[InTime]

Event:Teams
Vul: All
Dealer: East
Assume 2/1

---

Sitting North here and East opens the bidding:
(1♣) - pass - (2♣ weak) - 3♣*
(pass) - 4♣?
* your agreement is that 3♣ is asking for a stopper or is 2 places to play.
The question here is what can you expect from partner's 4♣ bid?
Another example will be (2♦ Weak) - 3♦ - (pass) - 4♦? etc.
Some rationale with your answer will be appreciated . . . also how will you then proceed.
Regards

[32519]

InTime, on 2014-March-02, 08:19, said:

Sitting North here and East opens the bidding:
(1♣) - pass - (2♣ weak) - 3♣*
(pass) - 4♣?
* your agreement is that 3♣ is asking for a stopper or is 2 places to play.
The question here is what can you expect from partner's 4♣ bid?

Some rationale with your answer will be appreciated . . . also how will you then proceed.
Regards

My own question:
If partner had a club stopper, how does he show it? Presumably with a bid of 3NT?
Now that he failed to show the stopper, he could have started searching for your “2-places to play” on level-3 with a bad (weak) hand, bidding his hand up the line. That never happened either.

Now to your question:
“The question here is what can you expect from partner's 4♣ bid?”
Looking at your agreements as an outsider, it must be pretty obvious to all that at least one of your “2-places to play” has to be a major. Partner’s bid of 4♣ is game forcing and he has support for both majors.
In the hand you posted the heart suit is longer than the spade suit, so bid it. If the suits were equal in length, then bid the stronger one.

InTime, on 2014-March-02, 08:19, said:

Another example will be (2♦ Weak) - 3♦ - (pass) - 4♦? etc.
Some rationale with your answer will be appreciated . . . also how will you then proceed.
Regards

Exactly the same answer is applicable here. At least one of your 2-suits has to be a major. By bidding 4♦ partner has forced the auction to game in a major because he has support for both.

Come and post the full hand here so all can see.

[InTime]

32519, on 2014-March-02, 11:32, said:

Come and post the full hand here so all can see.

Here are the full hands:

---

Although one can discuss the bidding, it is not what I am after. It is the question of the 4♣ bid and what to expect from a similar bid in the future.
My feeling it is actually pre-empting the bidding and makes it very awkward for partner to continue especially with this kind of huge 2-suiter. So, 4♣ to me should be first round control (void). Responder should rather keep the bidding as low as possible in order for partner to express his hand. To my mind bidding will not stop after responder's first reply of say 3♦.
On this hand I jumped to 6♥ going down 2.
Regards

[ahydra]

4C - clearly GF - seems WAY too ambitious with that south hand. What's wrong with a simple 3D?

Jumping to 6H was a bit unilateral too - partner doesn't have to hold the two missing aces, nor anything in spades. But it's much less bad than the 4C.

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

To answer the question in the OP we have to know first what a 3♦ advance would have been. Assuming this is natural/PC and non-forcing rather than some enquiry, it is clear that 4♣ is necessary to establish a GF and find out more about Overcaller's hand, either for chouce of game or with slam interest. Equally clear is that Overcaller should bid 4♠ with ♠+♦, 4♥ with ♥+♠ and 4♦ with the semi-balanced hand that was looking for a stop. The questionable one is ♥+♦ but I think this is probably best stuck with the majors under 4♥ making this call show hearts and a second suit. Higher calls are going to show hands that are too strong to risk partner passing in 4M, something like 4nt = ♥+♦, 5♣ = ♠+♦, 5♦ = ♥+♠ but basically whatever you feel comfortable with since these are rare sequences and you do not want a misunderstanding.

Note also that your second example of (2♦) - 3♦ - 4♦ is different in that the 3♦ overcall is played either as asking for a stopper or as 2-suited but not both. That makes the follow-ups much easier. It is the two-way nature of your 3♣ overcall that makes the problems in your original case.

In your follow-up discussion it sounds to me like you might be moving towards the idea of playing 3♦ as a forcing relay over which Overcaller describes their hand further. That is certainly an option for bids of this nature and has a knock-on effect to other advances.

Finally, I do not know your requirements for a 3♣ overcall but either the 4♣ advance on partner's hand was too much or the jump to 6♥ too optimistic. If the 2-suiter part of 3♣ is like Leaping Michaels then 4♣ is ok but now 4♥ would be enough. If Overcaller could be much lighter then Advancer should instead make a non-forcing advance, either 3♦ or 3♥.