[gszes]

gnasher, on 2011-June-23, 14:41, said:

---

Matchpoints.

1♠ was a one-round force, and promised five clubs.

at imps invite freely accept dearly
at MP invite dearly accept freely.

when opener bids 3h they are very close to a 4s
bid themselves (this is where invite dearly kicks in)
but need to cater to really bad hands where you might
have say KQxx of dia as most of your power. Well you
have the A not the KQ and lets face it the JT of clubs
opposite at least a 5 card suit are like a gold mine.
You have enough stuff to make defense difficult for the
opps to cash tricks before clubs can be set up. IMO this
is a clear cut bid of:

4s

If p is always inviting hoping you have a max and no
wasted values (in dia)at MP they are overbidding. That
is an IMP tactic.

[pooltuna]

nige1, on 2011-June-23, 18:25, said:

• ArtK78 may be right about 3♠ being quite high enough. It's a matter of judgement.
• ArtK78 is also right, 3♠ = 7 was intended, Not Pass = 7. Corrected above.
• The narrow target argument: If opener's try is pushy, most of the field may stop in 2♠. That may be the likely limit of the hand and 3♠ may already be too high. Both 3♠-1 and 4♠-2 will be below average compared with 2♠=. If 4♠ is a lucky make, however, then 4♠= will be above average, while 3♠+1 will score the same as 2♠+2.
• The rationale for considering 4♦ is that opener is unlimited. His interest may be in slam as well as game. He may hold say...♠ AKQx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AKQxxx. When you accept his try, he may expect you to cue-bid if possible. ArtK78 is right again -- it is probably folly to encourage him.

I was thinking the opener was limited by an inability to JS with 2♠ over 1♥. If this is not system then I would choose 4♠ otherwise 3♠

[phil_20686]

benlessard, on 2011-June-24, 06:45, said:

I consider that if you only bid 3S there is a hole gap in your bridge.

Seems more appropriate

[paulg]

More inclined to bid 2♠ than 4♠. Without the ♣10 this would be very clear for me, as my only sure entry will disappear at trick one and I may have to play clubs immediately. At least with ♣J10 I might retain an entry in my hand, so I feel there is some merit in bidding game.

[Phil]

3♠. The ♦A is not that useful. I would rather put it in any of the other three suits.

[jogs]

gnasher, on 2011-June-23, 22:52, said:

We were playing 4-card majors, so would have opened 1♠.

Even playing 5-card majors, I usually play that the 1♠ rebid promises five clubs. That ocasionally loses a 4-4 spade fit, but I think that the gains from having better defined rebids make it worthwhile.

In fifties and sixties there was a concept of a biddable four card suit. A major could be opened in a four card major which contained at least four high card points. Somewhere along the way that concept got lost.

♠ 5432 ♥ AJ5 ♦ AJT ♣ KQT

1♠. Only four card suit.

♠ 5432 ♥ 32 ♦ AK6 ♣ AKQ8

1♠?!? Looks like a 1♣ bid to me.

Why did four card biddable suits morph into any four cards? Qxxx facing Jxxx. Do you really want to play in that trump suit?

[ArtK78]

benlessard, on 2011-June-24, 06:45, said:

My hand is pretty great with nothing wasted in D, i dont see why i woulndt bid game. JT of clubs is only 1 pts but these are great cards when partner showed a 5 card suit. Also 1S is forcing so ill be forced to bid 2S with any subminimum response.

I consider that if you only bid 3S there is a hole in your bridge.

In what system is 1♠ forcing?

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2011-June-25, 07:31, said:

In fifties and sixties there was a concept of a biddable four card suit. A major could be opened in a four card major which contained at least four high card points. Somewhere along the way that concept got lost.

♠ 5432 ♥ AJ5 ♦ AJT ♣ KQT

1♠. Only four card suit.

♠ 5432 ♥ 32 ♦ AK6 ♣ AKQ8

1♠?!? Looks like a 1♣ bid to me.

Why did four card biddable suits morph into any four cards? Qxxx facing Jxxx. Do you really want to play in that trump suit?

Biddable suits are alot older than that; they were an integral part of the Culbertson system of the 30s and 40s and may be even older for all I know. The reason they went out of favour is because bridge players realised that distribution is more important and that there are other things for which the limited space could better be used. Notice also that playing biddable suits it is common to use a prepared 1C opening, even in a 4 card major system. Thus Hand 1 is a 1C opener in this method as well as Hand 2. Also, if you open hand 2 with 1 club in a majors always first system then you have to distort your hand for the rebid. Either you rebid 1S promising 5 clubs or NT denying 4 spades. If you are playing biddable suits without a MAF style then either hand is a WTP 1C opening and 1NT rebid over 1red (assuming a weak NT).

What has this got to do with the OP though? There are lots of different bidding systems out there and many insist on a major suit opening with a particular length in the major, sometimes even with a longer second suit. The OP stated what the system is, majors always first and 1C - 1red - 1S forcing. Perhaps it might have been helpful to know what a 2S rebid would have shown to eliminate these hand types from the discussion, I do not know, but as they did not we can only assume that this was not relevant to the discussion at hand.