Posted 2007-October-09, 19:28
A few unknowns cause great problems in the analysis.
1NT: It seems to be 15-17, but this is not mentioned.
2♦: I can work that one out. But, to nit-pick, the auction is consistent for Jacoby Transfers or for two-way Stayman
3♥: Assuming Jacoby, this is clearly a super-acceptance. However, I have no idea what 3H shows in your approach (as opposed to 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦, for instance)
4♣: You have not indicated whether this cuebid (I assume cuebid) is Aces-first (saying nothing about spades) or Italian (denying a spade control). I have no idea whether 3NT would mean something, let alone what it would mean. If, for example, 3NT was serious, then 4♣ denied serious interest, which makes 4♦, whatever that means (see below), have more significance. If 3NT is frivolous, then 4♣ seems to be an overbid.
4♦: The more unanswered you have, the more complex the unanswereds get. 4♦ could be interpreted in many ways. However, my feeling is that the 4♦ call shows a spade control but denies a diamond control (LTTC). This seems strange, considering the response to 4NT. So, I am at a loss.
If this were my auction, with my definitions, I would have signed off. The bids would have meant as follows:
1NT: 14+ to 17-
2♦: transfer
3♥: super-acceptance without a good side suit (HHxx)
4♣: Non-serious/mild slam interest, with a club control, no spade control, and unknown diamond control
4♦: serious interest in slam, with a spade control but without a diamond control
Thus, 4♥ would be clearly indicated, as we expect two quick diamond losers.
The strange thing is that people are agreeing that the lack of a spade control is justifying the sign-off. My problem is the lack of a diamond control. Ain't this game grand!
[edit -- in retrospect, I have described what the bids would mean for me, but I would not bid it this way. Had opener super-accepted by bidding 3♣, I might cue 4♣, hoping for a golden hand like Axx-Kxxx-Axx-KQJx. The 3♥ super, however, would leave slam as, at best, on a finesse, whether in hearts or possibly opposite a lesser KJ10x in clubs.]
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.