4 of a minor

[luke warm]

N-after a No trump bid: (1D) p (1NT) x

I can understand all others except above one, I used to play double as takeout at situation like :"(1X) p (1NT) x ". Am I minority here?

han is right, i mistyped... his example is the correct one, although even there some prefer to play the x as negative

[Fluffy]

I'm thinking why PD dont bid 4♦(with control) or 4♥(with not control) if he mean forcing? He just need to clarify his intention by quite a clear bid.

I liek these idea, but I've found many missunderstandings with my partners who think 4♥ now offers a different game to play.

 

Does anyone have good rules to determine if 4 of a major when your fit is in a minor is to sugest a contractof cuebid?

[Al_U_Card]

Besides 3S showing some values, I also think that it is natural and suggests playing in a 4-3 fit. I think that opener is 3514, but could have been 4513 before the 4C bid.

Responder has shown a weak hand and opener has asked about D stoppers for NT play. I find the S bid as a sort of trial bid, showing at least a 1/2 stop in D and some useful card in S. Since this is forward going and opener went past the 3NT that was agreed to, then it must be a slam try........certainly with concern over the D suit, he would just bid 5C so responder can Q bid or finish with 4NT and let opener pass or correct to C if he so chooses.

[Trpltrbl]

I play it as forcing.

3♦ set up an almost GF auction, dbl showed a good hand but followed by 3♦ we now have really really good hand.

I could have bid 3♠ after 3♣, to show good hand with nice ♣ support.

If pd would have bid 4♠, I know he is supporting on 3 card suit showing values and willingness to play in 4♠ if I had 4♠.

 

GBB <_<

[tysen2k]

S-Subsequent double of a pass of the same suit: 1D (1H) p (p) 1S (2H) x

Would that suggest this should be penalty?

 

(1♣) P (2♣) P

(P) Dbl

[luke warm]

i'd say no... on the example given, we know partner has an opening bid, on this one we don't... this would be takeout for me

[Kalvan14]

In my book, 4♣ is not forcing: opener has a reasonably strong hand (probably balanced, see below), and has made a try to play 3NT. Since the partnership lacks a stopper in ♦, opener retreated to 4♣.

 

Let's start from the beginning:

1♥-(P)-1N-(2♦)-X

My understanding is that this would show a balanced hand (5-3-3-2) and 17 to 19 HCP. What other reason has the opener to double? If he has a "true" penalty double (with ♦), the oppos should have a ♠fit.

If he has a "take-out" double, there is no reason why he should not bid his other suit (or suits).

There is not necessarily a need of a stack of diamonds to penalise 2♦: 24-25 HCP, in 2 balanced or semi-balanced hands and 4-5 diamond cards should be more than enough).

The follow-up bidding is a bit strange: pard bids 3♣ [weak, 6 cards almost guaranteed], and opener tries again with 3♦ [is he bidding his cards twice?], which i believe everyone will interpret as a trial for NT without stopper.

the poor guy in front of him bids 3♠ [which I too take for half a stopper in ♦ - ood bid, btw] and opener finally relents and bids 4♣ [which cannot be forcing: he might bid 4♦, 4♥ or even 5♣. Why should he try to force with the only bid placing the contract in a "safe"haven?]

 

I wrote the post before voting, and it looks like I'm in the minority. But I do not change my mind: 4♣ cannot be forcing

[jdeegan]

:) Have to add another vote for non-forcing, but I can see playing it the other way where 3♦ sets an unconditional GF. This is just another version of the old 2/1 conundrum where the players look for 3NT, then bail to four of a minor. IMO he non-forcing bail out is preferable simply because it comes up a lot (I think) more often than needing a forcing 4♣ bid to properly decide whether to bid 5 or 6♣.

[Kalvan14]

:D Have to add another vote for non-forcing, but I can see playing it the other way where 3♦ sets an unconditional GF. This is just another version of the old 2/1 conundrum where the players look for 3NT, then bail to four of a minor. IMO he non-forcing bail out is preferable simply because it comes up a lot (I think) more often than needing a forcing 4♣ bid to properly decide whether to bid 5 or 6♣.

Maybe the 2/1 GF (unconditional) should have just 1 minor condition attached: forcing up to 4m (which is the way I played it with one of my partners)