[Fluffy]

this 4♣ is not forcing IMO, Opener has a 15-17 hand with no ♦ stoppper and good ♣ fit, Nobody in his senses would trty for slam in this aucton without ♦ control, and he would bid 4♦ if he wanted to trry for one.

[kenberg]

I decided not to cast a vote, the reason being that I woould not take the double of 2D as a take-out. I am willing to display my ignorance of this approach by commenting however.

The 3C bid was forced by the TO dbl of 2D. The 3S bid was forced by the bid of 3D. The poor guy bid 1NT willingly but since then has been forced to come up with something twice more. Seems to me it is time to let him off the hook. He could be 3-2-3-5 or even 3-2-4-4 with a six count. Unless you think 3-2-4-4 with a six count should pass the takeout double of 2D. Sooner or later he must be allowed to say "Sorry, I really don't have anything, forgive me."


If he has an ounce extra, he should probably bid 5C since his partner seems to have his heart set on playing a game somewhere. If opener means 4C as a slam try I think he is not properly appreciating the problems his partner may have. But then I didn't think X was for TO and couldn't make any sense of the auction until I read the replies, so my views on this are probably skewed.


Ken

[cnszsun]

luke warm, on Oct 23 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

N-after a No trump bid: (1D) p (1NT) x

I can understand all others except above one, I used to play double as takeout at situation like :"(1X) p (1NT) x ". Am I minority here?

[han]

You are not, I think the whole world (including Klinger) plays this double as take-out.

Perhaps the auction should be 1X-(1NT)-Dbl.

[adhoc3]

Fluffy, on Oct 23 2005, 05:28 PM, said:

this 4♣ is not forcing IMO, Opener has a 15-17 hand with no ♦ stoppper and good ♣ fit, Nobody in his senses would trty for slam in this aucton without ♦ control, and he would bid 4♦ if he wanted to trry for one.

I'm thinking why PD dont bid 4♦(with control) or 4♥(with not control) if he mean forcing? He just need to clarify his intention by quite a clear bid.

So it's non-forcing to me.

I'm curious about if 4♣ is forcing, how would the 'soft landing' going to be?

[luke warm]

cnszsun, on Oct 23 2005, 09:34 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 23 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

N-after a No trump bid: (1D) p (1NT) x

I can understand all others except above one, I used to play double as takeout at situation like :"(1X) p (1NT) x ". Am I minority here?

han is right, i mistyped... his example is the correct one, although even there some prefer to play the x as negative

[Fluffy]

adhoc3, on Oct 24 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

I'm thinking why PD dont bid 4♦(with control) or 4♥(with not control) if he mean forcing? He just need to clarify his intention by quite a clear bid.

I liek these idea, but I've found many missunderstandings with my partners who think 4♥ now offers a different game to play.

Does anyone have good rules to determine if 4 of a major when your fit is in a minor is to sugest a contractof cuebid?

[Al_U_Card]

Hannie, on Oct 23 2005, 12:32 PM, said:

Besides 3S showing some values, I also think that it is natural and suggests playing in a 4-3 fit. I think that opener is 3514, but could have been 4513 before the 4C bid.

Responder has shown a weak hand and opener has asked about D stoppers for NT play. I find the S bid as a sort of trial bid, showing at least a 1/2 stop in D and some useful card in S. Since this is forward going and opener went past the 3NT that was agreed to, then it must be a slam try........certainly with concern over the D suit, he would just bid 5C so responder can Q bid or finish with 4NT and let opener pass or correct to C if he so chooses.

[Trpltrbl]

I play it as forcing.
3♦ set up an almost GF auction, dbl showed a good hand but followed by 3♦ we now have really really good hand.
I could have bid 3♠ after 3♣, to show good hand with nice ♣ support.
If pd would have bid 4♠, I know he is supporting on 3 card suit showing values and willingness to play in 4♠ if I had 4♠.

GBB

[tysen2k]

luke warm, on Oct 23 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

S-Subsequent double of a pass of the same suit: 1D (1H) p (p) 1S (2H) x

Would that suggest this should be penalty?

(1♣) P (2♣) P
(P) Dbl

[luke warm]

i'd say no... on the example given, we know partner has an opening bid, on this one we don't... this would be takeout for me

[Kalvan14]

In my book, 4♣ is not forcing: opener has a reasonably strong hand (probably balanced, see below), and has made a try to play 3NT. Since the partnership lacks a stopper in ♦, opener retreated to 4♣.

Let's start from the beginning:
1♥-(P)-1N-(2♦)-X
My understanding is that this would show a balanced hand (5-3-3-2) and 17 to 19 HCP. What other reason has the opener to double? If he has a "true" penalty double (with ♦), the oppos should have a ♠fit.
If he has a "take-out" double, there is no reason why he should not bid his other suit (or suits).
There is not necessarily a need of a stack of diamonds to penalise 2♦: 24-25 HCP, in 2 balanced or semi-balanced hands and 4-5 diamond cards should be more than enough).
The follow-up bidding is a bit strange: pard bids 3♣ [weak, 6 cards almost guaranteed], and opener tries again with 3♦ [is he bidding his cards twice?], which i believe everyone will interpret as a trial for NT without stopper.
the poor guy in front of him bids 3♠ [which I too take for half a stopper in ♦ - ood bid, btw] and opener finally relents and bids 4♣ [which cannot be forcing: he might bid 4♦, 4♥ or even 5♣. Why should he try to force with the only bid placing the contract in a "safe"haven?]

I wrote the post before voting, and it looks like I'm in the minority. But I do not change my mind: 4♣ cannot be forcing

[jdeegan]

Have to add another vote for non-forcing, but I can see playing it the other way where 3♦ sets an unconditional GF. This is just another version of the old 2/1 conundrum where the players look for 3NT, then bail to four of a minor. IMO he non-forcing bail out is preferable simply because it comes up a lot (I think) more often than needing a forcing 4♣ bid to properly decide whether to bid 5 or 6♣.

[Kalvan14]

jdeegan, on Oct 26 2005, 10:59 AM, said:

Have to add another vote for non-forcing, but I can see playing it the other way where 3♦ sets an unconditional GF. This is just another version of the old 2/1 conundrum where the players look for 3NT, then bail to four of a minor. IMO he non-forcing bail out is preferable simply because it comes up a lot (I think) more often than needing a forcing 4♣ bid to properly decide whether to bid 5 or 6♣.

Maybe the 2/1 GF (unconditional) should have just 1 minor condition attached: forcing up to 4m (which is the way I played it with one of my partners)