What is this bid?

[Player]

The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents

1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D

What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

IMO it shows spade support and denies a club splinter.

I know people who play it as a splinter in diamonds and others who play
it as diamond values with spades (say KQx of diamonds in a 4432 hand).

Very dangerous bid online !

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

If one does not know 4th suit forcing
then this is the only forcing bid with diamond support in this stage of
the auction.

Similar to
1D - 4D
What I would read as general slamtry with diamond support (as long as we
dont have a specific agreement about this bidding)

Co Wiersma

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

For the two partnerships in which I have discussed this bid, it is a splinter for spades in one, and a slam try in diamonds in the other. The latter only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS.

The complementary sequence is 1D - 1H - 1S - 2C (fsf) - 2H (say) - 4D

Both sequences take up the same amount of room; the latter one responder learns a little more about opener's hand.

If you laugh at the idea of a diamond slam try on the basis that you can show diamond support via, say, 1D-1H-1S-2C*-2H-3D the distinction is to make it absolutely clear that you have an unambiguous slam try and no concerns about trumps. I'd expect something like x AQJxx KQxxx Ax (OK, maybe that is actually too strong, but you get the idea)

[Barry Margolin]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit
"eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning
on either side of the Atlantic.

For the two partnerships in which I have discussed this bid, it is a splinter
for spades in one, and a slam try in diamonds in the other. The latter only

Who splinters in a suit their partner has bid naturally?

Post by f***@googlemail.com
makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play
SJS.

What does SJS have to do with it? Even if you play SJS, you need a 5+
heart suit to bid 2H on the first round. Couldn't this be a strong hand
with 4H 5+D?

[John Hall]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a
Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of
incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different
meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

Without any prior agreement, I would assume that it was natural and
forcing, with a hand so unbalanced that 3NT was unlikely to be the right
denomination, and looking for a slam. I'm British, but no expert and
rather out of touch with recent developments in bidding theory.

[Player]

This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.

The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."

Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.

Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Player
This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.
The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."
Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.
Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

But what does the opinion of top players to do with playing on BBO?

Co Wiersma

[Player]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Player
This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.
The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."
Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.
Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

But what does the opinion of top players to do with playing on BBO?
Co Wiersma

Sorry Co, I have no idea what you mean by this post.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Player

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Player
This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.
The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."
Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.
Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

But what does the opinion of top players to do with playing on BBO?
Co Wiersma

Sorry Co, I have no idea what you mean by this post.

Sorry my English not so good
Top players usually make very detailed and complicated agreements with
their partners
BBO is a place where everybody can play with random partners and the few
times I played on BBO, I noticed it no good to expect any advanced
bidding conventions

So on BBO I would expect every bidding that could be natural, to be natural.
Even in situations where topplayers would expect a specific agreement

Co Wiersma

[Charles Brenner]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Player

Post by Co Wiersma
But what does the opinion of top players to do with playing on BBO?
Co Wiersma

Sorry Co, I have no idea what you mean by this post.

Sorry my English not so good

Co -- either "But what has the opinion ... to do with ... " or "But what does ... have to do with ...". The idiom is "have to do with." I'd probably have tried it word for word in German ("Was hat es mit mir zu tun?") and been wrong. How is it in Dutch?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Player

Post by Co Wiersma
But what does the opinion of top players to do with playing on BBO?
Co Wiersma

Sorry Co, I have no idea what you mean by this post.

Sorry my English not so good

Co -- either "But what has the opinion ... to do with ... " or "But what does ... have to do with ...". The idiom is "have to do with." I'd probably have tried it word for word in German ("Was hat es mit mir zu tun?") and been wrong. How is it in Dutch?

The dreaded "meaningless 'do'." The fact that questions and negations ordinarily use "do." Whjch non-native English speakers have trouble with.

Carl

[Player]

Was hat es mit mir zu tun means what business is it of mine. On reflection I think what Co was saying was that playing on line on bbo and sensible bidding are in no way connected.
I can relate to this remark. Yesterday I held x akjx xxx aqxxx and opened 1c.
Cho bid 1s. You could bid 1nt but I bid 2c. Cho bid 2s - all pass. He held a 13 count with 6s. When I politely pointed out that 2s was nf, this eggspurt, yes another one from one of the 2 countries where everyone is an expert, said he was showing 6s and "balancing."

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Player
Was hat es mit mir zu tun means what business is it of mine. On reflection I think what Co was saying was that playing on line on bbo and sensible bidding are in no way connected.

No that was not what I meant

I meant that world class players have detailed agreements on many
situations. And often they spend many hours discussing their agreements
with their regular partner and the exceptions on their agreements and so
on and so on
And of cause they have an opinion on what are the best agreements for a
regular partnership that spend many hours on partnership agreements.

BBO is a totally different world
Smart bidding on BBO means you must assume the most common meaning of
the bid for people on BBO
And try to avoid any bids that may be ambiguous to life-long beginners
And assume your partner does the same


Co Wiersma

[rhm]

Post by Player
This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.
The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."
Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.
Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

The question is not what is the best use for the bid with a partner with which you have lots of agreements.
The question is what is 4D with a casual partner.
Obviously it sets diamonds as trumps with interest in slam.

It requires a deranged mind to take it for anything else.

What do you do with spade support?
Assuming you do not have shortage in clubs you either start with the fourth suit and then jump in spades or you simply use Blackwood.

[Player]

Post by rhm

Post by Player
This is an interesting question. Some time ago there was a debate on BBO forums about this sequence. The top US players, and we are talking about some BB representatives, all argued that 4D should be a splinter, so Barry, to answer your question - a lot of your countrymen splinter in a suit their partner has opened naturally.
The Brit "eggspurt" argued that 4D categorically agreed Ds. The only way to agree S was to bid 4C. This makes no sense to me at all, as 4C for me would definitely be splinter. For me, the way to agree Ds would always be to go via 4th suit. I agree with Frances that a D slam try "only makes sense if you play that an inverted raise denies a major and don't play SJS."
Some years ago I did play it as Lorne suggests - agreeing S and showing a D source of tricks in some 4432 hand. This was also at the behest of a British player, but the treatment made sense to me.
Regardless of your treatments, Lorne is obviously correct when he says this is a dangerous sequence on line.

The question is not what is the best use for the bid with a partner with which you have lots of agreements.
The question is what is 4D with a casual partner.
Obviously it sets diamonds as trumps with interest in slam.
It requires a deranged mind to take it for anything else.
What do you do with spade support?
Assuming you do not have shortage in clubs you either start with the fourth suit and then jump in spades or you simply use Blackwood.

"Obviously it sets diamonds as trumps with interest in slam.
It requires a deranged mind to take it for anything else."

OK Rainer, you are playing with me - first time.

1D 1H
1S 2C
2NT 4D
Meaning please?

next hand
1D 1H
1S 4D
Meaning please?

What is the hand difference between auction 1 and auction 2?

Mind you I am often called deranged.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

Absent a previous agreement, I think I would avoid using that bid. In my one surviving partnerships, it's a splinter. Even though partner opened 1D, I would argue that people don't usually choose their opening bids by honor location and a singleton Diamond might be just what the doctor ordered. However, I would not expect a pickup partner to play that.

-----
Will in New Haven, now in Pompano Beach

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

[KWSchneider]

Post by Player
The other day I was playing on BBO and got into a right barney with a Brit "eggspurt". The following bidding sequence was one of a number of incidents
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you? I wonder if it has a different meaning on either side of the Atlantic.

If it was trotted out by my partner, I would expect it to be a splinter in support of spades - something like 4=5=1=3 distribution with slam aspirations.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Player
1D (P) 1H (P)
1S (P) 4D
What does this sequence mean to you?

In ancient Acol, I'd have expected 4cH, longer D, non-forcing but highly
encouraging. Nowadays, I'd expect the same but forcing, and H could be
a 5c suit. I was surprised to read Lorne's and Frances' answers (though
one of Frances' possibilities was essentially the above).

In the US, a splinter for S might be the most common agreement, though I
personally don't play that and wouldn't expect it online. The
alternative would be natural, as above.

As Frances and others have indicated, a lot depends on your other
agreements: what would an initial 2D or 2H show or deny? (Not everyone
requires a 5c suit for a SJS, and if you play "Soloway" or similar, not
all strong hands start with a SJS. In particular, some hands are too
strong for SJS.)

As Rainer wrote, if 4D is natural, to agree spades when not holding a
singleton club, bid 2C fourth-suit, then bid spades. For me, 2C
followed by a _jump_ in spades would show diamond shortness; with
4=4=(23) or similar, I'd rebid spades at the cheapest level then (in
most auctions) bid them again later.

As several people have mentioned, using this sequence online is risky,
but from what I understand, _any_ sequence can be risky online.