Should this pass be forcing?

[mgoetze]

1♣-(3♠)-4♣-(4♠)

 

1♣ was clubs or balanced.

We had not specifically discussed 4♣, but both agreed it should show 6+ clubs.

 

Should pass by opener now be forcing?

[MrAce]

No

[gnasher]

No.

[Fluffy]

No..

[mikeh]

No

 

 

a pass ought not to be forcing beyond the level to which our partnership is committed. Here, 4♣ was non-forcing so we beyond our level of force, and all passes are non-forcing.

[awm]

While I agree with Mikeh in principle, its not totally obvious to me that 4C should be non-forcing. Surely if 1C were unbalanced partner is bidding 5C, and all the arguments for a competitive NF 4C opposite a balanced hand would also seem to apply to 4D...

[mgoetze]

I was indeed considering a followup question whether Mike would also consider 4♦ to be nonforcing. :) Honestly I'm having trouble making up my mind whether they should be, but in any case 4♣ and 4♦ would be treated the same by our general agreements.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't 3C 6 clubs? Reading comprehension test FAILED

[helene_t]

Isn't 3C 6 clubs?

Yes but if opps don't accept it you will have to correct to 4♣ anyway so it's the same thing :)

[gszes]

NO

 

There is nothing about 4c that even remotely approaches the concept that our side

has the balance of power. FP is based on that very concept and it is completely

absent during this auction. The 4c bid has a rather huge range and therein lies the

problem. Opener has no clue if responder is the more balanced stronger version or

the more distributional (wanting to merely compete) weaker version.

 

As an aside I would treat 4d as forcing since I would much rather make slam exploration

possible than worry about getting too high opposite a quicktrickless? opener. the 4d

bid should provide a long strong suit while a 4c bid need not have one since p has generally

already promised 3 so Kxxxxx can make a great 4c bid (with other stuff) while it would be

a horrific 4d bid.

[PhilKing]

I don't think it's right to play 4♣ as showing clubs at all when playing a 2+ club . Playing it as NF is trying to land in a pinhead and if you have a raise to game, there are other options available. My strong preference is to play 4♣ as showing hearts (good 13+ with 6+ hearts), and 4♥ directly as weaker.

 

Amongst the hands that are prepared to bypass 3NT, one-suited wth hearts is the most important, and the one on which you are most likely to stretch.

 

To summarise, my structure is:

 

4♣ = hearts, 13+

4♦ = nat GF

4♥ = nat, limited

4♠ = clubs plus spade control

4NT = slam try clubs, no spade control

5♣ = punt

 

The 4NT and should be reversed, since you might want to reach 6NT at pairs, but some agreements are just a step too far even for me.

 

A good alternative is to play the direct 4♥ as 5H4C choice of contracts and 4♣ as 6+ hearts - we are still ahead of the game with the one suiters and get to resolve the choice of games dilemma that can befuddle prepared club partnerships.

[cherdano]

If natural, 4C should be forcing in my view.

[Phil]

It would suck if 4♠ was the only slam try. Much prefer an artificial structure like philkings.