[humilities]

IMPS

---

Is 4♣ 100% forcing? How about 4♦? I assume 4NT pick a minor?

Maybe this problem is very easy but I'm curious to hear any opinions.

[pooltuna]

humilities, on 2011-February-04, 09:34, said:

IMPS

---

Is 4♣ 100% forcing? How about 4♦? I assume 4NT pick a minor?

Maybe this problem is very easy but I'm curious to hear any opinions.

You don't think 3♠ shows a ♠ suit I hope

[humilities]

pooltuna, on 2011-February-04, 09:52, said:

You don't think 3♠ shows a ♠ suit I hope

Presumably 3♠ is an attempt to get to 3NT but it doesn't seem likely that it's the best spot. 4♣ seems like the natural bid but with a pickup partner I'm wondering if there is any doubt that it is forcing. Double also seems very possible.

[mtvesuvius]

4♣ and 4♦ are definitely forcing, 3♣ should be GF IMO. I'd double here though, leaving 3N in the picture along with both minors... I don't think partner should ever be passing at these colours... Not sure if that's standard or even logical, but I just can't see how partner would pass at R/W.

[Fluffy]

we are in GF situation and partner would have already bid 3NT if it was the contract we wanted to play. Therefore I just bid my hand, 4♣.

[wank]

4♣ nf, 4♦ GF. i'd bid 4NT

[the hog]

4C and 4D are game forcing, however I think 4C is the better bid here.

[whereagles]

echo the above (because I think already 3♣ should be GF), although I wouldn't be too sure pard is on the same wavelentgh.

[Lurpoa]

Playing BWS2001.

Not so so sure 4♣ is game force. It should not be - I also like to show a competitive hand with good ♣.
4♦ smells much more as GF: good hand, at least 3♦.

On this hand I will bid 4♦. If partner bid 4♥, I will bid 5♣.

[the hog]

"It should not be - I also like to show a competitive hand with good ♣.
4♦ smells much more as GF: good hand, at least 3♦."

This is inconsistent and illogical. Both 4C/D should have the same meanings of course - gf.

[Lurpoa]

the hog, on 2011-February-06, 06:03, said:

"It should not be - I also like to show a competitive hand with good ♣.
4♦ smells much more as GF: good hand, at least 3♦."

This is inconsistent and illogical. Both 4C/D should have the same meanings of course - gf.

Sorry, could you explain ?
From my point of view 4♦ is a delayed support: why did I first bid ♣, if if was not that I am too strong for a 3♦ bid. I guess you even could play this as limit.... but I wouldn't dare to pass this with an occasional partner.
On the other side4♣: partner, I have a reasonable hand with long ♣....and (depending on what a 3♠bid would mean in your system): I do not like an NT contract.

[the_dude]

Lurpoa, on 2011-February-07, 05:07, said:

Sorry, could you explain ?
From my point of view 4♦ is a delayed support: why did I first bid ♣, if if was not that I am too strong for a 3♦ bid. I guess you even could play this as limit.... but I wouldn't dare to pass this with an occasional partner.
On the other side4♣: partner, I have a reasonable hand with long ♣....and (depending on what a 3♠bid would mean in your system): I do not like an NT contract.

In my opinion, it's a question of frequency. Which hands come up more often .. the ones where 4minor is the exact perfect contract ... or hands where you have a big hand and need to force the bidding. Seems to me that we should be catering to the more frequent game and slam hands rather than hands where we want to play in specifically 4minor.

[cicus]

humilities, on 2011-February-04, 09:34, said:

IMPS

---

Is 4♣ 100% forcing? How about 4♦? I assume 4NT pick a minor?

Maybe this problem is very easy but I'm curious to hear any opinions.

4♣ or 4♦ is not forcing here. I'd bid 4♥ or simply 5♣.

[Lurpoa]

the_dude, on 2011-February-07, 08:31, said:

In my opinion, it's a question of frequency. Which hands come up more often .. the ones where 4minor is the exact perfect contract ... or hands where you have a big hand and need to force the bidding. Seems to me that we should be catering to the more frequent game and slam hands rather than hands where we want to play in specifically 4minor.

That is a very good point you are making there.
Yes, it is a matter of bidding style.
Make sure you and partner have the same understandings !

[the hog]

the_dude, on 2011-February-07, 08:31, said:

In my opinion, it's a question of frequency. Which hands come up more often .. the ones where 4minor is the exact perfect contract ... or hands where you have a big hand and need to force the bidding. Seems to me that we should be catering to the more frequent game and slam hands rather than hands where we want to play in specifically 4minor.

Yes stopping on 4m is like stopping on sixpence. You are far better off using these as forcing, as every single player I know does.

[han]

If I read this discussion correctly then it seems like some people (the hog, the_dude) are suggesting that 4C should generally be forcing. If that is their intention, I disagree. It seems very important to be able to be able to bid a NF 4C or 4D in competition.

To my mind the only reason that 4C is forcing here is that 3C is GF. For example, in the auction 1D - (1H) - 2C - (3H) - .. I think that 4C should absolutely be NF.

[the_dude]

han, on 2011-February-08, 06:54, said:

If I read this discussion correctly then it seems like some people (the hog, the_dude) are suggesting that 4C should generally be forcing. If that is their intention, I disagree. It seems very important to be able to be able to bid a NF 4C or 4D in competition.

To my mind the only reason that 4C is forcing here is that 3C is GF. For example, in the auction 1D - (1H) - 2C - (3H) - .. I think that 4C should absolutely be NF.

That is absolutely my reasoning.

You second auction is trickier for sure, I see merit in both forcing and NF.