mikeh Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 To those who think 4♣ is forcing, let me ask a question. How forcing was 2♦? Many (me included) would play it as forcing to 3♣. Yes, partner may have higher ambitions, but all it promises is the values to force to 3♣. If you believe it to be stronger, then I accept that 4♣ could be played as forcing: altho one has to wonder about pass followed by 4♣, etc. If 2♦ merely forced to 3♣, then, logically, the partnership is no longer in a forcing auction once RHO bid 3♦. It is fundamental to a forcing pass scenario that forcing passes do not apply once the opponents voluntarily bid beyond the level to which we were forced unless we have shown game values. If pass is no longer a forcing option for us, and we have a weak shapely hand, are we obliged to defend 3♦? If pass carries no forcing inference, then surely, in any logical method, 4♣ is passable. Does this mean that we are helpless: unable to reach 3N? Not at all: we can bid a major here: that does NOT say: bid 3N with the other major stopped: the chances are that the opps plan to run ♦ against us, so partner will bid 3N with almost all hands on which he stops ♦ unless he holds, say, a stiff or void in the other major, in which case we're heading towards 5♣ or 6♣. If you want to force, 3♥/♠ (or 4♦) are available: partner has NO 4 card major on this auction, so we need not fear a raise of our major. BTW, my earlier referece to gerber was a joke :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 BTW, my earlier referece to gerber was a joke :P que??? You don't want me to take that off my cc again, do you? "4♣ is always Gerber when mikeh says it is", I wrote. Please confirm that you were *not* joking! Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 Very surprised that 4C is not forcing here.Partner made the bidding GF with his cue, 4C brings you above 3NT.For me 4C is forcing, interested in slem and asks partner to show controls....For Frances and Mike: is 4C not forcing because it is not defined in the bidding poll system as forcing OR do you really play 4C as not forcing in your partnerships? Mikeh gave a very clear exposition of why 4C is not forcing.The difference of opinion comes with the idea that 2D was FG: we (and I believe BBO Advanced, though this time I haven't checked!) only play it as showing a good raise to 3C. So it could be a decent 9-count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reisig Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I remember what I bid on this one ..take all doubt away (whether 4!c is forcing or not)..and bid 4NT...hard to avoid 6+!cs here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_1946 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Agree totally with Mikeh's fine analysis, and, in my opinion, 4♦ is the most descriptive rebid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I liked this hand when I saw it, and I like it still now, after reading the panelist reply. The ever popular "cue-bid" to deal with in between hands (not good enough to force to slam, too good not to make some kind of slam of try) is predictably the top choice. Let's see what the 4♦ cue-bidders had to say. Some are willing to stop below slam, some are forcing to slam. The two panelist bidding 4♦ but willing to stay out of slam were Roland and MikeH. Roland expressed it this way "4♦. Let me get a major cue bid. We can't stop below 6C, and I will investigate grand slam if I get 2 key cards and ♥K (4H over my 4D). If I get 4♠ (no HK), I'll settle for 6." MikeH was on a similar wavelength: 4♦: slam potential but not enough to drive unilaterally. He may well hold a useless ♦ queen or jack: given that he has no 4 card major and may well be 3=3=3=4, he needs specific cards in the majors for slam to be good: a KQx with the other K plus either 5 trump or (more likely) the ♣K. If partner cues 4♥, I will try 4♠ and expect 4N from partner with anything over a bare minimum: 4N in these auctions should NOT be keycard, and few experts would use it as such. Absent a 4♥ cue or a later 4N over 4♠, I give up in 5♣ (assuming he did not make the improbable 5♦ cue." Beto started with the cue-bid, it is unclear if he will be willing to stop. "4♦, hoping to hear 4♥/♠ and then ask for KC. i cant imagine opps bidding 5♦ with this vulnerability. The last 4♦ cue-bidder was very certain of their slam ambitions. This is what Frances and Jeffrey had to say. 4♦ This does rather need us to have some agreements about the relative meaning of 4NT and 5C from partner (we play 5C as encouraging, 4NT as discouraging), but we can't really think of a sensible alternative. We would play 3-level bids as natural, 4C as non-forcing, 4 major as a splinter and 5D as a void. All of those are misdescriptions, which leaves us with 4D which isn't. We would also play 4NT as natural (although in the context of this auction likely to have long clubs). We realise that probably isn't BBO-Advanced but we don't think that Blackwood would help here either: partner has at least 4-card club support, often 5, so the CK is not really a useful key-card anyway. And if partner does have 2 key-cards we would have no idea how many tricks we are making anyway. We are driving to slam, by the way. " Now we will look at the other choices. Luis thought the vulnerability allowed him to go slow with 3♥ rather than blasting with 4NT or even clarifying slam ambition with a 4♦ cue bid. He explained his choice this way: "3♥, Being Vul vs Not I would have probably bid 4NT expecting the opponents to be in 5d if I try to go slow, as the vulnerability is exactly the opposite I think I might have time to extract information from pd in the slow way. Agreeing in part with Luis was Joker_Gib: 3♥ Trying to collect maximun information below 3NT. 4♦ is possible but it takes a lot of bidding space. However, I doubt Luis has any plans to pass 3NT if partner was to suggest that strain. ng found a bid no one else considered. "5♣. 2D is invitational or better and DENIES 4+ majors, so partner has club support. My hand is very good and slam is possible, but besides a diamond loser we have a likely heart loser also. Tens are good cards in the majors, but need some luck to use them. I think 4C would not be forcing in this situation. 4D is a possible choice, but even in case of partner has a heart control, slam is doubtful." Finally Reisig and Fred both took the bull by the horns with 4NT. Fred explained his decidedly non-scientific reasoning eloquently. "4NT - It is possible that 6♣ has no play, but it is not practical to play short of slam. It is unlikely that we have a grand slam, but it can't really hurt to give partner a chance to bid 7 if he has both of the missing keycards. Any other call is more likely to give you a ethical problem on the next round when partner slowly signs off than it is to help you find out where you really belong. You can't describe this hand and you can't find out exactly what you need to know. This suggests practicality over science and delicacy." So the panel is deeply split. Some like Fred, Richie, Frances and Jeffrey, and I think Luis, more or less committing the hand to slam. Some trying to delicately explore the possibilty, and one signing off in game. I think the scores here don't matter so much since the slam goers are planning on pushing through, regardless. So itis hard to separate luis's 3♥ from fred and Reisigs 4NT and Frances 4♦. Alas, I have to just that, so... 4♦ - 100 (4 votes)4NT - 90 (2 votes)3♥ - 90 (2 votes)5♣ - 30 (1 vote) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 "The two panelist bidding 4♦ but willing to stay out of slam were Roland and MikeH". That's not quite right. I would drive to slam as I said: "4♦. Let me get a major cue bid. We can't stop below 6C". Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Would 4♣ really be not-forcing??? <_< I thought this set trump and wanted to start slam, but it isn't even worth a score ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Would 4♣ really be not-forcing??? <_< I thought this set trump and wanted to start slam, but it isn't even worth a score ;) I would take it as NF, Free. You have all kinds of ways of showing slam interest, but no other way of showing a minimum with extra club length that doesn't want to sell out to 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 "The two panelist bidding 4♦ but willing to stay out of slam were Roland and MikeH". That's not quite right. I would drive to slam as I said: "4♦. Let me get a major cue bid. We can't stop below 6C". Roland Sorry Roland... Sleep deprived here.. I read that sentence a little differently... that is if you didn't get a major cue-bid you would in fact stop short of slam. The other panelist specifically stated they would not stop short (they did not specifify they had to hear a cue-bid come back in a major). I think both you and mike will bid slam if partner cues a major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 The problem I have with keycard here is this: if partner has no keycards slam might actually be _better_ than if he has one or even two. Compare: KQxxKQxQxxxxx where slam is on clubs 1-1, just over 50% with the same hand with either major suit king in clubs.or the same hand with the SK the ace of diamonds. or let's give him 2 keycardsQxxQxxAxKxxxx certainly slam is fair, but hardly cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Would 4♣ really be not-forcing??? <_< I thought this set trump and wanted to start slam, but it isn't even worth a score :(Scroll upwards, Frederic, 4♣ is a weird bid ;) Crazy C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 hey free, don't worry 'bout it... after all, i bid 6♣ on a hand where the grand was probably cold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 lol, natural bidding isn't my best gift B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The problem I have with keycard here is this: if partner has no keycards slam might actually be _better_ than if he has one or even two.I think the plan with 4NT is to find out about 7, not about 6. I am a little surprised that Fred is so pessimistic about finding out whether slam is reasonable. I guess playing 4NT as slam-discouraging as suggested by Frances/Jeffrey would help a lot in that respect; but even with plain BBO adv -- if partner can't cue-bid over 4♦, we probably don't belong in slam and can pass his 5♣ rebid. Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartA Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I remember I voted 4C for two hands only. So I checked my message in my sent folder, and found I voted for 4D. :) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.