Ho Hum...

[hrothgar]

You're playing a pretty basic 2/1 system

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=skq9ht986daqj6cqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction

 

(3♣) - P - (P) - 3♠

(P) - ????

 

You decide to pass RHO's 3♣ preempt.

Partner balanced with 3♠

You now have to decide what to do

[655321]

No, I already doubled 3♣.

 

Now I would bid 4♣ on the way to 4♠.

[Jlall]

4c

[mtvesuvius]

4♣, I would have also doubled.

[TimG]

I think 4♣ is a non-specific high-card raise to 4♠, that is, it does not promise a club control.

 

I'm having a little trouble coming up with a hand without spade support that would want to bid 4♦ after not having acted over 3♣. (A bad hand with long diamonds would just pass over both 3♣ and 3♠, right?) I suspect a good argument could be made that 4♦ should be some sort of fit bid or cue-bid in support of spades, but I would not expect to be on solid footing if partner and I had not specifically discussed this.

 

EDIT: funny, four posts advocate for 4♣; four poll votes and only one of them is for 4♣...and that one is mine.

[andy_h]

Agree with 655321

[P_Marlowe]

4S.

 

Maybe slam is on, but against this stands the fact, that the 3S bid

occurred in the pass out seat, it wont be complete crap, but it

wont be based on a big hand either, and the Queen of clubs is

wasted.

4C wont hurt, although responder may be able to X 4C telling partner

to (not) lead clubs, which wont be often helpful for the defence, but

it may.

 

All in all I would simply bid game and be done with the hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

I would have doubled first but right now I bid 4♠. Is 4♣ some sort of Zia's cue-bid?

[gwnn]

No, it's sort of like

 

1♥-1♠-p-2♥

or

1♠-2♥-3♥

or

1♠-3♣-4♣

 

non jump cue of their suit=good raise

[skjaeran]

I'd have doubled last time.

 

Now I've got an easy 4♣ cuebid, showing a good high card raise to 4♠ without showing or denying a club control.

 

I'm too good for a simple raise here, even though partner just balanced, we could easily make slam here.

[ArtK78]

Maybe I am alone, but I agree with the pass over 3♣. Not only is the hand very minimal for a double (sub-minimal in my opinion if you ignore the ♣Q), but you lack 4 spades. A direct action over the double should be better than this.

 

I raise to 4♠. If partner had a very good hand, he would have done more than balance with 3♠.

 

I hope we make 10 tricks.

[jdonn]

4♣ of course. We could have slam even though it's not too likely, but having already passed it would be kind of silly to not cuebid. Axxxxxx Axx Kx x. Axxxxx AQ Txx Ax. If partner has a hand where 10 tricks are a struggle then we have lost nothing, so those hands existing doesn't really matter.

[Apollo81]

I would definitely double on the previous round opposite an unpassed partner, and would definitely pass opposite a passed partner.

 

Here it's clear to bid 4♣; even though the ♣Q is likely worthless, it might not be, and your hand can't be that much better anyhow. However I would probably not cooperate with a 4red cuebid, I would retreat to 4♠.