This one seems to divide opinion

[Ant590]

Ok, so the following sequence came up in a teams-of-eight match.

 

(2♦*) - 3♣ - (pass) - 4♣

 

* Multi: weak 2 in a major, or strong 2 in a minor, or 20-22 balanced

 

(1) If you sat down with a partner you had not discussed this sequence with, but who you generally trusted to know what you meant in unfamiliar situations, what would you assume it meant?

 

(2) What is the "best" treatment?

 

When you select the "best" treatment, I'd be interested in how you would show the other option(s).

 

Thanks all,

Ant.

[gwnn]

8 ish points, 3-4 clubs, overcaller may pass if he so wishes.

 

btw this is an annoying sequence.

[whereagles]

Invitational seems fair. 'To play' serves no purpose, forcing is probably not necessary and gerber is a death wish.

[Cascade]

Invitational, which obviously depends on your range for 3♣. Advancer here needs to take some risks in bidding 3NT so I also expect that the 4♣ bidder has some distribution so that 5♣ is likely to be a reasonable spot (compared with 3NT) if overcaller raises.

 

Indeed these are the worst auctions against a multi when we have values and the ambiguity remains about their suit and we have a problem in one of the majors.

[whereagles]

Problem in the majors?

 

Fear is teh path to the Dark Side!

[S2000magic]

Invitational seems fair. 'To play' serves no purpose, forcing is probably not necessary and gerber is a death wish.

This about sums up my feelings, though I wouldn't be quite so lenient in my description of Gerber.

[jdeegan]

:P Gerber - all 4♣ bids are Gerber

[phil_20686]

trying to stop in 4m is an absurd use of a bid IMO.

 

In reality if partner has a weak hand and club support he will try to make a probe for 3N in case you are quite strong and the clubs are running.

 

Alternatively, some people play 3D as a moderate to good raise on this sequence.

[gnasher]

Alternatively, some people play 3D as a moderate to good raise on this sequence.

Playing 3♦ as artificial seems sensible, but it's wasteful for it to promise support. I think it's best used either as Stayman or as asking for major-suit stops. With a strong diamond raise, you'll usually be able to bid 3♦ followed by 4♦.

[fromageGB]

Without discussion, no defence to a multi, I think partner will assume it to be invitational. But (given that 3♣ should be a strong bid) I think with an invitational hand I will bid a guard in another suit(s), and if partner refuses to bid 3NT I can then bid 4♣ which must be invitational. So for an immediate 4♣, I think this suggests some clubs in support, some controls, and requests partner to make a slam move.

 

It depends of course on the meaning of 3♣. For me this is the strongest of the 3 ways to bid 3♣ and is almost game forcing. In this context, it is nonsense to have 4♣ as invitational, and therefore has to be a fit bid requesting partner to ask for my controls.

[Finch]

Without discussion it goes in the category of raises in competition being non-forcing, and therefore it's non-forcing.

I happen to play this as forcing in the two partnerships we've discussed it. I agree with gnasher that you should probably play 3D as artificial instead, but we never got that far. As for 'why', it's because you don't have an obvious cue bid available so you have to be able to bid something with a strong hand with club support.

[dake50]

What were 3D,3H,3S over 3C? How would they follow-up?

What's left is 4C.

[aguahombre]

Forget multi for a minute. Whatever the raise means is the same meaning as if there was a 3C overcall of a weak two. 3C is a very good overcall in our world.

 

We treat 4C as Minorwood for clubs. The jokes about Gerber aside, a single raise of the 3m overcall is only needed to invite game if the overcall itself is undisciplined (thus might as well be used for slam probe). "Approach forcing" applies for all non-jump advances of the 3C overcall.

 

Without discussion, Frances probably has it right. We have discussed.

[Phil]

Good problem and I think the only reasonable interpretation is that 4♣ is forcing.

 

Transfers seem to make a lot of sense here.

[gwnn]

Good problem and I think the only reasonable interpretation is that 4♣ is forcing.

 

Transfers seem to make a lot of sense here.

Except you have four suits to transfer to.

[Ant590]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

On the hand, I assumed that it would be forcing in my partnership: clearly a mistake (whatever the "best" meaning is, it's clear that undiscussed this is dangerous), and we ended up with the good-old +170 (seven's on a finesse). Teammates took it surprisingly well - go team!

 

After discussion, 4♦ seemed to be an unused bid on this sequence that could be a forcing club raise, although I like Phil's ideas of transfers, and other Phil's use of 3♦ as various forcing hands.

 

Of course, the problem of finding a forcing raise is even worse when the overcall is 3M...

[gnasher]

Except you have four suits to transfer to.

That's not a problem:

3♦ = hearts

3♥ = spades

3♠ = to play 3NT from partner's side, or a forcing bid of 4m

3NT = to play

4m = non-forcing

 

Edit: If you play the major-suit transfers as game-forcing, they can be 4+ cards - opener jump-completes with four, completes at the three level with 3, and bids 3NT (or 3♠ over 3♦) with two.

Edited December 6, 2011 by gnasher

[aguahombre]

Of course, the problem of finding a forcing raise is even worse when the overcall is 3M...

True, but 3M over 2D probably doesn't need a forcing raise.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing 3♦ as artificial seems sensible, but it's wasteful for it to promise support. I think it's best used either as Stayman or as asking for major-suit stops. With a strong diamond raise, you'll usually be able to bid 3♦ followed by 4♦.

Stayman should be unnecessary, as with clubs and a major it's pretty normal to pass over 2♦ then bid clubs second time after opener reveals his suit to show clubs and the other major.

[mcphee]

Not having a chat over this I would treat the raise as invitational. 3D should be a probe which allows room to locate 4-4 major fits. Same theory applies when partner opens 2C and uncontested your 2D response gets 3C from the strong hand. 3D leave you the required space to locate the 4-4 major.

[Vampyr]

 

We treat 4C as Minorwood for clubs. The jokes about Gerber aside...

 

My partner and I have not discussed this auction, but since we play that 4♣ is often RKCB as well, this is a situation where we might play it. I am not sure why everyone is so negative about this treatment -- if you with to use 4♣ as forcing, then using it as RKCB is not ridiculous.

 

Stayman should be unnecessary, as with clubs and a major it's pretty normal to pass over 2♦ then bid clubs second time after opener reveals his suit to show clubs and the other major.

 

This is one reason that weak-only Multi is gaining in popularity.

[whereagles]

:P Gerber - all 4♣ bids are Gerber

 

ye infidel!! to the gallows!!!

[gnasher]

Stayman should be unnecessary, as with clubs and a major it's pretty normal to pass over 2♦ then bid clubs second time after opener reveals his suit to show clubs and the other major.

It may have been normal 25 years ago in England, but I don't think the rest of the world took much notice of this idea, and I don't think it's stood the test of time anywhere.

 

How do you show clubs and spades after

  2♦ pass 2♠ pass

  4♥

[fromageGB]

My partner and I have not discussed this auction, but since we play that 4♣ is often RKCB as well, this is a situation where we might play it. I am not sure why everyone is so negative about this treatment -- if you with to use 4♣ as forcing, then using it as RKCB is not ridiculous.

I'm pretty negative about it, because normally with partner making a very strong bid like this he is the one with a long suit, and you are just a willing helper with some controls. It won't do you any good to ask for aces because you will not be in a position to know how many tricks are there for the taking. Are you going to guess whether partner has 6 clubs? Or 8? Only he knows, so he is the one who should be ace asking. But you need to tell him to ask.

[JLOGIC]

trying to stop in 4m is an absurd use of a bid IMO.

 

 

Not trying to pick on you or anything, this is a common argument, but I hate it and find it terribly flawed. The point of inviting, whether its 2N or 4m, is to try to get to game if it is good, and otherwise stop in a partial. Of course nobody ever wants to play 2N or 4m, but if the other option is to miss games when they're good, or play games that are bad, I'll choose to play it.

 

I would not describe an invitational 4m bid as "trying to stop in 4m" I would describe it as "trying to find game when it is good, and play partscore when game is bad, with partner evaluating somewhat intelligently"