What is 4C?

[kgr]

Not 2/1; 2♦ is not GF and 2♠ can be 5c♠ with less then GF:

1♠-2♦

2♠-3♥

4♣

What is 4♣ here?

 

 

(BTW: Can opener bid 2♠ with a minimal hand and 64xx & is responder promising a 4c♥?)

 

Edit: 1S-2D-3D would also be GF

[kenrexford]

Presumably stiff club with power diamond raise contextually. Maybe 6331 with maximum for a minimum.

[ahydra]

2S for me is 5+S 12-15 HCP. Denies 4+H.

3H is 4+H GF

4C is therefore a maximum, but with what? Who knows. He can't have hearts (else 2H not 2S), he can't have diamonds (else 4D), and he can't have clubs (else NT). So it shows 6111 and 4 cards in the Baker family. :P

 

Hmm, he might actually have clubs since he couldn't bid them over 2D. Since 4C is useless with only 4, since responder can't have 4 clubs, I'll say it shows 6205-type shape and 12-15 HCP.

 

ahydra

[kgr]

In fact I wondered if this could be anything else then a ♣-cue with ♦-support & 4♦ would deny a ♦-control.

[Free]

- can't be ♦ fit, otherwise he can just bid 4♦ (or would've raised previous round)

- can't be ♥ fit, otherwise he would've bid 2♥ instead of 2♠

- can't be Gerber because it's in A/E

 

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Arthur Conan Doyle

 

I guess natural is the only remaining, so I guess a minimum with 6-6.

[kenrexford]

Why is everyone forcing Opener to bid 4♦ just because he has diamond support? As diamonds is the only suit he actually can have a fit for, and as Opener just bypassed 3NT, it sounds like he has diamonds. If he must have diamonds to enter the four-level, then all bids agree diamonds.

[Poky]

4♣ = nothing special

 

Opener probably has some 6124 hand offering responder to pick a game.

[mikeh]

4♣ = nothing special

 

Opener probably has some 6124 hand offering responder to pick a game.

 

Why wouldn't that hand bid either 3♠ or 3N (depending on relative black suit strengths)?

[mikeh]

At the risk of causing Ken to rethink his answers, I am almost going to agree with him.

 

Opener cannot hold enough hearts to want to make an inferential cue in support of hearts.

 

Opener cannot be showing clubs....there is virtually zero chance that the partnership can have a playable club fit at this juncture and, if they do, that they can or should be looking for it. Yes, 6-6 is 'possible' but 6-6 should either not have opened to start with or should bid 3♣ over 2♦ (I mean, shape does count for something) or should give up on clubs. Catering to 6-6 hands in your bidding methods means wasting a lot of energy....when was the last time you held one, and got to open the bidding and the opps didn't interfere?

 

Opener cannot be probing for 3N....he just went by it

 

Opener can't be cuebidding in support of his own spade suit....he'd bid 3♠ either the round before or this time.

 

So....drumroll.....he is raising diamonds.

 

Where I differ from Ken is in my view of his club holding. I see no reason to assume that he has shortness: 6=1=3=3/6=3=3=1 are equally consistent.

 

What I think he is showing is extra values, 3+ diamond support (rarely + since with 5=4 he'd have raised and 6=4 would imply side shortness and he might have splintered rather than rebid spades), and a club control.....probably the Ace, altho that wouldn't be cast in stone with me.....it could be a stiff or the K.

[ArtK78]

One does not always bid a 4 card heart suit when partner makes a 2/1 in a minor over one's spade opening. Consider:

 

AQJxxxx Kxxx -- Ax

 

I would rebid 2♠ intending to bid hearts next. However, when partner surprises by bidding 3♥, it makes sense to bid 4♣ here as a cue in support of hearts.

 

There are other possibilities. One might bid 5♦ if partner would interpret it as exclusion RKCB for hearts. But that is precipitous, as partner could have the death hand from your point of view:

 

xx Qxxx AKQJxx x

 

In any event, I think the 4♣ bid shows a super hand for hearts on this auction. I do not believe that it promises the ♣A.

[mikeh]

One does not always bid a 4 card heart suit when partner makes a 2/1 in a minor over one's spade opening. Consider:

 

AQJxxxx Kxxx -- Ax

 

I would rebid 2♠ intending to bid hearts next. However, when partner surprises by bidding 3♥, it makes sense to bid 4♣ here as a cue in support of hearts.

 

There are other possibilities. One might bid 5♦ if partner would interpret it as exclusion RKCB for hearts. But that is precipitous, as partner could have the death hand from your point of view:

 

xx Qxxx AKQJxx x

 

In any event, I think the 4♣ bid shows a super hand for hearts on this auction. I do not believe that it promises the ♣A.

The 'standard' method of bidding 6-4 hands was to bid 6-6-4 with weak hands and 6-4-6 with strong. Since I think all would agree that 4♣ shows a strong hand, regardless of the specific meaning, it seems to me that it shouldn't be a strong 6=4 majors....with your example, I would bid 2♥ then (if appropriate) 3♠.

 

And if I had a weak 6=4, I might bid 2♠ but then I'd bid 4♥ over 3♥.

 

I think the current trend is towards bidding hearts here anyway, but I admit I may be wrong (What I mean is that I admit that the chances that I am wrong are even greater than usual).

 

Note that we are all, it seems, assuming that responder has 4 hearts.....xx AKx KQJxx xxx our bid over 2♠ is?

[kenrexford]

At the risk of causing Ken to rethink his answers, I am almost going to agree with him.

 

Opener cannot hold enough hearts to want to make an inferential cue in support of hearts.

 

Opener cannot be showing clubs....there is virtually zero chance that the partnership can have a playable club fit at this juncture and, if they do, that they can or should be looking for it. Yes, 6-6 is 'possible' but 6-6 should either not have opened to start with or should bid 3♣ over 2♦ (I mean, shape does count for something) or should give up on clubs. Catering to 6-6 hands in your bidding methods means wasting a lot of energy....when was the last time you held one, and got to open the bidding and the opps didn't interfere?

 

Opener cannot be probing for 3N....he just went by it

 

Opener can't be cuebidding in support of his own spade suit....he'd bid 3♠ either the round before or this time.

 

So....drumroll.....he is raising diamonds.

 

Where I differ from Ken is in my view of his club holding. I see no reason to assume that he has shortness: 6=1=3=3/6=3=3=1 are equally consistent.

 

What I think he is showing is extra values, 3+ diamond support (rarely + since with 5=4 he'd have raised and 6=4 would imply side shortness and he might have splintered rather than rebid spades), and a club control.....probably the Ace, altho that wouldn't be cast in stone with me.....it could be a stiff or the K.

 

To me, 4♣ shows 6331 but 4♥ shows 6133.

[kgr]

To me, 4♣ shows 6331 but 4♥ shows 6133.

I would think that 4♥ is to play.

What do you bid with AQJTxx=xxxx=Kx=Q

[kenrexford]

I would think that 4♥ is to play.

What do you bid with AQJTxx=xxxx=Kx=Q

 

I bid 2♥ if playing STD AM.

 

But, if I were to agree to play that 2♠ might conceal a 4-card heart suit, then I would need to handle that problem. In that event I would use a 4♠ jump as the replacement:

 

1♠-2♦

2♠-3♥

?

 

3♠ = natural

3NT = natural

4♣ = 6331

4♦ = natural

4♥ = 64xx natural

4♠ = 6133

[JLOGIC]

nevermind didn't see that it was standard and not 2/1.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

What is 3♥?

It seems to me that there is a "cheaper" way to force .

 

1S - 2D ( 1RF )

2S - 3C! ( cheapest-bid new suit forcing, could be artificial )

??

...3D ( 3 cards ♦ )

...3H ( 4 cards ♥ )

...3S ( ♣-stop(s), possible 4 cards ♣ )

..3NT ( no 4h, but have ♥-stop(s) )

 

The direct 3H by Responder over 2S takes away 2 useful replies at an economical level .

 

Maybe the direct 3H by Responder should show a freak 6d/5h ?

[Fluffy]

3♥ shows hearts or GF with diamonds without club stopper.

[gszes]

from what I read about system 2s is passable.

If this is not true then kindly disregard the

remander of ths diatribe.

 

Opener cannot have a good hand period-- some bid

other than 2s is required.

 

It is impossible, within the constraints of your

system, to gather simple information like current

distribution. You may want to at least make a 2/1

bid forcing to 2n and that way opener can make

simple distributional calls like 2h with a 64

and not be concerned about gettng passed out

or promising extra values.

 

Your 3h bid could either be hearts or merely

heart stuff looking for 3n. Since opener cant

be sure you have hearts I would suggest that the

4c bid is showing shortness with dia support.

 

this is the type of problem created when a weak

hand has too many constraints on how it can

describe distribution. good luck.

[kgr]

from what I read about system 2s is passable.

If this is not true then kindly disregard the

remander of ths diatribe.

...

We play that 2♠ is forcing.

[kgr]

The hand that triggered the question:

[hv=pc=n&s=sak832ha32dt53cj2&n=sqhkqj4dakqj2ct43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s(Sayc)p2dp2s(forcing%2C%20mostly%20less%20then%2015%20pts)p3hp4dp4n(RKC)p5h(2%20of%205%2C%20no%20DQ)p6dppp]266|200[/hv]

Opps cashed 2♣ tricks.

We wondered if 4♦ (iso 4♣) already denied a ♣-control

[Free]

Opener cannot be showing clubs....there is virtually zero chance that the partnership can have a playable club fit at this juncture and, if they do, that they can or should be looking for it. Yes, 6-6 is 'possible' but 6-6 should either not have opened to start with or should bid 3♣ over 2♦ (I mean, shape does count for something) or should give up on clubs. Catering to 6-6 hands in your bidding methods means wasting a lot of energy....when was the last time you held one, and got to open the bidding and the opps didn't interfere?

Opener doesn't have to be 6-6 to have a playable ♣ fit. He can be 5-5 and responder can easily have a 1=4=5=3. So calling it "virtually zero chance" is exaggerated. Whether the partnership should stop looking for the ♣ fit is another story, definitely. Btw, finding this 5-3 fit isn't that hard, because responder can bid 4♣ after opener's signoff in 3NT. It's definitely debatable imo what it should be.

 

It also depends on your slam methods. For example, if you expect partner to Blacky whenever he doesn't hold all controls (like he did - why didn't he just cue 4♥?), then 4♣ better be cue. If you play Kickback Turbo it's not a problem to play 4♣ natural. B-)

[Poky]

We wondered if 4♦ (iso 4♣) already denied a ♣-control

4♦ doesn't deny anything, just shows diamond fit.

4NT bid was bad.

[kenrexford]

4♦ doesn't deny anything, just shows diamond fit.

4NT bid was bad.

 

Well, 4♦ denies a club control if playing with Mike and denies 6331 if playing with me. But, otherwise 4♦ is fairly non-committal.

 

4NT being "bad" is true. But, the question is what to do otherwise. If 4NT is RKCB, and if 4♥ would offer strain, then two plausible courses seem good.

 

 

1. Low road. If Responder wants to shoot low, 4♥ is a reasonable call, playable opposite Hxx. As Opener actually has that, 4♥ will be passed and seems like a good contract.

 

 

2. High road. If Responder wants to pursue the slam, he bids 4♠, which IMO should be a cue. When Opener cannot cue clubs, this results in an inferior 5♦ contract.

 

2B. High road, option #2. If 4♠ is by partnership also a plausible strain offer, then Responder has to bid 5♣ as an asking bid, kind of like Last Train, contextually denying a club control and hence requiring one. Again, 5♦ ends up the inferior contract.

[han]

What would people rebid after 1S - 2D - 2S - 3H holding AJ10xxx AQx Kx xx? Any votes for 4H?

[gnasher]

What would people rebid after 1S - 2D - 2S - 3H holding AJ10xxx AQx Kx xx? Any votes for 4H?

I'd want to bid Fourth Suit Forcing.