What Does 4cl Mean?

[Finch]

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.

Certainly, if partner actually has a game forcing hand then playing 2H as forcing to game is superior. Opener can make a descriptive rebid without having to jump in order to show extra values.

 

The same is true in many other positions.

- playing 2/1 as game forcing helps to to the right contract when responder has a game force.

- playing 4th suit game forcing at the 2-level helps to get to the right contract when responder has a game force

 

I could go on.

 

On all of these auctions, giving examples of how much easier it is to bid the hand when partner has forced to game is only half of the story. Of course you will get the right contract more often (a lot? slightly? a matter of opinion) when there is a game force opposite.

 

But you will get to the wrong contract a lot more often when responder has invitational values with both majors.

 

It's a balance between whether it's more common to have a invite or a game force (a game force) against how well you can show your hand (with a game force you can usually survive, with an invite you will have to make a big distortion).

 

Playing 2H as game forcing leaves responder with only two invitational bids: 2NT or 3C to cover all his invitational hands (plus either 2S or 3S depending on your jump shift style).

 

Personally, because I open or rebid NT with a 2245, I would rather swap to playing 2D as a totally artificial game force over a 2C rebid and make 2H natural and non-forcing, than have to play 2H as forcing.

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

 

Before that we played 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥ as NF, and 2♦ as conv. inv+. I still do in other partnerships.

 

In the auction given I agree 4♣ shows a hand with a long suit, unsuited for 3NT and too weak to jump to 3♣ last round.

[matmat]

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.

with suits this pure i'd think about reversing.

[han]

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

Hi Harald, would you elaborate on this, I haven't seen it before.

 

For example, is 1C-1H-2C-2H non-forcing with 4-5 in the majors? Or is 2M an artificial GF and are the transfers only up to 2M-1? Or maybe different from both?

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner we play transfers after 1♣-1M-2♣. (We use transfer responses to 1♣ as well, so M in fact is M-1.)

Hi Harald, would you elaborate on this, I haven't seen it before.

 

For example, is 1C-1H-2C-2H non-forcing with 4-5 in the majors? Or is 2M an artificial GF and are the transfers only up to 2M-1? Or maybe different from both?

After 1♣-1♦(♥)-2♣:

2♦=trf to 2♥, 6+♥, constructive+ (we use weak/strong transfer JS)

2♥=trf to ♠, 4-5 inv+

2♠=bal inv+

2NT=♣ support inv+

3♣=5♥4+♦ GF