[karlson]

Had a slight disagreement about this

♠xx ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣xxx

starting on your left
3♣-x-p-3♥
p-4♣-p

Does 4♦ show a good hand or should it be automatic with this hand? Do you think there's a standard?

[OleBerg]

No standard as such. A good general agreement on "choice of games vs good raise" principles will be handy in any partnership.

In my partnership 4♦ is automatic.

[kfay]

I think it does not show a good hand.

Kinda the same as: (1♣)-Dbl-(P)-1♠; something-something-something-2♥

[dake50]

Partner forced after 3H. Shape out second suit, esp. as it is cheap.

[kfay]

Sorry I misread this or something this morning.

I think 4d does show something extra.

[quiddity]

I don't know. It does sound like it shows something extra, but on the other hand partner could just have a strong 4351 and 4H plays horribly.

[peachy]

In my logic, 4D cannot show extra. Partner likely has only three hearts and he doesn't have long suit of his own; if he had four or more hearts, he would have raised instead of forcing advancer to further describe his hand. In short, partner asks me to bid again so I do - 4D.

[pooltuna]

kfay, on May 23 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

Sorry I misread this or something this morning.

I think 4d does show something extra.

yeah!! an extra ♥ IMO If you need to be cheap be cheap and 3♦ is the right first call IMO. Having already called 3♥ now call 4♥ deny, deny, deny

[rogerclee]

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

[OleBerg]

rogerclee, on May 23 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

I am fairly certain a majority would play that, but not enough to make it "standard".

[Jlall]

rogerclee, on May 23 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

Yep I agree, I would take 4D as last train in hearts.

[helene_t]

A weak hand with four hearts is likely to have something in diamonds since with 4-4 majors I would have bid 3♠ first. So I think 4♦ shows this hand.

[gszeszycki]

4H trying to get idea across that I have NOTHING or LESS If P has a non balanced hand with a less than prepared 3 card heart suit then they probably would have been better off bidding 3s or 4d (after my 3h bid). Having come to that conclusion acccccccccccccccckkkkkk help
my p is SLAMMING and quite frankly I do NOT want to make a PEEP that might offer even a smidgeon of encouragement. I would use 4d as not so much promising 5 hearts as showing some VALUES.

[peachy]

rogerclee, on May 23 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

Now I am surprised. Opener can't be 4-3-4-2 and strong but unable to bid NT directly or now? I am wanting to listen to rogerclee, but want more than "it is standard".

[karlson]

rogerclee, on May 23 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

So 1s-x-p-3h-p-3s does not set hearts but this one does? Just because it's above 3N? Seems weird to me.

[bluecalm]

Imo 4♦ shows extras. I am not sure if it should be 4♥-5♦ or cuebid in ♥ (or last train lilke Jlall suggested) but for sure I won't bid that with 0count.

[rogerclee]

karlson, on May 23 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

rogerclee, on May 23 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

Really surprised at these answers, in my mind 4C as strong and agreeing hearts is standard.

So 1s-x-p-3h-p-3s does not set hearts but this one does? Just because it's above 3N? Seems weird to me.

Yes, I don't know why that would seem weird to you in the slightest. The ability to play 3N is more important than either of the uses we are discussing for the cuebid.

To peachy, I made no claims about the effectiveness of the cuebid being a strong raise, only the popularity of the agreement. To me it is not a substantial loss to just bid 4D or whatever with 3361/4351, since if partner has 5H he will basically never pass 4D, so we are just worried about missing 5D, which means our hand would have to be ridiculously strong in order to be worried about this. As for 4342, the cuebid will only gain over 4H when 5D makes but 4H is down, and we have no club stopper. Seems like a narrow target to me.

[jdonn]

What is this thread lol, 4♣ agrees hearts and thus 4♦ shows extras.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on May 23 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

What is this thread lol, 4♣ agrees hearts and thus 4♦ shows extras.

That might be how it is, but I don't think it's how it should be. Over 3♥, we have two bids (4♣ and 4♦) to cover these hand-types:

- A slam try in hearts
- A game-going 4342 without a club stop
- A flexible hand without five spades or primary hearts (4351, 3361, etc)
- A less flexible one-suiter in diamonds

I would have thought that the slam try in hearts would be the least likely of any of them. so reserving half of our available bids for this type seems excessive.

[aguahombre]

Thanks, Gnash. Strain exploration is likely to be a more frequent problem than slam try.

Edit: Also, if partner was slamming in hearts he could clarify over 4D by bidding 4H, rather than just blasting up.