Double fit!!!

[cherdano]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa876h65dkt7cq654]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Partner opens, opponents silent:

1D 1S

2C 2D

2H ?[/hv]

What now? Agree with 2♦?

Sorry if I missed a couple of choices.

[gnasher]

I'd have raised 2♣ to 3♣ (unless partner might have a 1=4=5=3 minimum, in which case I'd have bid 3♦). This hand is as good as some 11-counts.

 

When posting a question like this, it would be helpful to tell us 2♥ means. I imagine that some of us would play this as natural, eg a strongish 1444, and some as Fourth Suit Forcing, eg a 2254 17-count without a heart stop.

 

Whatever it means, I'd bid 4♣. The 2♦ preference has turned out quite well.

 

(When I voted, I chose 3♣, because I'm stupid.)

[Guest Jlall]

When posting a question like this, it would be helpful to tell us 2♥ means. I imagine that some of us would play this as natural, eg a strongish 1444, and some as Fourth Suit Forcing, eg a 2254 17-count without a heart stop.

You are playing with me and have no agreements other than 2/1 udca. So we'll let you guess!

 

I like 4C, it seems like the only other choice is to start with 2S but I think I will never play 3N with this hand so I want to clarify my hand type to partner.

[jtfanclub]

I'm saying 3♣. If partner's trying to show a 1-4-4-4, I want to leave 3NT in the picture.

 

If partner believes in fact that 2♥ shows 1-4-4-4 (or 0-4-5-4), then should I shoot him if he interprets 4♣ as Splinter, showing a 5-4-3-1 distribution without enough strength to bid 2♥ over 2♣?

[andy_h]

I agree with 2D the first time round. I would now definitely bid 4C as my hand looks very fitting with partner's. I would be tempted with 5C as well, though I'm not sure what bids distinguish an invitational and a GF sequence? If 3C is signoff, 4C invitational, I guess bidding 2S then later bidding clubs is the GF sequence. So I will choose that road if it's interpreted that way.

With my lack of spade intermediates, 3NT contract isn't in the picture for me.

[Sambolino]

5clubs for me 4cl was first instinct but i think it's hard for p to imagine all the beauty i have

[SoTired]

5C.

 

Why can't partner be 1354. About 16 HCP. Something like x KQx AQxxx AJxx.

 

When partner asks me a question and I know the answer, I give it to him/her.

[pclayton]

4♣ but I might try 2♠ with some of my regulars.

[brianshark]

Oops, I clicked 4D but I meant 4C. Bid what I have. A maximum with Club support.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW I am bidding four forcing clubs

[cherdano]

Damn I knew I didn't give enough options.

[CSGibson]

Is anyone worried that 4 clubs could be a splinter in favor of hearts? I mean, it is possible that responder has a 5-4-3-1 hand that is max for the previous bidding where this would be correct, right? Or would that hand just raise to 3 hearts all the time and expect partner to figure out the shape?

 

I would have rather bid 3 clubs last time, but I understand the choice of 2 diamonds as well.

[OleBerg]

4♣

 

It is so rare that I get to make a value bid, that I cannot resist it.

 

As I consider the bid to be non-forcing, I know I'm a little on the heavy side,

[RichMor]

I think 4♣ (non forcing) is about right. If the Spade ace was in one of the other suits, then 5♣.

 

Can any of the 4♣ (forcing) bidders explain how they went from a non-forcing simple preference - 2♦ - to a forcing Club raise ?

[brianshark]

Despite the fact that you have limited your hand, pard has made an invitational bid, and you have made a bid that shows extras, thereby accepting his invite to game.

 

As an analogy, consider the auction:

 

1♦ - 1♠

1NT - 2♣

3♠

 

so the 1NT rebid limits opener's hand to 12-14, 2♣ is checkback or something, an invitational bid, and 3♠ shows maximum with 3 card support. Since he accepted the invitation, the auction is forcing to game even though 3♠ is below game.

[Sambolino]

that's not a good analogy. here's only one hand limited, in previous deal both were limited

[SoTired]

that's not a good analogy. here's only one hand limited, in previous deal both were limited

Responder was limited but not opener. 1D then rebid 2C is not considered a "limited" bid since it is made on any hand short of a game-forcing jump shift. From a min opener up to about 17 HCP. Opener's 3rd bid now shows a game invitation. Since responder has a max for previous bidding, responder accepts openers invite. It does not make sense that responder wants to show 3 value ranges: 3C, 4C and 5C when responder is 6-9. So 4C must be forcing.

 

I don't see any advantage to bidding 4C rather than 5C. There is no slam here.

 

I thot Brian's description and analogy were perfect.

[mikeh]

I like 4♣. If my spades were xxxx and the ace elsewhere, I'd like 3♠, if partner is a knowledgeable player, but Axxx is wrong for such a call.

[RichMor]

that's not a good analogy. here's only one hand limited, in previous deal both were limited

Responder was limited but not opener. 1D then rebid 2C is not considered a "limited" bid since it is made on any hand short of a game-forcing jump shift. From a min opener up to about 17 HCP. Opener's 3rd bid now shows a game invitation. Since responder has a max for previous bidding, responder accepts openers invite. It does not make sense that responder wants to show 3 value ranges: 3C, 4C and 5C when responder is 6-9. So 4C must be forcing.

 

I don't see any advantage to bidding 4C rather than 5C. There is no slam here.

 

I thot Brian's description and analogy were perfect.

That's a good analysis; opener has a wide range and responder a narrow range after the second round of bidding. When opener makes a game try on the third round responder can either decline or accept.

 

All fine.

 

But why does responder need 2 ways to accept; 4♣ and 5♣ ? Is 4♣ some kind of slam try by a hand with 6-9 HCP ?

 

Most invitational sequences don't allow responder to show "3 value ranges" after opener's invitational call. But this one does so why not take advantage?

[mr1303]

Presumably people presume that 2H is at least semi-natural, thus making a raise to 3H natural-esque as well?

 

Otherwise I see 3H as some sort of 4th suit bid, which looks good to me as it keeps game in 3 strains alive (3NT, 5C and 5D).

 

Or am I sounding like Ken Rexford?

[cherdano]

Presumably people presume that 2H is at least semi-natural, thus making a raise to 3H natural-esque as well?

 

Otherwise I see 3H as some sort of 4th suit bid, which looks good to me as it keeps game in 3 strains alive (3NT, 5C and 5D).

 

Or am I sounding like Ken Rexford?

Even if 2♥ could be artificial, it also could be natural, and 3♥ should be allowed as a suggestion to play in hearts. Even if you wanted to make an artificial force (which I don't think you should - you have 4-card support and a double fit opposite a distributional hand), you can use 2♠ to mark time.