[Phil]

An interesting sequence occurred when I was playing with one of my oft mocked and deprecated clients yesterday:

What is your interpretation of these calls and provide a typical hand for each auction:

(2/1 setting; 3♦ promises extras)

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣

and

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4N

Thanks

[Trinidad]

My answer: 4♣ is a cue agreeing diamonds. 4♣ promises a club control, otherwise you would bid 4♦.

4NT is quantitative.

Rik

[whereagles]

Phil, on Mar 29 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

1.
1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣

2.
1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4N

1. NATURAL, 55 and strong. 4NT by pard now = misfit, pls drop dead.

2. I have it defined as straight forward RKCB for diamonds. Maybe not ideal, since you can bid 4♦ + 4NT with the same effect, but that's the definition. Quantitative makes sense, but I wouldn't even think of it without previous discussion.

[mich-b]

I think it makes sense to go bid 4D with all Diamond fit hands , keeping both 4C (5-5) and 4NT(quant) as natural and forward going.

[Phil]

mich-b, on Mar 30 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

I think it makes sense to go bid 4D with all Diamond fit hands , keeping both 4C (5-5) and 4NT(quant) as natural and forward going.

This is how I play it, but it never came up with this partner.

As an aside, suggest an auction with these two hands:

Scoring: MP

---

[kfay]

Both are natural.

[hanp]

Agree with 4C natural, clearly not agreeing diamonds since the forcing 4D is available.

[gnasher]

4NT is natural.

I think 4C should agree diamonds, because it's both more common and more useful than the natural meaning.

On the pair of hands posted by Phil, I'd bid
1♠ 2♥
3♦ 3NT

or possibly
1♠ 2♥
3♦ 3♠
3NT

[andy_h]

Wasn't there a thread a few months ago that discussed the 1♠-2♥-3♦-4♣ sequence? I think I currently play 4♣ as a diamond raise, and the 4NT in the 2nd auction is natural quantitative.

I agree with the possible auctions that gnasher suggested. Given that the 3♦ has taken quite a bit of space, I don't think the 3♠ bid should promise 3+♠ fit as you might've been endplayed by the 3♦. I think I prefer the latter auction where responder bids 3NT on his 2nd turn given it's MPs and I have 2-1 in partner's suits though I can see how easily 6♠ could be making on another day.

[junyi_zhu]

Phil, on Mar 29 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

An interesting sequence occurred when I was playing with one of my oft mocked and deprecated clients yesterday:

What is your interpretation of these calls and provide a typical hand for each auction:

(2/1 setting; 3♦ promises extras)

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣

and

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4N

Thanks

4C should be a cuebid with D as trumps. 4NT should be natural and invitational.

[barryallen]

mich-b, on Mar 30 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

I think it makes sense to go bid 4D with all Diamond fit hands , keeping both 4C (5-5) and 4NT(quant) as natural and forward going.

The question I would then ask, is how strong does the 4♣ have to be to bypass 3NT? Because exactly how much extra does the 3♦ bid promise?

[mich-b]

I think 3D should promiss around 15+.

Responder can bid 4C when it looks that 4NT should be safe , so I would say around 15+ if 5-5 , or less with more extreme shapes 6-5, 6-6...

Sequences like this are one reason why I think 3D should show real extras , and not just any 5-5 , like some people play. Responder is better placed to judge if he can bypass 3NT , if he knows that opener will provide a good hand even opposite a misfit.