[Cyberyeti]

---

Also what would you assume 4♣ would be instead of 4♥ ?

System peculiarities:

2♣ is not GF

1♦-1♥-2N is GF unbalanced, partner is not that good (a 2♠ rebid would show a different hand type to the standard, that is not available, but if your 2[spades rebid is GF, that is replaced by 2N as are all the GF 4 card heart raises)

Partner cannot have 4 hearts or would bid 3♥/2N

Edit: 1[spades] is forcing unless you didn't really have a response

[apollo1201]

Partner must have mixed a H in their D’s otherwise 3H should be enough (GF raise with 3-cds, and probably an unbalanced pattern since they did not chose a strong NT as opening, as I suppose you play it strong).

AKxx
AJxx
KJxx
x

Indeed, partner shouldn't force to the 4-level with only 3-cds, as the 4SF doesn’t guarantee a 5th H (often has it but in some cases it is a lousy 4-cd suit, like here!).

How do you deal with 18-19 bal? Especially when not holding a 4-cd S? Could partner really have sth like

AKJx
AJx
KQJx
xx

As a last try, partner lost her glasses (or found a glass full of alcohol!) and just imagined a splinter bid in support of my C, having forgotten I bid H first, so has a 4144 or 4054 hand almost worth a 2S jump rebid:

AKxx
x
KQJx
KJxx

Should we apply the general advice of not passing a « strange bid » by partner?

Reminds me of an evening I had been obliged to play (to replace a suddenly sick teammate) after a red eye, opened a nice 20 count with 1NT (forgetting an ace) and decided to « super super accept » partner’s transfer in my 3-cd major. 4S= for a flat hand and a good laughter.

[Winstonm]

AKxx, AJx, KQ10xx, x

[apollo1201]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-27, 14:06, said:

AKxx, AJx, KQ10xx, x

Isn’t it a textbook 3H?

[Winstonm]

apollo1201, on 2021-June-27, 14:12, said:

Isn’t it a textbook 3H?

On 3-card support? It would be textbook 3s if partner had bid 1s I assume if 4sf is only 1round force a jump to game is necessary with a stronger hand. It could be a bit less but the shape is most likely right: AKxx, AJx, KJxxx, x I would guess

[Cyberyeti]

apollo1201, on 2021-June-27, 14:12, said:

Isn’t it a textbook 3H?

We NEVER bid 3♥ with 3. Partner has not missorted. With bal 18-bad 19 we rebid a wide range 1N, with a good 19 we open 2N.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-27, 14:06, said:

AKxx, AJx, KQ10xx, x

This is a reasonable try, not 100% sure whether I'd bid 3♥ (GF) or 4 with that.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-June-27, 14:28, said:

This is a reasonable try, not 100% sure whether I'd bid 3♥ (GF) or 4 with that.

I assumed your partner was aware that you may hold only 4 hearts so a robust diamond suit seemed needed for trump control

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-27, 14:34, said:

I assumed your partner was aware that you may hold only 4 hearts so a robust diamond suit seemed needed for trump control

indeed, to me that hand is nearly right, but AJx isn't good enough trump support, AKx would be too good a hand.

[DavidKok]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-27, 14:34, said:

I assumed your partner was aware that you may hold only 4 hearts so a robust diamond suit seemed needed for trump control

So why not bid 4♦?

More generally, I think that it is important to conserve space with strong hands. It's been a while since I have played fourth suit as anything other than forcing to game, but I think that maybe 2♦, 2♥ and 2NT might be NF with everything else forcing. Between these there is room to show GF with good diamonds, GF with good hearts and GF with a good club stopper. The remaining bids of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥ should show very special hands, because you are taking up bidding space when you could have forced instead. Since heart support would have absolutely be shown on the previous round of the bidding these bids would either have to show some supermaximum with 3-card support and overruling the possibility of 3NT (but why not bid 3♥ anyway, you can bid beyond 3NT on the next round?) or some kind of autocontrol, confirming diamonds.

I can't think of any hand I would seriously expect partner to have for any of these bids. If your partnership allows splinters in partner's suit I assume that is what might be going on here - 4=1=6=2 or the likes.

[mikeh]

Guessing what a bidder shows when he or she is playing a method with which I am unfamiliar is a mug’s game.

I will say that, as a matter of bridge theory, 4H should not, imo, exist.

Why players voluntary take away so much bidding space in uncontested constructive auctions baffles me.

Wtf about this auction says responder has 5 or more hearts, for one thing?

And, if he doesn’t, good luck working out where to play this hand.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2021-June-27, 15:29, said:

So why not bid 4♦?

More generally, I think that it is important to conserve space with strong hands. It's been a while since I have played fourth suit as anything other than forcing to game, but I think that maybe 2♦, 2♥ and 2NT might be NF with everything else forcing. Between these there is room to show GF with good diamonds, GF with good hearts and GF with a good club stopper. The remaining bids of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥ should show very special hands, because you are taking up bidding space when you could have forced instead. Since heart support would have absolutely be shown on the previous round of the bidding these bids would either have to show some supermaximum with 3-card support and overruling the possibility of 3NT (but why not bid 3♥ anyway, you can bid beyond 3NT on the next round?) or some kind of autocontrol, confirming diamonds.

I can't think of any hand I would seriously expect partner to have for any of these bids. If your partnership allows splinters in partner's suit I assume that is what might be going on here - 4=1=6=2 or the likes.

The bid I wanted to make was 4♣, but I wasn't totally sure what partner would make of that (a 4054/4144 bids 2N if weak, 3♣ if good, so it's not natural) the hand I actually held on a version of your logic that taking 3N out of the picture should show something odd was KJ10x, AKx, KQ10xxx, void (and the thought that 4M is usually a playable contract).

[helene_t]

Since 4♥ leaves zero space for further exploration, and since we had plenty of forcing bids available, it must show a very specific hand, and one that it unlikely to belong in 3nt.

What about xxxx-AK-void-AKxxxxx.

[Winstonm]

DavidKok, on 2021-June-27, 15:29, said:

So why not bid 4♦?

More generally, I think that it is important to conserve space with strong hands. It's been a while since I have played fourth suit as anything other than forcing to game, but I think that maybe 2♦, 2♥ and 2NT might be NF with everything else forcing. Between these there is room to show GF with good diamonds, GF with good hearts and GF with a good club stopper. The remaining bids of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥ should show very special hands, because you are taking up bidding space when you could have forced instead. Since heart support would have absolutely be shown on the previous round of the bidding these bids would either have to show some supermaximum with 3-card support and overruling the possibility of 3NT (but why not bid 3♥ anyway, you can bid beyond 3NT on the next round?) or some kind of autocontrol, confirming diamonds.

I can't think of any hand I would seriously expect partner to have for any of these bids. If your partnership allows splinters in partner's suit I assume that is what might be going on here - 4=1=6=2 or the likes.

I didn’t know what was forcing as I haven’t played this method of 4th

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2021-June-27, 15:58, said:

Since 4♥ leaves zero space for further exploration, and since we had plenty of forcing bids available, it must show a very specific hand, and one that it unlikely to belong in 3nt.

What about xxxx-AK-void-AKxxxxx.

I presume you mean the minors the other way round since 1♦ was opened. 4♥ would be really odd on that

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-June-27, 16:07, said:

4♥ would be really odd on that

OK, what about an auto-splinter with AKxxx-void-AKxxxx-xx, then?

It doesn't really matter as long as it shows something specific. Maybe it would be good if it sets diamonds as trump so we know which suit is trump, but I suppose that's only possible if FSF promises a somewhat flexible hand in your system.

But undiscussed the bid doesn't exist so it must mean that partner missorted their hand and have at least four hearts.

[Douglas43]

It shows a 4=4=4=1 hand that is worth a direct raise to 4♥, but on which partner does not want to splinter because they are of the school that does not splinter with a bare Ace.

I think this is a completely logical explanation which is consistent with the bidding and marred only by the presence of the Ace of Clubs in your own hand. A trivial defect, best overlooked...

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-June-27, 15:51, said:

The bid I wanted to make was 4♣, but I wasn't totally sure what partner would make of that (a 4054/4144 bids 2N if weak, 3♣ if good, so it's not natural) the hand I actually held on a version of your logic that taking 3N out of the picture should show something odd was KJ10x, AKx, KQ10xxx, void (and the thought that 4M is usually a playable contract).

Why not 3♥ followed by 4♦?

helene_t, on 2021-June-27, 16:45, said:

OK, what about an auto-splinter with AKxxx-void-AKxxxx-xx, then?

With this much to say 2♠ is the right bid. You can always jump later. Swap a spade for a diamond and I can see the logic, but I would still always bid 3♦ (and continue with 4♦ over 3NT).

[Cyberyeti]

To cover a couple of things, any 4441 with support and values for game bids a systemic 3N over 1♥ showing exactly this, we don't play it as the usual running suit.

AKxxx, void, AKxxxx, xx IS what we use 1♦-1♥-2♠ for, 2 good suits, but not a huge number of points.

Partner correctly assumed it showed exactly 3 good hearts and a good hand, but didn't see the potential in diamonds. We got lucky, hearts were 5-1 onside, the contract should have gone off but they inexplicably misdefended.

[gszes]

VERY late to the discussion sigh Opener has a very large range even if their hand is only 11 to 14. If we intend to et up a lot of space, with something like a splinter bid, it is almost always best to have at least 2 ways to further define our POWER. The slower we go the stronger we are. Let's say my hand looks like
AKQx xxxx Kxxx x I know I want to get that 1s bid in for a variety of reasons but when p bids 2c I now have to make clear the offensive potential of my hand. I would also stipulate the REASON these weak hands (11 to 14) are jumping around is that we have a perfectly safe 3H bid to show all STRONG (15+) game forcing hands (these could be 3 or 4 card support).

To show my first example hand I would bid 4h over 2c because I am at the bottom of my power range and therefore our slam chances are the least likely.
I would bid 4c to show the same distribution with 13 or 14. This treatment may give our side some extra space needed in case slam is in range and responder is interested.

IMHO It would generally be wrong to use a jump to 4h to show any kind of hand other than a 4441 or 4450 minimum. The use of bidding 3h over 2c as GF allows sufficient space for slam exploration and clarification of strain. FWIW I use my non GF systems as forcing to at least 2N and that opens up a whole lot of extra space at the expense of forcing our side to play in 3h instead of 2h when both opener and responder are minimum for their bidding.