[rogerclee]

IMPs, Red vs White, First Seat

♠KQxx ♥ATxxx ♦void ♣K8xx

Uncontested:

1♥ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♣
3♠ - 3NT
4♣ - 4♦
?

Agree with the previous bidding? Now what? Is 4♥ here forcing, or suggesting 3604? An initial 2♠ was undiscussed as to whether or not it shows extras.

[han]

No I don't agree. I would have bid 4C over 3C with such prime support. 3S is vague, and after many of partner's bids the auction can become very tricky.

I would bid 3S if I don't know what strain I want to play in, I don't think it shows spades.

Since I would raise clubs immediately with real support, this auction (3S followed by 4C) does not show 4-card support. Perhaps this auction shows a hand like Axx AKJxxx x KQx? It should show a strong hand (since I move over 3NT) without 4 clubs (since I didn't raise clubs) and without 4 spades (since I would have bid 2S over 2D with a good hand and 4-5 or 4-6 in the majors). Yes, I like my construction.

[mike777]

rogerclee, on Aug 3 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

IMPs, Red vs White, First Seat

♠KQxx ♥ATxxx ♦void ♣K8xx

Uncontested:

1♥ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♣
3♠ - 3NT
4♣ - 4♦
?

Agree with the previous bidding? Now what? Is 4♥ here forcing, or suggesting 3604? An initial 2♠ was undiscussed as to whether or not it shows extras.

nonexpert...2s....if undiscussed....


bidding 4c over 3c.....

[ArtK78]

I would have bid 2♠ over 2♦.

I raise 3♣ to 4♣.

[han]

I would not have bid 2S fwiw.

A Chilean friend suggested Axxx AJxxxx - KQx, I would have bid a direct 2S with that. We agree that the auction guarantees 6 hearts and partner is very likely 2-1-5-5.