[bb79]

Scoring: IMP

1♣-p-1♠-p
??

---

Your call?

you have 4♣ available to show fit and 6-4 hand, and 4♦ splinter.

[Mbodell]

If you have it, shouldn't the 4♣ bid be the right bid? I mean any 6-4 will have shortness, and this 6-4 has all the values in the suits which likely is a requirement or like to have for this bid. Or does the 4♣ bid need to show greater strength? You have a 5 loser hand, but does partner expect more HCP from this bid or is it purely shape?

[bb79]

Mbodell, on Apr 26 2009, 12:20 AM, said:

If you have it, shouldn't the 4♣ bid be the right bid?  I mean any 6-4 will have shortness, and this 6-4 has all the values in the suits which likely is a requirement or like to have for this bid.  Or does the 4♣ bid need to show greater strength?  You have a 5 loser hand, but does partner expect more HCP from this bid or is it purely shape?

splinter is more slam oriented than 4♣.

[skjaeran]

With the methods mentioned, 4♣ seems perfect to me. 5-loser hand, concentrated vaules. The hand isn't in itself slamoriented. However if partner has the ♣K and a couple of aces....

[gnasher]

Anything at the four level seems an overbid to me, especially if you respond majors first. I'd just bid 3♠.

[Fluffy]

What is 4♠ in your methods?, a weak 6-4 in mine and looks like the perfect bid.

I don't wanna make slamforward moves, partner doesn't need much help to evaluate a couple of aces and ♣K.

[hanp]

2S.

[neilkaz]

hanp, on Apr 26 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

2S.

4♣ is also too much for me. I can see all sorts of hands where PD is min and 4♠x is off 2 or possibly 3 (on a very bad day)

I am torn between 2♠ and 3♠ here but think a GF is too much here.

[mtvesuvius]

3♠, although I am extremely close to bidding 4♣ which is practically a perfect description...

[andy_h]

Agree with gnasher.

[Stephen Tu]

To me it is not at all close to 4♣, which in my mind is approx. KQxx Qx x AKQTxx. I think too often partner drive to 5/6 unsuccessfully or just down 1 in 4s unnecessarily.

I wouldn't quibble with either 2♠ or 3♦ if the latter is a non-GF splinter, the first is maybe a bit pessimistic and will miss game opposite just the bare perfect KC+AS, but at least won't go minus very often. Very easy to construct hands like Txxx Qxx KQx xxx where going down in 3 is quite likely!

[JLOL]

3S unless i had 3D avail

[awm]

I really think 2♠ is terrible. You have play for game opposite something like ♠Axxxx and out! There are also plenty of possibilities to miss slam this way. Bidding 3♦ or 3♠ (if 3♦ would not be mini=splinter) seems about right.

I recall playing with an "expert" pickup partner at a regional once who bid 2♠ with this hand, then blamed me for bidding "only" 4♠ with ♠AJxx ♥Axx ♦QJx ♣Kxx. I guess partner is supposed to try for slam on a 4333 15-count?

[jdonn]

I mildly don't care for 2♠ but it's just inferior, 4♣ is utterly unbelievable. How can anyone expect partner to know what to do if they make the same call on an 11 count as they would on a 20 count with the same shape?

I bid 3 but the objections to 2 seem overrated to me. If partner has the bare minimum responses that make game then the opponents either will be in there or make a ton as well. Otherwise he has some values that are probably wasted but will still allow him to bid on.

[JLOL]

Agree with awm about 2S.

[jikl]

3♦ for me as a mini splinter if I can, otherwise 3♠. The 4 level is too big without help. (I have sympathy for 2♠ also)

Sean

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Apr 26 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

I mildly don't care for 2♠ but it's just inferior, 4♣ is utterly unbelievable. How can anyone expect partner to know what to do if they make the same call on an 11 count as they would on a 20 count with the same shape?

I don't understand how we can judge 4♣ as a call without really understanding how they play it. The OP states that 4♣ is available "to show fit and 6-4 hand." That is certainly not a way I've played it. I normally play it shows 6-4 and a solid club suit. Maybe they define it as showing good shape, but minimum strength opener. Who knows?

[the hog]

Echognome, on Apr 27 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 26 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

I mildly don't care for 2♠ but it's just inferior, 4♣ is utterly unbelievable. How can anyone expect partner to know what to do if they make the same call on an 11 count as they would on a 20 count with the same shape?

I don't understand how we can judge 4♣ as a call without really understanding how they play it. The OP states that 4♣ is available "to show fit and 6-4 hand." That is certainly not a way I've played it. I normally play it shows 6-4 and a solid club suit. Maybe they define it as showing good shape, but minimum strength opener. Who knows?

Agree with this. In my methods this would be a 3S bid.

[whereagles]

As usual, agree with Ron