[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

Auction:

N E S W
1♦ P 1♠ P
2♣ P ?

---

The system is 2/1. The agreement is that 4th suit forcing is a game force. Most 45 minor hands are opened 1D. By agreement, hands with minor suits tend to be better hands, typically a 12-count with primary strength within the suits.

With the knowledge of style, this hand has grown up - the Q of diamonds is of much higher value.

Where do you go from here?

[mila85]

I would bid 3♣ here but I prefer 2♥ when it's one round force only...

[mikeh]

3♣

Nice post; good problem

Question: how would partner bid with 1=4=4=4 13 count? Example x Kxxx AJxx AJxx?

If he would bid as above (and I would) then 3♣ is enough. Even if 2♥ is not gf, I think that you would be in trouble over most rebids by partner anyway (unless he bid ♠!)

Vul at imps, this is especially tough, but if you play strong invites-light acceptances (my preferred style), then 3♣ still gives you a chance.

[EricK]

3♣ seems normal.

If I bid FSF and partner repsonds 3♦ I am rather stuck for a bid (that is true whether it is forcing for 1 round or to game).

Eric

[Kalvan14]

Your style is more or less mine. I would be 3♣ here, invitational. 3♣ is much more descriptive than 2♥ (which would also be a slight overbid). In my way of playing, 2♥ would deny a 4-card fit in clubs as well as a good fit in diamonds, and hint to 5 spades, and/or a strong interest in 3N.
To complete the picture:

• 3OM: splinter, with fit in clubs
  
• 4m: slam try in the minor (RKC)
  
• a GF hand without OM shortness (and not strong enough for a 4m bid) would go through FSF, and then raise a minor or bid 3N, depending on strength.
  
• 3D would obviously be invitational in diamonds (pls. note that I cannot have 5M and 4/+m in an invitational hand: in such a case I would bid 1m-2M)

[Winstonm]

Kalvan14, on Nov 27 2005, 06:17 PM, said:

Your style is more or less mine. I would be 3♣ here, invitational. 3♣ is much more descriptive than 2♥ (which would also be a slight overbid). In my way of playing, 2♥ would deny a 4-card fit in clubs as well as a good fit in diamonds, and hint to 5 spades, and/or a strong interest in 3N.
To complete the picture:

• 3OM: splinter, with fit in clubs
  
  
• 4m: slam try in the minor (RKC)
  
  
• a GF hand without OM shortness (and not strong enough for a 4m bid) would go through FSF, and then raise a minor or bid 3N, depending on strength.
  
  
• 3D would obviously be invitational in diamonds (pls. note that I cannot have 5M and 4/+m in an invitational hand: in such a case I would bid 1m-2M)

Exactly my thinking on this hand and the way I would use each bid - using 4th suit force as invitational creates its own set of problems.

I kind of like the old Blue Team idea (they uses it with 4N but could apply to minor RKC) in that if the bid comes within the first two rounds or if it is a jump then it is ace-asking; any other time it is not.

Winston

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Nov 27 2005, 05:55 PM, said:

3♣

Nice post; good problem

Question: how would partner bid with 1=4=4=4 13 count? Example x Kxxx AJxx AJxx?

If he would bid as above (and I would) then 3♣ is enough. Even if 2♥ is not gf, I think that you would be in trouble over most rebids by partner anyway (unless he bid ♠!)

Vul at imps, this is especially tough, but if you play strong invites-light acceptances (my preferred style), then 3♣ still gives you a chance.

MikeH: You are right in that with 1444 parnter would bid 1D/2C - we try to avoid a NT rebid with a singleton - unless there were a ton of soft values and even then I'm not much in favor of it.

Now for another question: If partner wants to move over 3C, what are the best meanings to the continations?

Thanks

Winston

[pclayton]

3♣ holding 4 cover cards looks funny but its hard to construct a hand where pard passes 3♣ and game is odds-on.

About the toughest I can come up with are hands like: void, JTxx, AKJxx, Axxx; a slow heart stop but 9 cashing tricks. Even then, pard might find a call over 3♣.

[mike777]

3 clubs
partner more likely to consider your bid a courtesy raise rather than 2nt.
You could hardly have a worse hand here since with less you may just bid 2D sign off or pass 2 clubs.

With opps bidding often this problem is, thank goodness, becoming more rare.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I join th 3C club, you have 4 cover cards for partner 7
looser hand, i.e. 5C is still a way to go, if 3NT is right,
i.e. partner has a stopper and has some add, values
he will bid 3NT by himself.
He knows we are playing IMP and that we are red, ... hopefully.

Marlowe

[Kalvan14]

Winstonm, on Nov 27 2005, 06:30 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Nov 27 2005, 06:17 PM, said:

Your style is more or less mine. I would be 3♣ here, invitational. 3♣ is much more descriptive than 2♥ (which would also be a slight overbid). In my way of playing, 2♥ would deny a 4-card fit in clubs as well as a good fit in diamonds, and hint to 5 spades, and/or a strong interest in 3N.
To complete the picture:

• 3OM: splinter, with fit in clubs
  
  
  
• 4m: slam try in the minor (RKC)
  
  
  
• a GF hand without OM shortness (and not strong enough for a 4m bid) would go through FSF, and then raise a minor or bid 3N, depending on strength.
  
  
  
• 3D would obviously be invitational in diamonds (pls. note that I cannot have 5M and 4/+m in an invitational hand: in such a case I would bid 1m-2M)

Exactly my thinking on this hand and the way I would use each bid - using 4th suit force as invitational creates its own set of problems.

I kind of like the old Blue Team idea (they uses it with 4N but could apply to minor RKC) in that if the bid comes within the first two rounds or if it is a jump then it is ace-asking; any other time it is not.

Winston

Actually the idea of 4N being ace asking within the first 2 rounds of bidding was already in the Neapolitan club. The Blue Team got it from there.
Another very actual idea which was already in the Neapolitan club was the self-reverse (1x-2y-any-3y: forcing and settles trumps).

[han]

pclayton, on Nov 27 2005, 06:49 PM, said:

3♣ holding 4 cover cards looks funny but its hard to construct a hand where pard passes 3♣ and game is odds-on.

About the toughest I can come up with are hands like: void, JTxx, AKJxx, Axxx; a slow heart stop but 9 cashing tricks. Even then, pard might find a call over 3♣.

I would like my partner to bid again with this hand.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♣.

[awm]

I'll go against the field here and try 2♥ (4th suit game force). Of course, it helps that my partners generally: (1) rebid 1NT with 1444 to make it easier to find the heart fit; the singleton spade is expected and we would normally raise spades with three (2) open 1♣ with 4♦5♣.

As for hands where partner would pass 3♣ but game is odds on:

xx
xx
AKJxx
Axxx

If we find a 3-2 club break (and a 4-2 diamond break) there are 11 tricks in 5♣. Give partner a fifth club instead of a heart and there is excellent play for 6♣. In fact many 5-5 minors hands give good play for 5♣:

x
Kx
KJxxx
Axxxx

[Kalvan14]

awm, on Nov 27 2005, 11:08 PM, said:

I'll go against the field here and try 2♥ (4th suit game force). Of course, it helps that my partners generally: (1) rebid 1NT with 1444 to make it easier to find the heart fit; the singleton spade is expected and we would normally raise spades with three (2) open 1♣ with 4♦5♣.

As for hands where partner would pass 3♣ but game is odds on:

xx
xx
AKJxx
Axxx

If we find a 3-2 club break (and a 4-2 diamond break) there are 11 tricks in 5♣. Give partner a fifth club instead of a heart and there is excellent play for 6♣. In fact many 5-5 minors hands give good play for 5♣:

x
Kx
KJxxx
Axxxx

The 2nd hand cannot be passed, after an invitational 3♣.
I would find it difficult to pass even the 1st one (which is worth a raise to 4m: with the hand postulated for south Axxx xxx Qx KQxx - i.e. no wasted walue, double fit and an outside A - 5♣ is the normal contract).
Obviously, you play a completely different approach (1-round FSF), and this may explain the different bids.

[awm]

Well, for me an opening hand is normally 12+ points, or occasionally 11 with some extra shape. By opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣, I have promised either:

(1) 5♦, 4♣, 12+ points
(2) 6-4 or 5-5 in the minors, 11+ points

You seem to be suggesting that if partner raises my 2♣ to 3♣, I need to bid on with both a 2-2-5-4 hand with 12 points, and a 1-2-5-5 hand (short in partner's original major!) with 11 points. This seems a bit off to me, as my hand could hardly be worse in terms of overall values. Any argument that I should "add points for shape" seems somewhat fallacious, since I am very close to the minimum degree of shape that my bidding should show. I admit that perhaps my views are impacted a bit by my tendency not to open 2-2-5-4 ten counts in 1st/2nd seat (as I know some posters to this forum frequently do).

Yes, I do play the fourth suit as forcing to game. Note that I would routinely raise 2♣ to 3♣ with:

KQxx
Qxx
xx
KJxx

This hand is potentially much worse than the actual hand, in that it has slow major suit cards and no fitting honor for diamonds. Note that this hand offers virtually no play for game opposite either of my example hands for opener, and in fact 4-minor will often go down.

Perhaps another point worth mentioning is that Elianna and my methods permit a lot of off-shape 1NT rebids. It follows that when opener has a not-very-shapely hand such as 2-2-5-4 or 1-3-5-4 we could rebid 1NT with strength in the heart suit. It tends to follow that the points are in the suits, making hands like my examples all the more likely. In addition, 1-4-4-4 is a mandatory 1NT rebid with minimum values in our methods, 3-1-5-4 is a spade raise (unless too strong for 2♠), and any hand with 5♣+4♦ opens 1♣.

[Winstonm]

Yes, I do play the fourth suit as forcing to game. Note that I would routinely raise 2♣ to 3♣ with:

KQxx
Qxx
xx
KJxx


This is an interesting treatment. I would think the value bid here is 2N. In you agreements, would 2N show better stops, better hand, or less fit?

Winston

[awm]

For the most part I choose my invites based on where I'd like to play the hand if partner has a minimum. When partner's accepting the invite we have space to explore for stoppers and decide whether to play 3NT or 5-minor (or even rest in 4-minor). But when partner's rejecting, we are playing whatever contract I bid to invite. So in general after 1♦-1♠-2♣, I will be bidding 3♣ with 4+ card support and an invite, because the 4-4 (or 5-4) minor fit usually plays better than 2NT. I'd make an exception with a very strong holding in the fourth suit (which also tends to imply four very weak clubs). The strength shown by 2NT and 3♣ is not very different for me, although I will occasionally "upgrade" very good fitting hands and these tend to be 3♣ bids (for example many nine-counts with 5♣ will raise to 3♣, whereas 2NT pretty much guarantees ten points at minimum).

[Kalvan14]

awm, on Nov 28 2005, 02:11 AM, said:

Well, for me an opening hand is normally 12+ points, or occasionally 11 with some extra shape. By opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣, I have promised either:

(1) 5♦, 4♣, 12+ points
(2) 6-4 or 5-5 in the minors, 11+ points

You seem to be suggesting that if partner raises my 2♣ to 3♣, I need to bid on with both a 2-2-5-4 hand with 12 points, and a 1-2-5-5 hand (short in partner's original major!) with 11 points. This seems a bit off to me, as my hand could hardly be worse in terms of overall values. Any argument that I should "add points for shape" seems somewhat fallacious, since I am very close to the minimum degree of shape that my bidding should show. I admit that perhaps my views are impacted a bit by my tendency not to open 2-2-5-4 ten counts in 1st/2nd seat (as I know some posters to this forum frequently do).

Yes, I do play the fourth suit as forcing to game. Note that I would routinely raise 2♣ to 3♣ with:

KQxx
Qxx
xx
KJxx

This hand is potentially much worse than the actual hand, in that it has slow major suit cards and no fitting honor for diamonds. Note that this hand offers virtually no play for game opposite either of my example hands for opener, and in fact 4-minor will often go down.

Perhaps another point worth mentioning is that Elianna and my methods permit a lot of off-shape 1NT rebids. It follows that when opener has a not-very-shapely hand such as 2-2-5-4 or 1-3-5-4 we could rebid 1NT with strength in the heart suit. It tends to follow that the points are in the suits, making hands like my examples all the more likely. In addition, 1-4-4-4 is a mandatory 1NT rebid with minimum values in our methods, 3-1-5-4 is a spade raise (unless too strong for 2♠), and any hand with 5♣+4♦ opens 1♣.

It is obviously a matter of style. IMHO, your first hand had prime cards, and a concentration in the minors. There are a lot of hands where you can play 5♣ at worst on a finesse, even if your partner holds something like Axxx, xxx, xx, KQxx.
Anyway, I did not suggest bidding 5♣; in my partnership I would bid 4♣.

By the same token, I would not raise clubs with the slow trick hand you've posted now (which for me is a 2N bid, like Winstonm says).

Please remember that there is not a truth-with-a-capital-T in these auctions.
Every player (except beginners) has his/her own style, which normally is what better suits the partnership. The only way of deciding if a bidding style is suitable or not is to keep track of the scores in this kind of hands (which are not so infrequent. Raises and FSF are two of the most important tools in bidding). If a partnership consistently ends up in the right contract, they're fine (even if they raise on even days, and use FSF on odd ones ). If they think to be unlucky it is quite likely that their bidding style should be improved