[Coelacanth]

Scoring: IMP

---

Rightly or wrongly you open this hand 1♦ in first chair. Opponents are silent.

Partner responds 1♥. You have some choices at this point but I bid what I thought was a normal (?) 1♠.

Partner bids 2NT. You have not discussed this sequence specifically but you can probably expect 11-12 balanced with fewer than 4 spades, not more than 4 hearts, and some semblance of a club stopper.

And now?

See hidden text below for my choice and the next decision I had to make.

Spoiler

I bid 3 hearts over 2NT and my partner bid 3 spades. Now what??

[jjbrr]

Coelacanth, on May 14 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

Rightly or wrongly you open this hand 1♦ in first chair. Opponents are silent.

Partner responds 1♥. You have some choices at this point but I bid what I thought was a normal (?) 1♠.

Partner bids 2NT. You have not discussed this sequence specifically but you can probably expect 11-12 balanced with fewer than 4 spades, not more than 4 hearts, and some semblance of a club stopper.

And now?

See hidden text below for my choice and the next decision I had to make.

Spoiler

I bid 3 hearts over 2NT and my partner bid 3 spades. Now what??

1) Rightly open 1♦
2) Completely normal 1♠
3) I would bid 3♥. I don't understand why you expect not more than 4♥; partner could definitely have 5.

And now

Spoiler

3NT

[karlson]

1. I think it should be normal to raise to 2h with this shape and a minimum.

2. If I actually knew partner had less than 5 hearts, I would pass. If partner could have 5, I think you have to bid 3h now.

3. After 3s, I would bid 4s, sounds like my hand is terrible for 3n if partner can't bid it now.

[Dirk Kuijt]

You are probably going down after this start, but I would bid 4♥. At least you are taking the force in the short hand, unlike playing in 4♠.

Unfortunately, you are minimum, and it sounds like partner is also. I admit that I don't understand why partner is supposed to hold only 4 hearts. It seems to me that

xxx
Axxxx
Jx
AQx

(and several variations including 2-5-3-3)

is a perfectly normal 2NT bid. If partner holds the HJ as well, or even instead of the ♦J, then you certainly want to play in hearts.

[MarkDean]

Despite it being a fairly typical hand shape, I have always had trouble with 43(51) minimums. Most (including me) play that (opps silent) 1m - 1H - 1S - 1NT/2m - 2H shows extras. That leaves you with two options: never show your hearts, or sometimes play in 2H in your 43 fit instead of 2S in your 44. I usually raise, and live with the losses.

In the auction in the OP, I would bid 3♥ because if partner has 5 hearts we are likely to make game. I would then bid 4♥ over 3♠ - at least we can ruff with the short trump hand.

[aguahombre]

Moving after 2NT commits to game (see related thread). Responder might have 5 hearts, but is slightly more likely to have 4 hearts and 5+ clubs (because of opener's shortness there).

Of course it looks like an opening 1♦bid.
Of course it is a 1♠ rebid. No reason responder could not have been 4-4 in the majors.
I choose Pass of 2NT, just like I would have passed 1NT.

[gnasher]

MarkDean, on May 15 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Despite it being a fairly typical hand shape, I have always had trouble with 43(51) minimums. Most (including me) play that (opps silent) 1m - 1H - 1S - 1NT/2m - 2H shows extras.

What most people do isn't always best. In three of the four sequences opener has a fourth-suit bid available, so you can play, for example:

1♣-1♥
1♠-1NT
2♥ = 4315 minimum

1♣-1♥
1♠-1NT
2♦ = 4315 with extras (and possibly other good hands that don't fit in elsewhere)

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on May 15 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

Moving after 2NT commits to game (see related thread). Responder might have 5 hearts, but is slightly more likely to have 4 hearts and 5+ clubs (because of opener's shortness there).

Of course it looks like an opening 1♦bid.
Of course it is a 1♠ rebid. No reason responder could not have been 4-4 in the majors.
I choose Pass of 2NT, just like I would have passed 1NT.

Seems obviously simple.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I was asked recently to reconsider four-suit-forcing sequences, to assess my view of what makes the most sense in the long run. Meaning, how to play 4SF, depending on the sequence.

After this review, I came to a conclusion that fourth suit should be GF when the fourth suit call is 2♥ or higher.

When the fourth suit is two of a minor, however, I believe that a better structure exists, namely:

Relay = weak without 3-piece support for Responder's major
Two of Responder's major = weak with 3-piece support for Responder's major
2NT = maximum with 3-piece support for Responder's major
Other = maximum without 3-piece support for Responder's major, logical

The "3-piece" could be 2-piece perhaps, or perhaps in some sequences (like with minimums).

This exact hand pattern was one of the concerns. I believe that this approach would work better in the long run. There might be even better, but this seems to make sense.

If using this approach, the 2NT call yields a clear pass from opener. If, however, Responder had bid 2♣, Opener could bid 2♥ to show a minimum with 3-piece (2-piece?) support. With a max, and 3-piece, he'd bid 2NT. With any non-fir minimum, the relay 2♦. 2♠ would be a natural maximum (GF), as would 3♣, 3♦, etc.