What Does 4cl Mean?

[helene_t]

Opps silent. New, hopefully regular, partnership. P is an intelligent but rather traditional Acol player.

 

1♣-1♠

2♣-2♥

4♣

 

2♣ could easily be a 5-card since we almost always open the longest suit and play a 12-14 1NT so an offshape 1NT rebid was not available for minimal hands. Might rebid 1NT on some 15-16 1435/1345 hands, though. A 4♣ rebid would have been a Walsh fragment.

 

2♥ was forcing.

 

For fear of Sceptic locking me up in the nuthouse I'm not saying what I had, just asking what you would prefer to agree with a sensible but traditional p to play this 4♣ as.

 

Related questions: As for opener's 3rd bid, should 3♥ be forcing? Should 3♦ show a good 3♣ bid, a good hand without clear direction, or something else?

[ArtK78]

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse. Something like:

 

x

KQJx

xx

AKJxxx

 

Assuming that 3♥ would have been invitational, 4♣ should show a hand too good for a 4♥ bid.

 

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational. 3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

[kenrexford]

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse. Something like:

 

x

KQJx

xx

AKJxxx

 

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational. 3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

 

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

[ArtK78]

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse.  Something like:

 

x

KQJx

xx

AKJxxx

 

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational.  3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

 

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

With 2=4=1=6 shape and similar strength, opener could rebid 4♦ rather than 4♣. What else would 4♦ mean?

[kenrexford]

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse.  Something like:

 

x

KQJx

xx

AKJxxx

 

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational.  3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

 

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

With 2=4=1=6 shape and similar strength, opener could rebid 4♦ rather than 4♣. What else would 4♦ mean?

2407 or 3406, of course.

[sceptic]

Helene, the nuthouse is the right place for you and that has nothing to do with your bridge :o

[fred]

In the absense of any agreement to the contrary, I would apply the "if an undiscussed bid can be natural it is natural" principle here.

 

The natural meaning of 4C is "an unusually offensive hand with long strong clubs that is not interested in playing 3NT". Maybe something like:

 

void

Jxx

Ax

KQJ10xxxx

 

Yes you could belong in 3NT, but if you keep this possibility open you will never get to show the power of your hand (and you will probably never know if it is right to play in 3NT regardless).

 

Yes you have the offensive strength for a 3C rebid (instead of 2C), but IMO you are asking for trouble if you bid 3C with so little in high cards.

 

Yes you could open some preempt with this hand, but many would not.

 

And you would bid something other than 1C then 2C with this hand or if you would not be willing to go above 3NT, I bet you could construct a similar hand for which you would want to bid 1C then 2C then 4C (natural).

 

I am not suggesting that natural is necessarily best here. My point is that it would be dangerous IMO to assume that an undiscussed 4C was anything other than a natural bid.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Edited: I just realized I made this post based on the assumption that 2H is forcing to game. That is how I play it, but almost certain that is a minority view. If 2H is weaker than that, it becomes harder to think of a hand for which a natural 4C would be appropriate.

Edited January 31, 2008 by fred

[jdonn]

I have made this 4♣ bid myself over a 2NT rebid by partner, on a hand much like Fred's example. I would expect something similar for this auction. I will happily go through life having no bids but 4♥ and 4♦ available for hands I think are for some reason too good for 3♥ on this auction.

[helene_t]

I am glad to see that Fred argues for a natural interpretation (although our 2♥ is probably not GF, just inv+). I had

Ax

x

xx

AQJxxxxx

 

Afterwards I thought 4♣ should show a heart fit somehow.

 

In any case I should not have made it undiscussed. I suppose a 3♣ rebid over 1♠ would have been normal.

[fred]

Related questions: As for opener's 3rd bid, should 3♥ be forcing? Should 3♦ show a good 3♣ bid, a good hand without clear direction, or something else?

You said 2H is forcing and imply it is not forcing to game.

 

But is it a strictly invitational hand or is it invitational or better?

 

If invitational or better, I think there is a lot to be said for playing 3H as forcing and forgetting about stopping on a dime in 3H. Just take the position that if opener has 4-card heart support that you are going to play in game. Yes, you will go down sometimes when you might have been able to stop had 3H been non-forcing, but I suspect you will gain more in various other ways if 3H is forcing.

 

If 2H is strictly an invitational hand then I guess you can afford to play 3H as non-forcing, but I doubt you have that agreement concerning 2H.

 

In either case it makes sense (to me at least) that 3D is at least semi-natural and suggests a hand that is too good to bid a (presumably non-forcing) 3C and not appropriate for a (who-knows-if-forcing) 2NT.

 

I think you should consider finding another way to handle the invitational hands (such as reverse Flannery and/or artificial 2D rebid) and use 2H as a natural game force. If you are unwilling to consider these alternatives, it might well be better to use 2H as game-forcing and not worry about losing a convenient way to show the invitational hand.

 

In general playing bids as "invitational or better" requires a lot of work on the followup auctions. In general I would advise you to take such bids out of your system whenever you can.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

Thanks, Fred.

 

I suppose 2♥ was invitational or better. Acol is full of "not quite forcing" and "not quite game forcing" bids, but at least my p is ok with us playing fsf as GF :o

 

Maybe we could put 2♦ to some creative use, thereby relieving the burden on 2♥?

[fred]

Thanks, Fred.

 

I suppose 2♥ was invitational or better. Acol is full of "not quite forcing" and "not quite game forcing" bids, but at least my p is ok with us playing fsf as GF :o

 

Maybe we could put 2♦ to some creative use, thereby relieving the burden on 2♥?

That is a very popular treatment in North American expert circles, but as far as I can tell there are many variations and none of these are close to being "standard". It seems that each (serious) partnership works out the details for themselves.

 

I have never really given much thought to how such an artificial inv-or-better 2D bid should work (mostly because I have never used it is a serious partnership) so I am not in a position to recommend anything with confidence.

 

Of course this trick doesn't work if opener's suit is diamonds. If you symmetry makes it easier for you to remember what you are playing, you might want to take this into account.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MFA]

I think that 4♣ is natural with long clubs, unsuitable for 3nt.

[Cascade]

I'm with Fred ...

 

without any specific agreement I think 4♣ shows a good hand for 2♣ with extra distribution (length in clubs) and unsuitable for No Trumps - I would expect a void often.

 

Your hand with 8 clubs seems ok to me.

 

We experimented with 2♦ as an artificial force on this auction but unless you are going to give up a natural 2♥ on a similar auction after a 1♦ opening it is a convention that you can only use after one auction or possibly two 1♣ 1Maj; 2♣ ... . We use 2NT as forcing on any auction that begins 1x 1/2y; 2NT (y being a suit but not a jump). I have no doubt that 2♦ is better it gives up less room and allows a natural invitational 2NT at the cost of a natural diamond bid but we found it easier on the memory to use the generic 2NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

natural and forcing to game, which

would mean 14/15 HCP.

The upper limit being hands,which

would have made a 3C jump rebid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I am glad to see that Fred argues for a natural interpretation (although our 2♥ is probably not GF, just inv+). I had

Ax

x

xx

AQJxxxxx

 

Afterwards I thought 4♣ should show a heart fit somehow.

 

In any case I should not have made it undiscussed. I suppose a 3♣ rebid over 1♠ would have been normal.

I would have bid 3C instead of 4C.

With the given hand you cant be sure, that you can

make game,

If partner has a game going hand, he will make

anohther move.

 

To a certain degree, 4C says, you regret not bidding

3C the round before, ... and I think 2C over 1S is the

bid to make.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

fragment in support of a major? B) B)

 

 

I think it should show lots of clubs... Lots and lots of clubs... Very many clubs... ♣♣♣

[Finch]

I think you bid the hand excellently - 4♣ just shows lots and lots of clubs, but not strong enough in high cards to have bid 3♣ the round before.

 

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!

Traditionally the 2♥ bid in Acol was non-forcing, but everyone now plays it as forcing for a round. There's no need to play it as game forcing, invitational or better is easily playable. Opener rebids

 

2S - minimum (false) preference (could be 2236 if you are playing weak NT). NF

2NT - minimum off-shape with diamonds stopped e.g. 1345, 2236. NF

3C - minimum long clubs (choice of 2S or 3C may depend on suit quality). NF

3D - extras in context, no diamond stop, too good for 3S

3H - hearts***

3S - 3-6 in spades and clubs

3NT - maximum for the auction to date, diamonds well stopped

4C - lots and lots and lots of clubs

4D - splinter for hearts, prepared to play there opposite 3 hearts

4H - prepared to play in a 4-3 heart fit

 

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

[whereagles]

If 2♥ were natural, 4♣ is probably some sort of heart raise

If 2♥ were NOT natural (just a force), 4♣ is probably something like Fred's 1st hand.

 

Related issues for opener's 3rd bid:

If 2♥ were nat, 3♥ is a simple NF raise.

If 2♥ were art, 3♥ shows extras and no 3 spades. With a min (say 11-12) bid 2NT.

3♦ should be 4th suit, GF, stopper ask or a good heart raise in case pard goes slammish.

 

Helene, you should REALLY refrain from putting the G-word in the poll B) By the way, with your hand I would probably have bid 5♣ after 1♠.

[helene_t]

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!

Lolol. I do think that we need to be able to show an invitational hand with 5-4 or more majors without forcing to game opposite the typical Acol 10-point openings B) This is especially necessary in a weak-NT context because opener always rebids 2♣ with a 1435 and some 13 points (I would usually rebid 1NT with that hand playing strong 1NT).

[gwnn]

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

 

Why should 3♥ be forcing? Can't 3NT deny 4 hearts anyway?

[Finch]

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

 

Why should 3♥ be forcing? Can't 3NT deny 4 hearts anyway?

If 3H is non-forcing, then you are a bit stuck as opener with, say, a 1435 that would otherwise just want to bid 4H. It's very awkward to have to bid 3D with 4-card heart support as well as other good, directionless hands.

[gwnn]

And just another question then...

 

If neither 2♦ and 2♥ are completely artificial...

 

What can you do with big hands in general and big one suited hands with spades in particular?

[Finch]

And just another question then...

 

If neither 2♦ and 2♥ are completely artificial...

 

What can you do with big hands in general and big one suited hands with spades in particular?

Depends a bit on the rest of your methods.

 

With a big 1-suited spade hand you traditionally respond 2S, strong jump shift. Easy!

 

( If you play weak jump shifts, you play that a jump rebid in spades is forcing (1C - 1S - 2C - 3S) ).

 

With a big hand with a 4-card red suit, you bid the 4-card red suit (F1) over partner's 2C rebid.

 

With a big strong balanced hand, you either invent a red suit or just bid 4NT (natural).

 

With a 5(13)4 you splinter over the 2C rebid.

 

The difficult hands are the ones that these artificial rebids are really invented for - either 5(23)3 or 5(22)4. On the former you usually 'invent' a 2-red suit bid in the 3-card suit, which leads to the debate above - the need to play a raise of the suit as forcing. Playing 2D as artificial solves this problem, and I don't object to it as a playable convention, it just is pretty low on the list of useful things to agree to as it doesn't really come up much and the benefit is marginal. These auctions are very rare - usually opener has rebid 1NT, or rebid in another suit so you have 4SF available.

 

After 1C - 1H - 2C you can safely invent a spade suit as partner can't have 4 of them.

[fred]

I think you bid the hand excellently - 4♣ just shows lots and lots of clubs, but not strong enough in high cards to have bid 3♣ the round before.

 

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!

Traditionally the 2♥ bid in Acol was non-forcing, but everyone now plays it as forcing for a round. There's no need to play it as game forcing, invitational or better is easily playable. Opener rebids

 

2S - minimum (false) preference (could be 2236 if you are playing weak NT). NF

2NT - minimum off-shape with diamonds stopped e.g. 1345, 2236. NF

3C - minimum long clubs (choice of 2S or 3C may depend on suit quality). NF

3D - extras in context, no diamond stop, too good for 3S

3H - hearts***

3S - 3-6 in spades and clubs

3NT - maximum for the auction to date, diamonds well stopped

4C - lots and lots and lots of clubs

4D - splinter for hearts, prepared to play there opposite 3 hearts

4H - prepared to play in a 4-3 heart fit

 

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

It might be easily playable, but you are going to get the wrong contract a lot more often than you will if you play 2H is forcing to game.

 

For example, give opener a hand like this:

 

x

Qxx

KQx

AQJxxx

 

I assume you would bid 3NT with this hand since 2NT would be non-forcing. Of course there is a good chance that 3NT is the right contract but:

 

1) If partner has 5 hearts then it is not unlikely that 4H is a better contract than 3NT and it is not safe for him to bid 4H over 3NT (because you could have 2236 or similar). And if partner has a 5-5 hand that could produce a slam, your 3NT bid will really screw him.

 

If 2H is forcing to game you would bid 2NT leaving room for responder to safely look for a 5-3 heart fit (and look for slam if responder is strong).

 

2) If partner has a hand that could produce a club slam he has to guess whether to bid over 3NT.

 

If 2H is forcing to game you would bid 2NT leaving room for responder to express this message at the 3-level.

 

3) If partner is 6-4 in the majors he might well want to play 4S (or 6S) facing 2-card support. He has to guess how many spades you have if you bid 3NT.

 

Ditto - if 2H is game-forcing then 2NT is forcing and responder can tell his story at the 3-level.

 

Playing 2H as game-forcing also has its downside of course, but I believe the upside is significantly greater, especially at IMPs.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com