[helene_t]

Opps silent. New, hopefully regular, partnership. P is an intelligent but rather traditional Acol player.

1♣-1♠
2♣-2♥
4♣

2♣ could easily be a 5-card since we almost always open the longest suit and play a 12-14 1NT so an offshape 1NT rebid was not available for minimal hands. Might rebid 1NT on some 15-16 1435/1345 hands, though. A 4♣ rebid would have been a Walsh fragment.

2♥ was forcing.

For fear of Sceptic locking me up in the nuthouse I'm not saying what I had, just asking what you would prefer to agree with a sensible but traditional p to play this 4♣ as.

Related questions: As for opener's 3rd bid, should 3♥ be forcing? Should 3♦ show a good 3♣ bid, a good hand without clear direction, or something else?

[ArtK78]

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse. Something like:

x
KQJx
xx
AKJxxx

Assuming that 3♥ would have been invitational, 4♣ should show a hand too good for a 4♥ bid.

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational. 3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse. Something like:

x
KQJx
xx
AKJxxx

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational. 3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Jan 30 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse.  Something like:

x
KQJx
xx
AKJxxx

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational.  3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

With 2=4=1=6 shape and similar strength, opener could rebid 4♦ rather than 4♣. What else would 4♦ mean?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 30 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 30 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

The only thing that makes sense to me for the 4♣ bid is massive heart support but a hand not worth a reverse.  Something like:

x
KQJx
xx
AKJxxx

I don't claim to be an ACOL expert by any means, but if opener had rebid 3♥ it should be invitational.  3♦ should be a sort of 4th suit call - as you stated it - a good hand without clear direction.

I would almost agree, but I think a necessary tweak is important to note.

I would not expect 1426 pattern. I would expect 2416 pattern.

With 2=4=1=6 shape and similar strength, opener could rebid 4♦ rather than 4♣. What else would 4♦ mean?

2407 or 3406, of course.

[sceptic]

Helene, the nuthouse is the right place for you and that has nothing to do with your bridge

[fred]

In the absense of any agreement to the contrary, I would apply the "if an undiscussed bid can be natural it is natural" principle here.

The natural meaning of 4C is "an unusually offensive hand with long strong clubs that is not interested in playing 3NT". Maybe something like:

void
Jxx
Ax
KQJ10xxxx

Yes you could belong in 3NT, but if you keep this possibility open you will never get to show the power of your hand (and you will probably never know if it is right to play in 3NT regardless).

Yes you have the offensive strength for a 3C rebid (instead of 2C), but IMO you are asking for trouble if you bid 3C with so little in high cards.

Yes you could open some preempt with this hand, but many would not.

And you would bid something other than 1C then 2C with this hand or if you would not be willing to go above 3NT, I bet you could construct a similar hand for which you would want to bid 1C then 2C then 4C (natural).

I am not suggesting that natural is necessarily best here. My point is that it would be dangerous IMO to assume that an undiscussed 4C was anything other than a natural bid.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Edited: I just realized I made this post based on the assumption that 2H is forcing to game. That is how I play it, but almost certain that is a minority view. If 2H is weaker than that, it becomes harder to think of a hand for which a natural 4C would be appropriate.

This post has been edited by fred: 2008-January-30, 18:31

[jdonn]

I have made this 4♣ bid myself over a 2NT rebid by partner, on a hand much like Fred's example. I would expect something similar for this auction. I will happily go through life having no bids but 4♥ and 4♦ available for hands I think are for some reason too good for 3♥ on this auction.

[helene_t]

I am glad to see that Fred argues for a natural interpretation (although our 2♥ is probably not GF, just inv+). I had
Ax
x
xx
AQJxxxxx

Afterwards I thought 4♣ should show a heart fit somehow.

In any case I should not have made it undiscussed. I suppose a 3♣ rebid over 1♠ would have been normal.

[fred]

helene_t, on Jan 30 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

Related questions: As for opener's 3rd bid, should 3♥ be forcing? Should 3♦ show a good 3♣ bid, a good hand without clear direction, or something else?

You said 2H is forcing and imply it is not forcing to game.

But is it a strictly invitational hand or is it invitational or better?

If invitational or better, I think there is a lot to be said for playing 3H as forcing and forgetting about stopping on a dime in 3H. Just take the position that if opener has 4-card heart support that you are going to play in game. Yes, you will go down sometimes when you might have been able to stop had 3H been non-forcing, but I suspect you will gain more in various other ways if 3H is forcing.

If 2H is strictly an invitational hand then I guess you can afford to play 3H as non-forcing, but I doubt you have that agreement concerning 2H.

In either case it makes sense (to me at least) that 3D is at least semi-natural and suggests a hand that is too good to bid a (presumably non-forcing) 3C and not appropriate for a (who-knows-if-forcing) 2NT.

I think you should consider finding another way to handle the invitational hands (such as reverse Flannery and/or artificial 2D rebid) and use 2H as a natural game force. If you are unwilling to consider these alternatives, it might well be better to use 2H as game-forcing and not worry about losing a convenient way to show the invitational hand.

In general playing bids as "invitational or better" requires a lot of work on the followup auctions. In general I would advise you to take such bids out of your system whenever you can.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

Thanks, Fred.

I suppose 2♥ was invitational or better. Acol is full of "not quite forcing" and "not quite game forcing" bids, but at least my p is ok with us playing fsf as GF

Maybe we could put 2♦ to some creative use, thereby relieving the burden on 2♥?

[fred]

helene_t, on Jan 31 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

Thanks, Fred.

I suppose 2♥ was invitational or better. Acol is full of "not quite forcing" and "not quite game forcing" bids, but at least my p is ok with us playing fsf as GF

Maybe we could put 2♦ to some creative use, thereby relieving the burden on 2♥?

That is a very popular treatment in North American expert circles, but as far as I can tell there are many variations and none of these are close to being "standard". It seems that each (serious) partnership works out the details for themselves.

I have never really given much thought to how such an artificial inv-or-better 2D bid should work (mostly because I have never used it is a serious partnership) so I am not in a position to recommend anything with confidence.

Of course this trick doesn't work if opener's suit is diamonds. If you symmetry makes it easier for you to remember what you are playing, you might want to take this into account.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[MFA]

I think that 4♣ is natural with long clubs, unsuitable for 3nt.

[Cascade]

I'm with Fred ...

without any specific agreement I think 4♣ shows a good hand for 2♣ with extra distribution (length in clubs) and unsuitable for No Trumps - I would expect a void often.

Your hand with 8 clubs seems ok to me.

We experimented with 2♦ as an artificial force on this auction but unless you are going to give up a natural 2♥ on a similar auction after a 1♦ opening it is a convention that you can only use after one auction or possibly two 1♣ 1Maj; 2♣ ... . We use 2NT as forcing on any auction that begins 1x 1/2y; 2NT (y being a suit but not a jump). I have no doubt that 2♦ is better it gives up less room and allows a natural invitational 2NT at the cost of a natural diamond bid but we found it easier on the memory to use the generic 2NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

natural and forcing to game, which
would mean 14/15 HCP.
The upper limit being hands,which
would have made a 3C jump rebid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Jan 30 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I am glad to see that Fred argues for a natural interpretation (although our 2♥ is probably not GF, just inv+). I had
Ax
x
xx
AQJxxxxx

Afterwards I thought 4♣ should show a heart fit somehow.

In any case I should not have made it undiscussed. I suppose a 3♣ rebid over 1♠ would have been normal.

I would have bid 3C instead of 4C.
With the given hand you cant be sure, that you can
make game,
If partner has a game going hand, he will make
anohther move.

To a certain degree, 4C says, you regret not bidding
3C the round before, ... and I think 2C over 1S is the
bid to make.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

fragment in support of a major?


I think it should show lots of clubs... Lots and lots of clubs... Very many clubs... ♣♣♣

[FrancesHinden]

I think you bid the hand excellently - 4♣ just shows lots and lots of clubs, but not strong enough in high cards to have bid 3♣ the round before.

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!
Traditionally the 2♥ bid in Acol was non-forcing, but everyone now plays it as forcing for a round. There's no need to play it as game forcing, invitational or better is easily playable. Opener rebids

2S - minimum (false) preference (could be 2236 if you are playing weak NT). NF
2NT - minimum off-shape with diamonds stopped e.g. 1345, 2236. NF
3C - minimum long clubs (choice of 2S or 3C may depend on suit quality). NF
3D - extras in context, no diamond stop, too good for 3S
3H - hearts***
3S - 3-6 in spades and clubs
3NT - maximum for the auction to date, diamonds well stopped
4C - lots and lots and lots of clubs
4D - splinter for hearts, prepared to play there opposite 3 hearts
4H - prepared to play in a 4-3 heart fit

***the only agreement that you might like to make is that raising 2H to 3H is forcing. If responder has 5-4 in the majors with invitational values, and opener has an unbalanced hand with 4 hearts (no 1NT opening) you may as well play in game. This caters for those hands where responder invents a heart suit on, say, AKJxx KQx xx Axx. Then 1C - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H - 3NT specifically denies a 4-card heart suit and shows this type of shape. Otherwise you end up going down the route of making 2D artificial, but us natural bidders don't like that sort of thing.

[whereagles]

If 2♥ were natural, 4♣ is probably some sort of heart raise
If 2♥ were NOT natural (just a force), 4♣ is probably something like Fred's 1st hand.

Related issues for opener's 3rd bid:
If 2♥ were nat, 3♥ is a simple NF raise.
If 2♥ were art, 3♥ shows extras and no 3 spades. With a min (say 11-12) bid 2NT.
3♦ should be 4th suit, GF, stopper ask or a good heart raise in case pard goes slammish.

Helene, you should REALLY refrain from putting the G-word in the poll By the way, with your hand I would probably have bid 5♣ after 1♠.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 31 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

But I see you are being tempted by the siren calls of the North Americans to make more bids game forcing. Resist! You now live in the land of limit bidding!

Lolol. I do think that we need to be able to show an invitational hand with 5-4 or more majors without forcing to game opposite the typical Acol 10-point openings This is especially necessary in a weak-NT context because opener always rebids 2♣ with a 1435 and some 13 points (I would usually rebid 1NT with that hand playing strong 1NT).