

Our splinters wouldn't, by about the KJ of spades.

2) The given opener will probably just bid 4H after this sequence.

3) I hate using up all that room and still understating my values.

4) I hate even more, involving partner with a "descriptive" call, and then over-riding what he decides.

 

That having been said, I guess if I decided to use 4C on this hand, I would surrender at 4H. That is not as strong an opinion as my others.

[Bbradley62]

Ok, let's assume that you and partner agree that 4C showed this approximate shape.  Here is my strong opinion:

 

1) We should have an agreement on whether 4C showed this much strength.

     Our splinters wouldn't, by about the KJ of spades.

2) The given opener will probably just bid 4H after this sequence.

3) I hate using up all that room and still understating my values.

4) I hate even more, involving partner with a "descriptive" call, and then over-riding what he decides.

 

That having been said, I guess if I decided to use 4C on this hand, I would surrender at 4H.  That is not as strong an opinion as my others.

Why can't you just tell us how you think the entire auction should have gone? Don't splinter, since you both don't think 4C should be a splinter and think that this hand is too strong to splinter anyway.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Bbradley62

[aguahombre]

Oops, I saw a given auction (thru 4C) and responded, including what I would do after that. Will let the respected ones give their auctions and just read them.

[Bbradley62]

Oops, I saw a given auction (thru 4C) and responded, including what I would do after that. Will let the respected ones give their auctions and just read them.

Oh well... I'm hoping that someone who believes (as I do) that this hand is too strong to splinter will offer a full auction.

[Phil]

Oops, I saw a given auction (thru 4C) and responded, including what I would do after that.  Will let the respected ones give their auctions and just read them.

Oh well... I'm hoping that someone who believes (as I do) that this hand is too strong to splinter will offer a full auction.

I'll try from a West Coast perspective:

 

1♣ - 1♦*

1♥** - 3♥***

3♠# - 3N##

4♦....

 

* - promises a GF hand and at least 5♦ if we have a 4cM

** - shows at least 5♣ or exactly 4414

*** - forcing, since responder must have GF to hold 4♥ + ♦'s

# - non-serious, minimum, but "I don't hate my hand".

## - serious spade cue

 

after 4♦, I think we have just enough info for responder to take control.

[aguahombre]

The problem is, I could go thru some bids that each of us thought they were describing their hand by the time it reached 4H, and my partner and I would still have missed the slam...although both comfortable that we had shown what we had.

 

Very damned few would agree with the auction, though. So I thought I would save the ridicule of starting with a 1NT rebid and then finding the heart fit.

[Bbradley62]

after 4♦, I think we have just enough info for responder to take control.

And what happens after responder takes control? Why is it so hard to get a complete answer around here?

[gnasher]

I don't think it too strong to splinter, because I think this splinter should have a continuous range. I think it should go:

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-4♣

4♦-Keycard

Three-6♥

 

Opener has a pretty good minimum, with prime values, Ax in partner's likely 5-card suit and a doubleton in partner's likely 3-card suit, so he's well worth a cue-bid below game. Responder has an extra ace, so once opener shows suitability with ♦A he's worth the five level. Opposite the worst possble hand containing three keycards, xx Kxxx Axx Axxx, slam is almost 50%; adding ♥J or a doubleotn diamond makes it much better.

[Phil]

And what happens after responder takes control? Why is it so hard to get a complete answer around here?

A little please and thank you goes a long way....

 

Since this wasn't posted in the BI, I assumed you knew what this meant. But I'll indulge:

 

.............4N*

5♦**....5♠***

6♥....pass

 

* - 1430

** - 0/3 (obviously 3)

*** - Trump Q ask (probably futile)