How about this one?

[blackshoe]

Partner opens 3♠, opponents are passing. What does your 4♦ mean? 5♦ would be to play.

[Hanoi5]

I have never discussed this, I'd take it as natural and forcing but I know some people who use it as an asking. Maybe since 5♦ is natural to play this last meaning makes more sense.

[campboy]

I suppose technically I play it as control asking -- though it is asking for a control in clubs, since that is what I have denied. 4♣ would show a control in clubs, and ask partner to show a red-suit control. 4♥ is to play.

 

(LOL, have now voted and seen the results. I hope the people voting on the two polls are pretty much disjoint, otherwise there are a worrying number of people playing both 4♦ and 5♦ as natural.)

[whereagles]

CAB

[gnasher]

(LOL, have now voted and seen the results. I hope the people voting on the two polls are pretty much disjoint, otherwise there are a worrying number of people playing both 4♦ and 5♦ as natural.)

I play both 4♦ and 5♦ as natural. I'm sorry if that worries you.

 

5♦ says "I want to try to make eleven tricks with diamonds as trumps". 4♦ says "I have diamond length, and I'm uncertain about strain, level or both."

[mike777]

Partner opens 3♠, opponents are passing. What does your 4♦ mean? 5♦ would be to play.

NATURAL

 

4C OVER 3S WOULD BE ACE ASKING, rkcb.

[jdonn]

(LOL, have now voted and seen the results. I hope the people voting on the two polls are pretty much disjoint, otherwise there are a worrying number of people playing both 4♦ and 5♦ as natural.)

I believe those people are called bridge players with completely standard agreeements!

[bluecalm]

I hope the people voting on the two polls are pretty much disjoint, otherwise there are a worrying number of people playing both 4♦ and 5♦ as natural.

 

Imagine that over 1♦ opening we play all the 1♥/2♥/3♥/4♥/5♥/6♥/7♥ bids as showing heartsl !

Being a little disjont after 3M doesn't worry my at all...

[campboy]

Ok, so what is the difference between bidding 4♦ (natural and forcing) then 5♦ and bidding 5♦ direct?

[jdonn]

You bid 4♦ natural because you want partner to be involved.

 

You bid 5♦ natural because you don't want partner to be involved (or your opponent with a 4♥ bid).

 

Do most not play 1♣ (1♦) 4♠ is natural even though 1♠ is natural and forcing?

[gnasher]

5♦ directly is what I'd do if I knew I wanted to play in 5♦, and didn't want to give away information about partner's hand.

 

4♦ followed by 5♦ implies that I might have chosen a different final contract if partner had done something other than what he actually did. For example:

- If it goes 4♦-4♠;5♦, it's likely that I would have bid a slam opposite some more encouraging rebid.

- If it does 4♦-5♣;5♦ I might have been planning to pass 4♠, or I might have been planning to make a stronger move opposite a 4♥ bid.

 

This is like asking what the difference is between

  1♥-1♠

  1NT-4♠

and

  1♥-4♠

Both 4♠ bids are to play, but the slower route implies that earlier in the auction there was a possibility of another contract.

[the hog]

Natural and forcing for me. 4C on the other hand would be an ask.

[Pict]

So guys,

 

Does 'Forcing natural' mean you have no agreements about openers rebid?

 

Or what is your expectation and why not mention it instead of pointlessly attacking Campboy.

[campboy]

I didn't feel pointlessly attacked :) I said something contentious and others are defending the idea that both bids can be natural.

 

Anyway, if partner will pass after 3♠ - 4♦ - something - 5♦ with essentially the same hands on which he will pass after 3♠ - 5♦, there seems little point in following the latter route. I do not think this is at all like 1♥ - 4♠ where the difference in pre-emptive effect between fast and slow is massive. On the other hand, if the slow route encourages partner to bid on with hands where he might have passed an immediate 5♦ then you are essentially using the 5♦ response to improve your ability to investigate 6♦ after partner opens 3♠; it seems more sensible to me, on frequency grounds, to use it artificially in order to improve your ability to investigate 6♠.

[gnasher]

Does 'Forcing natural' mean you have no agreements about openers rebid? 

I don't have any specific agreements with anyone about what opener's rebids mean, but I don't need to, because the default meanings are both obvious and adequate for such a rare sequence. 4♠ and 5♦ would be to play, and any new suit would be agreeing diamonds and showing a control, usually shortage.

 

Or what is your expectation and why not mention it instead of pointlessly attacking Campboy.

I expect Campboy can look after himself, but I doubt if he feels "attacked" because he expressed an opinion, a few people disagreed with his opinion, he asked a followup question, and he received replies that were intended as both informative and civil.

[Siegmund]

Absent any agreement,I would assume natural and forcing.

 

Given the time to make sensible agreements, 4-level CAB is my preference, so I voted for that.

[hanp]

Natural, forcing.

[jdonn]

Anyway, if partner will pass after 3♠ - 4♦ - something - 5♦ with essentially the same hands on which he will pass after 3♠ - 5♦, there seems little point in following the latter route.

You are missing the point that if you start with 4♦ you are not going to rebid 5♦ over everything partner does.

 

If you jump to 5♦ directly partner will always pass because you have said you want to play 5♦ no matter what he has. If you bid 4♦, partner bids something (the part you keep overlooking), and then you bid 5♦, partner will always pass because you have said you want to play 5♦ based on the something he bid over 4♦.

[whereagles]

1. You bid 4♦ natural because you want partner to be involved.

 

(...)

 

2. Do most not play 1♣ (1♦) 4♠ is natural even though 1♠ is natural and forcing?

1. Involved into what? Pard is already very limited in terms of strength and shape. I would agree if it were

 

3m 3M

 

because then there's game in sight. But 3M 4m is slammish and those are far more rare than 4M games. Or than 6M slams after a 3M bid, for that matter.

 

Still, I don't object to it being natural.

 

 

2. That's a situation similar to 3m 3/4M, though this time responder is supposed to have a dead min preempt (so as not to make opener, who has a pretty wide range too nervous).

[gnasher]

You are missing the point that if you start with 4♦ you are not going to rebid 5♦ over everything partner does.

 

If you jump to 5♦ directly partner will always pass because you have said you want to play 5♦ no matter what he has. If you bid 4♦, partner bids something (the part you keep overlooking), and then you bid 5♦, partner will always pass because you have said you want to play 5♦ based on the something he bid over 4♦.

I think Campboy's point is that if you want to play in 5♦ you can always bid 4♦ followed by 5♦. Therefore he can afford to use 5♦ as something else.

 

It seems doubtful to me that the gain from having that something else available outweighs the loss in the form of information leakage when it goes 4♦-something-5♦. Apart from anything else, on some of the hands where we were making five for sure but six if partner controlled a particular side suit, I would just bid slam and see how good at leading they were.

 

Still, we're talking about such rare hands that I don't have enough data to judge. I can't remember ever wanting to bid any number of diamonds opposite a 3♠ opener, for any purpose.

Edited June 26, 2010 by gnasher

[Finch]

I agree with all of gnasher's points (it had to happen eventually).

I play 4C as an ace-ask in response to a pre-empt - I'm only telling you that as further evidence that I rarely feel the need to bid a minor naturally.

 

But I have not felt the lack of an artificial diamond bid either.

 

I do play 5m in response to 4M as a cue bid, but a 3S opening is slightly less committal to the major than a 4S opening.

[campboy]

Ah yes, I hadn't considered that 4♣ might be artificial even though 4♦ isn't. If you play 4♣ as RKC then you can bid 4♣ followed by 5♦ as a control-ask in diamonds; in that case I agree that 3♠ - 5♦ should be natural.

[Pict]

Interesting conversation, but I still feel short-changed by the strong players.

 

I've opened 3S and pard bids 4D (Natural and forcing).

 

What do I do now and why?

[aguahombre]

Interesting conversation, but I still feel short-changed by the strong players.

 

I've opened 3S and pard bids 4D (Natural and forcing).

 

What do I do now and why?

Suggest first look at the hand you opened 3S with, then refer to Gnasher's suggested follow-ups --which seem as good as any for the high level of the auction.

 

Or, maybe you were implying that Gnasher was other than a strong player :angry:

[Pict]

Interesting conversation, but I still feel short-changed by the strong players.

 

I've opened 3S and pard bids 4D (Natural and forcing).

 

What do I do now and why?

Suggest first look at the hand you opened 3S with, then refer to Gnasher's suggested follow-ups --which seem as good as any for the high level of the auction.

 

Or, maybe you were implying that Gnasher was other than a strong player :angry:

Aqua - I failed to find the relevant Gnasher post (why would it matter if it were a Gnasher post? This is a rare situation: do you have an agreement?.. does Gnasher?)

 

I could understand (eg):

 

4H control

 

4S nothing

 

5C control

 

5D A/K non-single

 

But then I wouldn't say 4D was natural - would you?

 

But then how do I know as opener whether I am answering a hand that can play spades or only diamonds?