[relknes]

I also take 3♣ as 4th suit forcing. Now 3♦ seems perfectly natural. I would want better spades to bid 3♠, personally.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-April-26, 08:49, said:

3♣ looks like fourth-suit forcing to me. 3♦ or (arguably) 3♥ by opener would be non-forcing, so 3♣ is what he does when he wants to make a forcing bid with the same shape. With a 1543 shape I'd usually just raise to 3NT.

System plug:

3C= weak 5-5, or weak 6-4, or short spades patterning out (responder bids 3D unless he would have bid 3H over a NF 3D, then opener passes with 5-5, 3H with 6-4, 3S with 0544, 3N with 1543)

3D/3H/3S forcing.

Very little loss and a lot of gain of having both forcing and NF 3 red imo.

I think it is one of the best conventions you can play in terms of gain vs loss and memory.

[jdeegan]

3 diamonds

With 0-5-4-4 partner would normally have bid 2 clubs instead of 2 diamonds, so 3 clubs must be forcing. I'm don't know what's going on, but a preference to 3 diamonds can't be totally wrong. Possibly, pard is 5-5 in the reds with a very good hand.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-26, 11:19, said:

System plug:

3C= weak 5-5, or weak 6-4, or short spades patterning out (responder bids 3D unless he would have bid 3H over a NF 3D, then opener passes with 5-5, 3H with 6-4, 3S with 0544, 3N with 1543)

3D/3H/3S forcing.

Very little loss and a lot of gain of having both forcing and NF 3 red imo.

I think it is one of the best conventions you can play in terms of gain vs loss and memory.

It's an attractive idea, but also very specific. Which other auctions do you play it in? 1♦-1♥;1♠-1NT/2NT seem to be the only obvious candidates.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-April-26, 12:20, said:

It's an attractive idea, but also very specific. Which other auctions do you play it in? 1♦-1♥;1♠-1NT/2NT seem to be the only obvious candidates.

1S-1N-2D-2N
1S-1N-2H-2N
1H-1N-2D-2N

Edit: You can/imo should play stuff over a 2C rebid and a 2N invite also for the same purpose, but it is messier.

[han]

I like the convention, but there is also this thing called Gazilli...

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-April-26, 08:49, said:

3♣ looks like fourth-suit forcing to me. 3♦ or (arguably) 3♥ by opener would be non-forcing, so 3♣ is what he does when he wants to make a forcing bid with the same shape. With a 1543 shape I'd usually just raise to 3NT.

This is how I play too.

[Cascade]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-26, 11:19, said:

System plug:

3C= weak 5-5, or weak 6-4, or short spades patterning out (responder bids 3D unless he would have bid 3H over a NF 3D, then opener passes with 5-5, 3H with 6-4, 3S with 0544, 3N with 1543)

3D/3H/3S forcing.

Very little loss and a lot of gain of having both forcing and NF 3 red imo.

I think it is one of the best conventions you can play in terms of gain vs loss and memory.

I like this it sounds better. Unfortunately it won't work on the analogous sequence when the fourth suit is diamonds not clubs.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2011-April-26, 14:50, said:

I like the convention, but there is also this thing called Gazilli...

STRONG CLUB

[whereagles]

Good hand for a bluhmer 4♠ LOL.

[Phil]

whereagles, on 2011-April-26, 16:21, said:

Good hand for a bluhmer 4♠ LOL.

If we knew where to play perhaps.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, since we are getting lost here, there is also something to be said for the methods I like, where 2NT by Opener (1M-P-1NT-P-2NT) is an artificial GF, which allows 1M-P-1NT-P-3♦ to show a 5-5 5-loser hand. In that scenario, 3♣ late is not needed for precisely 5♥/5♦.

That tweak, which some already play, would still allow the late 3♦ to be crap two-suiter and 3♥ to be simply to play. But, then 3♣ can cover less ground, allowing a 3♦ rebid to "ask for clarification" lower (3♥ for 6♥/4♦ extras, 3♠ probably maxi 0544, 3NT maxi 1543. Something like that.

[Hanoi5]

In the original hand I was torn between passing and bidding 3♦ and then I see people getting to game in what could be a horrible misfit hand.

I'm really confused about a couple of issues:

- Is 2♦ forcing? I mean, if partner makes a non-forcing bid how can his hand then transform into a forcing one?
- If 3♣ shows extras, what would opener do with a really bad hand and 0544?
- How would opener bid with a 0544 and 18-20 HCP's?
- Wouldn't getting to 3NT be dangerous on a spade lead? Isn't a spade lead more likely after partner patterned out? Or is this the reason JL (and Ken?) propose 3♠?

[cherdano]

Hanoi5, on 2011-April-27, 06:30, said:

In the original hand I was torn between passing and bidding 3♦ and then I see people getting to game in what could be a horrible misfit hand.

I'm really confused about a couple of issues:

- Is 2♦ forcing? I mean, if partner makes a non-forcing bid how can his hand then transform into a forcing one?

I promise you, if you think hard enough about this question, you can figure it out. (Hint: How much did 1♠ promise? How many points do you need to force to game opposite that? Etc.)

Quote

- Wouldn't getting to 3NT be dangerous on a spade lead? Isn't a spade lead more likely after partner patterned out? Or is this the reason JL (and Ken?) propose 3♠?

Give partner a singleton spade, and try to deal the remaining spades randomly. How often do you think they can run the first five spade tricks? How often can they run 4?
But yes, part of the reason to bid 3♠ is to find out whether we should play 3NT.

[whereagles]

Phil, on 2011-April-26, 16:42, said:

If we knew where to play perhaps.

Well, unless you're sure 2♣ shows 4 of them, you can't really bid 4♠ here. But if happen to be sure it's 4 clubs and some extras, the bluhmer is just about the perfect bid.