[awm]

Playing in an IMP team match last night, I had the following auction playing 2/1:

1♣ - 1♥ - X - 2♥
3♥ - PA - 3♠ - PA

Several questions at this point:

(1) How forcing is 3♥? Are we forced to game or can we play 4♣?
(2) Related question: which is stronger, 4♣ or 5♣?
(3) Last question: what would you bid next with the following hand:

♠xxx
♥x
♦AJ
♣AKQJTxx

Assume that the double was "standard" showing exactly four spades, so you can't have an eight card spade fit on this auction.

[jdonn]

1. My meta-rules say 4♣ would not be forcing. I like to agree that a cuebid like this is game-forcing, but I consider 4 of a minor 'game' once the opponents have interfered, since so often opener has the tricks to want to play 3NT opposite a stopper but not necessarily 5 of the minor otherwise.

I don't know if there is a 'standard' for such situations, although I expect what I just said is probably not a majority opinion.

2. On that basis 5♣ would be stronger than 4♣.

3. I bid 4♣, I certainly can't come close to guaranteeing 5♣. Bidding 4♠ is not an option since the cuebid could have been based on spade support, so partner would be free to move over that in the expectation of a strong hand with real spade support.

[Codo]

1. It is game forcing
2. 4 ♣ is stronger
3. I try 5 ♣

[awm]

Seems this one got totally lost. So many threads these days...

Interesting that the two responses I got were opposite.

Anyway, on the actual hand I decided to bid 5♣, despite agreeing with Josh that this is a stronger action than bidding 4♣. My reasoning was that the singleton heart is a great feature opposite partner's lack of a stopper, and that there seemed a decent chance I could negotiate eleven tricks if partner held four fairly nice spades and not much else. Partner held:

♠AKQJ
♥xx
♦KQTx
♣xxx

and passed me in 5♣! He indicated that he thought 4♣ would've been a more forward going action, and was worried about two fast heart losers. Probably this action would not receive a lot of favorable votes from the forums (certainly my expert opponents at the table thought passing 5♣ was not a good call) but I thought the question of whether 4♣ or 5♣ was stronger could be an interesting one.

[Codo]

I think that this is a problem which is solved in most regular partnerships and not solvable with pick-ups.

I like the simple approach: This is gameforcing. Once in a while we will be one step too high, but the benefits will outweight this by far.
(Of course Josh (and others) will disagree, they think the ability of stopping in 4 of a minor is of more benefit.)
As noone made a simulation so far, we cannot profe what is better.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 3H is GF, but I agree, it makes sense to be able to
check out in 4C.
#2 Most likely 5C
#3 4C

I would not have bid 3H, I would have gone with 3C.
Ok, it is a slight underbid given my 8 running tricks,
but than ... we are red, playing IMPs - and p knowes this
as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Apollo81]

awm, on Feb 15 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Seems this one got totally lost. So many threads these days...

Interesting that the two responses I got were opposite.

I agree with Josh