[120248]

The hands :

South : ♠KQJ8 ♥ 3 ♦ AKQJ1083 ♣ 9

North : ♠ 95 ♥ KJ1064 ♦ 62 ♣ 7653

Aunction opps quiet

1♦ 1♥

1♠ 2♥

3♣ all pass

It was a desaster. 3♣ was a way to find a stopper. I thought it was forcing.

What went wrong ?

Ty vm

[Cyberyeti]

You're on different wavelengths. 2♥ is a pretty horrible bid (2♦ or 1N are better), partner thinks you have a good 4054 hand, but with an effective 0 count is passing a technically forcing bid, you think 3♣ is 4th suit.

[120248]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-17, 06:19, said:

You're on different wavelengths. 2♥ is a pretty horrible bid (2♦ or 1N are better), partner thinks you have a good 4054 hand, but with an effective 0 count is passing a technically forcing bid, you think 3♣ is 4th suit.

I thought 3♣ was forcing ( 4th suit or stopper asking ) but partner pass

I dont understand an effective 0 count is passing a technically forcing bid ( Excuse my english not too good )

Thank you for ur interest.

[barmar]

120248, on 2020-April-17, 08:34, said:

I dont understand an effective 0 count is passing a technically forcing bid ( Excuse my english not too good )

His "good" heart suit seems to be opposite your shortness, so the only 4 points he has are totally wasted. Since he had a sub-minimum for his previous bidding he decided to minimize the losses by passing, even though your bid is forcing.

He assumed your bids were all natural, so he thought a fit had been found.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-April-17, 08:39, said:

He assumed your bids were all natural, so he thought a fit had been found.

The first non-natural bid was 1♠, with that hand (worth 22 points according to K&R).
Not that the auction was destined to a happy ending in any event.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-April-17, 08:47, said:

The first non-natural bid was 1♠, with that hand (worth 22 points according to K&R).

How was that non-natural? It showed spades, and that's what he had.

It may have been an underbid, but that's not the same thing.

[Stephen Tu]

120248, on 2020-April-17, 06:08, said:

What went wrong ?

• Responder could arguably pass 1d.
• A 2d preference or 1nt might be better, having chosen to respond.
• In standard bidding, 4th suit by *responder* is an artificial force (at least 1 round, to game for most these days). 4th suit by *opener*, without special agreements, is *NOT*. Opener, to create a force, has to jump shift (here 1D-1H-2S), to create a GF auction (jump shift means ~19+ playing strength, responder not expected to pass below game. But some by agreement might let responder pass a technically forcing call if their initial call was a tactical stretch, less than the normal 6 or so HCP expected. If they think they will in the long run score better by passing than by respecting the force). Or make a reverse bid (e.g. 1D-1S-2H), but there are no reverse bids on this auction start of 1d-1h. A reverse normally isn't GF, just F1 and promising a 3rd bid, but again by agreement opener sometimes has forcing calls on the 3rd round of the auction also (I play 1d-1s-2h-2nt!-3c! 4th suit by opener as GF in my partnerships). But this isn't standard, there is considerable variation in reverse structure and has to be discussed between partners.

[120248]

TY all for your interest.

[aawk]

If a bidding went wrong only look at the first mistake all following bids wrong or not don't matter.

After 1♦ north should pass.


If you only look at the bidding and north hand is not known 3♦ is 100 % forcing being the fourth suit in most systems.

[smerriman]

Given 1♠ is nonforcing, I'm struggling to see how 3♣ can suddenly be forcing.. really does look like 4054 to me.

[dsLawsd]

1♠ might be OK if partner doesn't pass, has 3 or 4 of them and raises, or perhaps bids 1NT.
However, bidding 3♦instead seems most likely to get to a making game. Here it seems that would be the final contract unless you play it forcing to game.

Got to have some agreements with partner.

[Cyberyeti]

smerriman, on 2020-April-18, 02:18, said:

Given 1♠ is nonforcing, I'm struggling to see how 3♣ can suddenly be forcing.. really does look like 4054 to me.

1♠ may be nonforcing for you, this is by no means universal, we play it "forcing if you actually had a response"

[Tramticket]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-April-17, 09:55, said:

In standard bidding, 4th suit by *responder* is an artificial force (at least 1 round, to game for most these days). 4th suit by *opener*, without special agreements, is *NOT*.

This may be a regional thing. I have seen it stated before on this site that only responder has a 4th suit forcing bid available. I think that in the UK, most would treat a bid of the 4th suit by responder or opener as artificial and forcing (for one round only is usual here). I checked a book on my shelf at random (Klinger) and it certainly mentions 4SF by both responder and declarer.

The distinction may not be all that great, as I would expect a 4153 (or similar) distribution for this sequence. But I don't think the 3C bid "promises" diamond length. Yes, I would have jumped to 2S with declarer's hand and yes, I would have got too high.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2020-April-18, 08:40, said:

This may be a regional thing. I have seen it stated before on this site that only responder has a 4th suit forcing bid available. I think that in the UK, most would treat a bid of the 4th suit by responder or opener as artificial and forcing (for one round only is usual here). I checked a book on my shelf at random (Klinger) and it certainly mentions 4SF by both responder and declarer.

The distinction may not be all that great, as I would expect a 4153 (or similar) distribution for this sequence. But I don't think the 3C bid "promises" diamond length. Yes, I would have jumped to 2S with declarer's hand and yes, I would have got too high.

Our agreement is that if it can be natural it is, if not it's 4th suit so 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦ is natural, but bidding the minors the other way round is 4th suit.

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-18, 08:55, said:

Our agreement is that if it can be natural it is, if not it's 4th suit so 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦ is natural, but bidding the minors the other way round is 4th suit.

When the 4th suit is the 4th bid in the auction, it is artificial, saying nothing about the named suit. That is possible only by responder.

Bidding the 4th suit later in the auction is not artificial. It says something about the suit named. Just what it says about the suit is a partnership matter. You should not spring it on your partner without discussion.

My own feeling about the auction 1♦ - 1♥ ; 1♠ - 2♥ ; ? is that 3♣ cannot be a minimum 4=0=5=4. With that holding, you pass 2♥ ; partner promised 6+, after all. So if you want it to show 4+ ♣ , then it is 15-18. It doesn't matter whether you call it forcing or not. As T. Lightner wrote often, a player who has opened one of a suit has no "absolute force" in later rounds: as far as he was concerned, partner promised nothing by responding. So the closest opener has to a force is "if you had your bid, we have a game."

[Cyberyeti]

bluenikki, on 2020-April-18, 10:42, said:

When the 4th suit is the 4th bid in the auction, it is artificial, saying nothing about the named suit. That is possible only by responder.

Bidding the 4th suit later in the auction is not artificial. It says something about the suit named. Just what it says about the suit is a partnership matter. You should not spring it on your partner without discussion.

My own feeling about the auction 1♦ - 1♥ ; 1♠ - 2♥ ; ? is that 3♣ cannot be a minimum 4=0=5=4. With that holding, you pass 2♥ ; partner promised 6+, after all. So if you want it to show 4+ ♣ , then it is 15-18. It doesn't matter whether you call it forcing or not. As T. Lightner wrote often, a player who has opened one of a suit has no "absolute force" in later rounds: as far as he was concerned, partner promised nothing by responding. So the closest opener has to a force is "if you had your bid, we have a game."

Depends what 2♥ shows, for many 3♣ would show more than 15, also some play 2♥ as pretty constructive. There are lots of system considerations here (whether WJS are being played for a start).

[PhilG007]

120248, on 2020-April-17, 06:08, said:

The hands :

South : ♠KQJ8 ♥ 3 ♦ AKQJ1083 ♣ 9

North : ♠ 95 ♥ KJ1064 ♦ 62 ♣ 7653

Aunction opps quiet

1♦ 1♥

1♠ 2♥

3♣ all pass

It was a desaster. 3♣ was a way to find a stopper. I thought it was forcing.

What went wrong ?

Ty vm

I would love to know how an expert bidding panel or a top pair would approach this hand. The results could prove interesting (!)

[pescetom]

PhilG007, on 2020-April-18, 14:06, said:

I would love to know how an expert bidding panel or a top pair would approach this hand. The results could prove interesting (!)

No pretence to expert level, but it doesn't seem to be rocket science to avoid disaster.
North can see his black cards and count to 4.
If a 1♦ opening promises 5-card (as is increasingly common) or at least a decent 4-card then it seems reasonable to risk a weak 2♥ even with this 5-card which will elict a sustainable 3♦.
Otherwise pass.

[PhilG007]

pescetom, on 2020-April-18, 14:44, said:

No pretence to expert level, but it doesn't seem to be rocket science to avoid disaster.
North can see his black cards and count to 4.
If a 1♦ opening promises 5-card (as is increasingly common) or at least a decent 4-card then it seems reasonable to risk a weak 2♥ even with this 5-card which will elict a sustainable 3♦.
Otherwise pass.

Indeed When North rebids his hearts the singleton heart in South's hand should ring alarm bells that
the hands are a misfit. He should resist the temptation of the picture gallery in the diamond suit and pass.
Misfits should be played at as low as level as possible before the bidding escalates from the dangerous
to the diabolical .

[Cyberyeti]

PhilG007, on 2020-April-18, 14:06, said:

I would love to know how an expert bidding panel or a top pair would approach this hand. The results could prove interesting (!)

We would bid 1♦-1♥-1♠-1N-3♦ or 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣(4SF)-3♦