[Gerben42]

Scoring: MP

---

South opens 1♥ and you double. Agree?

Next player bids 2♥, and you bid 2♠. Agree?

Next player bids 3♥, and you bid 4♦. Agree?

Now that you have bid as above, is 4♦ forcing?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes
#2 yes
#3 yes
#4 nf

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

I agree with everything so far. I think 4♦ should be forcing, because advancer has shown some values with 2♠.

[pclayton]

4♦ is 'pass this and I will throttle you'.

Agree with the bidding thus far. East bids 4♠ and West has a tough decision.

[rogerclee]

1) Agree
2) Agree
3) Agree
4) Forcing. I think it is normal for this to be NF when partner has not shown values and F when it has.

[FrancesHinden]

How on earth can 4D not be forcing?
We have shown a hand strong enough to double first then bid our suit at the 4-level opposite a hand which has enough to bid constructively.

p.s. I would have overcalled 2D over 1H.

[Winstonm]

Agree with all but with added comment about the free 2S and the 4D calls.

First, I think any player worthy of the name would bid 2S on absolute garbage if he had some shape. Jxxxxx, xxx, xxx, x, (so I don't buy the 'constructive bid' argument) yet at the same time would be forced to make the same call with a better hand and fewer spades, Qxxx, xxx, Ax, Jxxx.

Ergo, 4D must be forcing to either 4S or 5D.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 27 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

How on earth can 4D not be forcing?

My thoughts exactly.

[jdonn]

Yes x 4

[neilkaz]

Agree with all and when I double and free bid my suit at the 4 level after PD shows values, it had better be forcing !

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on Apr 27 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

<snip>
First, I think any player worthy of the name would bid 2S on absolute garbage if he had some shape.  Jxxxxx, xxx, xxx, x, (so I don't buy the 'constructive bid' argument) yet at the same time would be forced to make the same call with a better hand and fewer spades, Qxxx, xxx, Ax, Jxxx.

Ergo, 4D must be forcing to either 4S or 5D.

And because 2S can be absolute garbage, 4D should be NF,
at least in my opinion.

If partner has values, he surely will bid on, since he knows
his hand, and that 4D showes a powerhouse.

There are two possible reasons, why you would want 4D
to forcing

#1 your are still looking for slam
#2 you are investigating the best game

I dont really believe in the importance of #1, and I also
believe that NF will work for #2 reasonable well.

Of course a important aspect is, what does a dead min. 4D
bid looks like. Is the given hand dead min, or are there
weaker hands out there.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

If you can bid 4D, that is abolutely forcing imo

[Gerben42]

I've been pondering about this hand quite some time now. If you can bid 2♠ on a weak hand with long ♠, perhaps overcaller should double 3♥ and correct any ♣ bids to ♦?

Or since he was playing against people who don't bid 2♥ on "nothing", he might think that partner is the weak hand and assume 5♠ and bid 4♠ himself.

East felt that he didn't have a trick for partner's 4♦ bid and partner would have bid differently with 3 good ♠, so he passed.

[gnasher]

Gerben42, on Apr 28 2008, 08:27 AM, said:

I've been pondering about this hand quite some time now. If you can bid 2♠ on a weak hand with long ♠, perhaps overcaller should double 3♥ and correct any ♣ bids to ♦?

The hand-type where doubler is most likely to want to double again is a strongish takeout double with only three spades. It seems a poor idea to make the same call both with this and with a very strong distributional hand. With Qxxx xxx Qxx Qxx opposite a 3=2=4=4 17-count, advancer would want to defend 3♥x. Is he supposed to bid again (and if so, what?) just in case his partner has strong a one-suiter?

Quote

Or since he was playing against people who don't bid 2♥ on "nothing", he might think that partner is the weak hand and assume 5♠ and bid 4♠ himself.

I hate relying on the opponents to have their bids - it just seems to happen so rarely. Anyway, even if responder has a six count, opener might have only ten, leaving room for East to have a scattering of high cards.

Quote

East felt that he didn't have a trick for partner's 4♦ bid and partner would have bid differently with 3 good ♠, so he passed.

Even opposite a non-forcing 4♦, I'd bid 4♠. The East hand is likely to be far more useful in spades than in diamonds.

[andy_h]

Agree with all, and definitely forcing

[jtfanclub]

I play it as 'non-forcing', in the same way I play reverses as 'non-forcing'. Sure, I can make up a hand where I'd pass it, but I haven't done it yet.

I would have bid 2♠ with
T98764
xxx
x
9xx

Then I might pass.

I don't see the point in bidding 4♦. At least the way I play it, responder has promised 5 spades. Why not bid 4♥ and see if partner has interest in slam?

[FrancesHinden]

jtfanclub, on Apr 28 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

At least the way I play it, responder has promised 5 spades.

While it would be nice to have five spades, I don't think it promises them.

There are plenty of people around who play 1H x 2H x as showing both minors, for whom 2S can only ever promise four spades.

I'm not one of them, I play 1H x 2H x as shown two suits, so any 4342 would double, however even for me 2S doesn't promise 5 - what else do you bid on

KQxx
xxxx
Kxx
xx

or similar?

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 28 2008, 08:43 AM, said:

KQxx
xxxx
Kxx
xx

or similar?

In competition I'd pass.

However, in this case the doubler has AKJ of trump, so it shouldn't even be a question. You wouldn't bid 2♠ in comp. with

QT98
xxxx
Kxx
xx

would you?

[dcvetkov]

I am not sure I agree with #2. I would have bid 3s the first time, premptively. It describes that hand better, and shosing my hand early ( long spades, not much else). Then West does not need to mention diamonds at all, and at the same time can forget about any slams.

[FrancesHinden]

No, but wouldn't you on

Q1098
xxxx
Qx
KQx

you can't pass...


I agree that given you are looking at AKJ of spades partner is hugely likely to have five. But I was disagreeing with the premise that the auction 1H x 2H 2S promises five spades in general.