Good luck, bad call, and a question

[kenberg]

imps, nobody vul, partner deals and opens 1 .
I hold

643
AQ96
9
AK652
Pass on my  right, 1 by me,  3 on my left, two passes to me

1   P 1 3
 P     P   ?

I bid 4 . I see no reason why this should be forcing, and given that it isn't I think it is a really bad call.  Here is partner's hand:

AQJ8
K62
42
QT87

She has an opening 1 call and she opened 1 . Nothing extra. And two small diamonds. She passed, which makes sense to me. If the spade finesse is working, unlikely but possible after the 3 preempt, we make 6. The spade finesse fails, but 5 is on ice. I'm the one with the stiff and so I am the one who needs to get us to 5 .

If I had the weak doublton in diamonds I think my 4 would be reasonable, and then if she had the stiff a raise to 5 would be easy. I think with my good values and the stiff in their suit, well place  so that partner need not worry about over ruffs if it comes to that, I should just bite the bullet and bid 5 .

Ok, where does the luck come in? After partner' pass, RHO bid 4 , I hit it, it went for 500. Somebody up there likes me.


On to the question

Now should 4 be non-forcing? I think so.   Suppose I have a hand such as


643
AQ962
9
AK65


On this hand we maybe belong in 4 and we maybe belong in 5 . If 4 were forcing I could use it to explore which is the right contract. But I don't think that is needed. Trump has not been set so I think 4 should be  a game forcing bid, asking for help in choosing the correct suit. With her three hearts, she would have no trouble selecting hearts.

I can'r say that I am certain that everyone would take a 4 call that way, but it seems to make sense.

[OliverC]

4 utterly non-forcing, IMHO. I think I would be bidding 4 . If Partner bids 4 , it's clear they only have 3-card support and I correct to 5 . That also implies my lack of control of Spades and shows very close to what I actually have.


Your alternate hand I bid exactly the same way. The only difference is that now I pass 4 . Partner's pass over 3 has persuaded me that game is the limit.

[kenberg]

It's worth discussing, something I hope these forums (fora?) could bring about. I think 4 follows by a pull of 4 to 5 might have partner wondering what is going on. Maybe I have five hearts and now that I have learned of partner's three card support my 5 is a slam try in hearts? Or maybe partner will construe this as s\setting as trump and showing the stiff and thus as a slam try in . That's what I have so if my bidding is understood all will be well.

At any rate, I should decide, looking at my hand, that 5 should have a reasonable play and one way or anther I should get us there. At least if undiscussed I like the simple approach of just bidding 5 .  But  4 and then 5 certainly has its appeal.


Not getting us to 5 was my error, pure and simple. Given that, exactly the right route is up for discussion. I was not really thinking my 4 was forcing, I was just being pessimistic. Way too pessimistic.


I think separating errors (not forcing us to 5 ) from agreements (how to get us to 5 ) is important but often this is fudged.

[OliverC]

I've no problem with your bidding 5 rather than 4 . It's very unlikely there's a biddable slam on here given partner's pass over 3 (You might make 12 tricks, but that's not the same thing), and that also makes it a racing certainty they don't have 4-card Heart support, so really 5 and 4 are effectively the same thing. The point I was really making was that 4 (and 5 ) are utterly non-forcing and that the only forcing bid you have available here is 4

[kenberg]

There is a problem I encounter online but also, less frequently, f2f and for that matter I sometime observe on vugraph.: People double and people cuebid, but the intended message does come through. It could be interesting to have examples, and possibly some clarity would emerge.

I believe I have never discussed with any partner exactly what a 4 call would mean, had I made it. But now I shift to partner's seat and I suppose that he made it. If I am holding three hearts, my call would be easy, 4 . If I am not holding three hearts?  It would be nice if I then could say to myself: "Why did pard make this undiscussed cue? He must have hearts and clubs and be uncertain which strain we should play in. Lacking three hearts, I choose clubs."  That's probably what I would think, or so it seems right now, but this is the sort of clarity that I am thinking could emerge.  There is also the question of what it would mean had it gone 3 -P- P-X , where the 3 was over my first round 1 . it does not sound right for it to be penalties, maybe and ?

All of this does not preclude using 4 and then a pull of 4 to 5 as cancelling the message of asking for a choice of suits and replacing it by a message of a slam try in clubs.

As mentioned, the message intended is not always the message received. It happens even in vugrah events, but of course far more often in casual play.