[phil_20686]

(2♥) P (4♥) P
(P) 4♠

What does this show?

[kenrexford]

I have no idea what the expert concensus would be. Plus, I don't know what the options otherwise available would be. But, for this to make any sense at all, which is debatable, I would say that PRECISELY four spades and long CLUBS makes the only sense. With 5-5, you'd overcall 2♠ or some jump. With 4♠/6♦, an ELC makes sense. An ELC is not possible with clubs, so there you go.

[dboxley]

phil_20686, on 2011-October-04, 14:06, said:

(2♥) P (4♥) P
(P) 4♠

What does this show?

Sounds like a preemptive type hand with spades if non-vul. Since a direct 2S shows some cards and 3S is strong he can't bid origanally but now decides that you may have a reasonable save or be able to push. If vul I have no idea and am not going to try to figure it out.

[gszes]

since it seems totally impossible for me to have a penalty x of 4h the
only way this makes sense is some highly distributional and WEAK sort
of hand. My vote here is that X would show 4 spades and a 6+ card
minor while 4s would show at least 5 spades and 5 of a minor.

A case can be made that playing the x to show the 2 suiter and 4s to show
the 46 hand is better because partner will play the hand keeping the weak
2 bidder on lead much more often.

depending on vulnerability such hands might look like

QJ32 5 QT5432 54
K7652 3 QJ432 65

not really strong enough to act over 2h but not willing to sell out to 4h.

these types of hands will pop up a ton more often than say
QT9xxxx x xx xx and will generally be less dangerous to bid
since they are two dimensional vs 1.

[mikeh]

I voted natural.....my choices are dependent on vulnerability but they were either 'natural' or 'impossible'.

If a bid can be natural, it should be natural...all other roads lead to madness as we start playing regressive mindgames whenever we have an undiscussed auction....what will he think I think he will think I will think and so on.

Assuming that the vulnerabiity allows the call to make sense, it shows a long spade suit in a hand that wasn't strong enough to bid over 2♥.

It is standard to play that 2♠ requires approximately an opening hand, 3♠ shows not only an excellent, long suit but substantial values while 4♠ shows the nuts in the spade suit and a decent hand.

A hand such as KQ10xxxx x Qxx xx has no bid over 2♥ within this scheme so has to pass and then choose whether to bid.

[dboxley]

mikeh, on 2011-October-04, 15:20, said:

I voted natural.....my choices are dependent on vulnerability but they were either 'natural' or 'impossible'.

If a bid can be natural, it should be natural...all other roads lead to madness as we start playing regressive mindgames whenever we have an undiscussed auction....what will he think I think he will think I will think and so on.

Assuming that the vulnerabiity allows the call to make sense, it shows a long spade suit in a hand that wasn't strong enough to bid over 2♥.

It is standard to play that 2♠ requires approximately an opening hand, 3♠ shows not only an excellent, long suit but substantial values while 4♠ shows the nuts in the spade suit and a decent hand.

A hand such as KQ10xxxx x Qxx xx has no bid over 2♥ within this scheme so has to pass and then choose whether to bid.

Well, that sounds exactly like what I said but with a more detailed explanation, well done Mike.

[JLOGIC]

Partner could also have 9 spades. This is how I would bid with QJT9xxxxx x x xx. What else could I do? The difference here than 1H p 4H p p 4S is that partner cannot preempt over a preempt, so a lot of hands that would be opened 4S but are very weak will pass first.

[pooltuna]

phil_20686, on 2011-October-04, 14:06, said:

(2♥) P (4♥) P
(P) 4♠

What does this show?

Colors are significantly important

[Fluffy]

I often do this kind of bidding with 5-6, but normal is to have just a 3 spade opening or alike

[Phil]

You can agree either a long suit inappropriate for direct action - something like 8 or 9 cards long. Or you can agree on a distributional two suiter that you don't want to bid initially.

I think the two suiter is more common so that's my preference.

[kenrexford]

Looks like vulnerability matters here.

[gnasher]

I think it's normal to play this as a weak one-suiter. If you want to be able to show a two-suiter, it makes more sense to use double for that, because it partner may want to pass.

I don't think the vulnerability matters in determining the meaning. If it's too dangerous to bid 4♠ with KJ10xxxxx x xx xx, it's also too dangerous to bid 4♠ with KJ10xx x x KJ10xxx or KJ10x x xx KJ10xxx.

[whereagles]

Weak 1 or 2 suiter, I guess.

But it can also be a three suiter if you play that dbl would be penalties.

[sasioc]

My p and I have the agreement that if a bid of 4M can possibly be nat/to play, it is. As many other people have said, I'd bid this way with a long spade suit and a hand too weak to bid initially, eg a poor 4s opener. Lots of people also play leaping michaels over 2s, so if I had a highly distributional 2 suiter I'd have bid that and if I decided I was too weak to bid 4m I may feel I couldn't back in over 4h either.

[jogs]

You need a new partner.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm also quite happy with my partnership agreement that both 4M and 3NT are natural if they possibly can be.

[dake50]

I'd add to those saying long spades that this
delayed 4S shows AK defense - letting partner double.
Don't preempt a preempt to bar those 1-suiters
without defense is stick-in-your-own-eye thinking.
Use forcing T/O bids for strong hands then show 1-suited.
Craft me a 4S bid that couldn't be Force T/O then 4S.
Had to be 4S strong immediately. Then you see that
stick-in-the-eye.

[the hog]

I would suggest that this is a long suit in a weak hand inappropriate for direct action.

[jdeegan]

About 20 years ago I played in a men's pair in a well-attended New Orleans regional. It consisted of one 13 table section. The field was the strongest section I have ever played in. All the male pros in the room were playing, mostly with one another. When Meckstroth and his male customer came to the table it was actually a relief.

In any event, that particular auction actually came up. The pro on my right slid with 4♠ over 4♥ after passing on the first round. I doubled with four spades and enough high cards that I had a heart game to protect against. The pro on my left passed, and dummy hit with a doubleton spade. -1100 later RHO with the 4-6 hand recriminated to the pro on my left that it was 'obvious' what he had and to pull to 4NT without spades.

Does everyone play that auction showing 4-6? I guess some do and some don't.

[Free]

Natural and too weak to bid immediately ("don't preempt vs preempts"). If you're vul, I guess you need 3+♥ as well so partner will be able to have some ♥ ruff(s) in the short trump hand. It's rare but I've done this once, many years ago.