[Lord Molyb]

You're playing with a regular partner, and you pick up:

---

IMPs
4 clubs is natural, showing a 4 card suit.
How will you bid?

[Hanoi5]

Is 4♦ forcing? Can partner have ♦QJTxxx only? I'd like to be able to ask for KC but if I can't and partner cannot have such a bad suit I'll just bid 6♦

[Lord Molyb]

Whether 4♦ is forcing is partnership agreement

[Cyberyeti]

What is your preempting philosophy in this seat at this vul. If it's pretty classical, I'd have bid 4♥ kickback first time (I normally have the agreement that if you want to bid 4♥ to play you bid 3♥ then 4♥).

I think 4♦ should be forcing over 3♠-4♣, but it makes things very murky as to what 4♥ and 4N are.

[FrancesHinden]

Lord Molyb, on 2012-December-23, 11:34, said:

Whether 4♦ is forcing is partnership agreement

Yes of course it is. You've said it's a regular partner, so why don't you tell us what the agreement is?
You've already imposed a meaning for the 4C bid that isn't the one I play, so clearly you must have had some discussions about continuations after a pre-empt.

(I play that 4C agrees spades, and I think that's a fairly common understanding)

[Lord Molyb]

The agreement is 4♦ nonforcing.

[lycier]

4♦ is not a new suit,so nonforcing.

[Zelandakh]

lycier, on 2012-December-23, 19:05, said:

4♦ is not a new suit,so nonforcing.

2♣ - 2♦ (positive);
2♠ - 3♣;
3♠ is not a new suit either. I suppose that is non-forcing too? We started with a new suit at the 3 level, expecting partner to bid game with basically any hand containing support. Whether a bid is forcing or not needs to be thought about within the context of the auction, not by some blind rule. Indeed, if 4♦ is non-forcing here then we appear to have all of.....zero(!) forcing bids available outside of 4♥ and 5NT...in a constructive auction. In return we cater nicely to the hand where we psyched 3♠ with a diamond fit and the opps are too bad to notice. Good tradeoff?

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-16, 09:46, said:

2♣ - 2♦ (positive);
2♠ - 3♣;
3♠ is not a new suit either. I suppose that is non-forcing too? We started with a new suit at the 3 level, expecting partner to bid game with basically any hand containing support. Whether a bid is forcing or not needs to be thought about within the context of the auction, not by some blind rule. Indeed, if 4♦ is non-forcing here then we appear to have all of.....zero(!) forcing bids available outside of 4♥ and 5NT...in a constructive auction. In return we cater nicely to the hand where we psyched 3♠ with a diamond fit and the opps are too bad to notice. Good tradeoff?

Stupid example although there may be better ones, many people play 2♣ as GF except 2♣-2♦/♥whichever is the bad one-2N so the auction is already GF.

[Siegmund]

I would assume 4D is NF -- a lot of hands bid 3S here expecting to take 10 tricks in something, wanting it to be spades if possible and diamonds if not.

I will admit 6D is possible opposite some tip-top maximums but I can't see how I can justify bidding it. If partner has only one hole in trumps (KQJxxxx or similar) he won't have another working face card and I'll be needing 4-3 clubs + no early trump lead to kill the ruff + a spade finesse to make it.

At IMPs, 5D rates to be safe most the time. At MP I would rebid 4S, going down opposite a void, but sneaking 420 past 400 a bit more than half the time.

[neilkaz]

Lord Molyb, on 2012-December-23, 18:00, said:

The agreement is 4♦ nonforcing.

Yuck !!

EDIT: I strongly think that on a sequence like this 4♦ is best used to continue the search for best game/slam rather than to stop on a dime.

[Cyberyeti]

Siegmund, on 2013-January-16, 10:03, said:

I would assume 4D is NF -- a lot of hands bid 3S here expecting to take 10 tricks in something, wanting it to be spades if possible and diamonds if not.

I will admit 6D is possible opposite some tip-top maximums but I can't see how I can justify bidding it. If partner has only one hole in trumps (KQJxxxx or similar) he won't have another working face card and I'll be needing 4-3 clubs + no early trump lead to kill the ruff + a spade finesse to make it.

At IMPs, 5D rates to be safe most the time. At MP I would rebid 4S, going down opposite a void, but sneaking 420 past 400 a bit more than half the time.

You appear to have 3 side suit entries to dummy in diamonds, if they lead ace and another trump, a singleton spade in partner's hand may be all that's required. Even if partner is void there are still decent chances (3-3 or Kx either side).