[acer55]

1cl-`1sp
2d -3cl
3nt- 4cl

[DavidKok]

Yes, you don't run from 3NT without a good reason.

[nige1]

Acer55 asks if 4♣ is forcing.
+++++++++++++++++++++
The risk-reward ratio suggests that, with a weak hand, responder should gamble on passing 3NT, rather than hope to stop on a 4♣ sixpence.
Many pairs use Lebensohl or Blackout over opener's 2-level reverse. For them, 3♣ would be unequivocally forcing and so would 4♣.

---

[acer55]

tx for answers..
i don t understand that:if 4d 4h 4sp are all forcing //why has to be 4cl also?

responder already said the he has cl fit..what 4cl may say?..p do u remember that i bid 3cl ?if yes click on 6cl..if no click on 5cl ?

[Stephen Tu]

There's kind of a general principle that if someone was wanting to play game, you don't try to overrule them to play a partial. So all your 4 level suit bids are forcing, but they say different things (one might be just forcing natural, others cuebids, people also play kickback/minorwood on these sequences). Pulling 3nt to your sides minor usually indicates that you are interested in 6m, and want to hear more infomation (cue bid something), but are perhaps willing to just play in 4nt if partner bids 4nt next showing a min/non-slammish hand within the context of strength already previously shown.

If you really wanted to play a club partial, want 4c to be NF, you'd rather play in 3c, as there's no game bonus for 4c and 4c takes an extra trick to make. Most better pairs have a way to strongly suggest stopping in 3c by bidding 2H over 2d, followed by bidding 3c/passing partner's 3c (a weird exception to 4th suit forcing, being over a reverse and below 2nt, unlike normal 4th suit forcing which is usu played as GF). Others use an artificial 2nt over 2d for similar effect. The bridge world standard treatment for reverses is "cheaper of 4th suit or 2nt" as the signal of a possibly very weak responder allowing one to stop in a partial (rebid 2M also possibly weak, F1R, but promises a fifth card in M).

[aawk]

My guess is that you don't play leblesol. If so 3♣ shows a minimum and should be non forcing. Partner shows a maximum and wants to play 3nt. Bidding 4c is to play not interested in 3nt most likely a 5xx4 pattern and less than 5 HCP.

If you agreed on 3♣ being forcing than 4♣ is slam forcing.

[msjennifer]

Sir,
The3♣ bid has told the entire story to the opener.responder does not have a better than a minimum hand required for a 1♠response.Opener has said that he wishes to play in 3NT or else if he was slam oriented he would not =sign off in 3NT.The way we play it the 2♦ is a simple reverse and not a JUMP SHIFT reverse .We do not play it as a GF but only a One round force.Respondershould have passed 3NT .He could have bid 5♣ over 3NT if he wanted to play there.We treat 4C bid as a sign off bid, wondering at the same time why responder should disturb 3NT.I gave the hand to some of our bridge group and some of them were dumbstruck by this 4♣bid.Two of them said that responder is searching for a slam and wants opener to start cue bidding controls ,which all others felt RIDICULOUS.In fact I do hope that the importance of playing LEBENSOHL in such an auction may be appreciated by at least a few if not all.
THANKS,

[Huibertus]

Unless you play lebensohl over reverse, 2♦ is a game force, if you play lebensohl over reverse you have not bid 2NT over 2♦ making the situation game forcing, 4♣ is not a game (except for some stupid bots). So, yes.

[haka9]

 aawk, on 2020-October-18, 00:21, said:

My guess is that you don't play leblesol. If so 3♣ shows a minimum and should be non forcing. Partner shows a maximum and wants to play 3nt. Bidding 4c is to play not interested in 3nt most likely a 5xx4 pattern and less than 5 HCP.

If you agreed on 3♣ being forcing than 4♣ is slam forcing.

Whenever I have 5xx4 and less than 5 HCP, I pass.

[bluenikki]

 DavidKok, on 2020-October-17, 04:27, said:

Yes, you don't run from 3NT without a good reason.

Here is a very good reason. 8765432 in clubs, no ace.

[mycroft]

In my world, opener has shown serious stuff[1], and so has responder[2]. If responder bid like this with no entry and unaccessable clubs, well, then, she made at least one poor call before, maybe both. And 5♣ still might make, unless opener also misbid.

But away from practicality, bidding systems are limited in space, and that space has to be used well. There are many situations where "I wish I had a way to bail out with this one or two hands", but "I wish I had a way to get more information for game vs slam, or 3NT vs 4M, with these tens of other types". Bidding systems have evolved in many of these cases to "eat your bad scores on the rare bailout hands', because the cost of not doing so is so great.

This is one of them. In my area, at least, "1m-1M; 2NT-anything but pass" is another. One of the reasons that Lebensohl/"2NT in competition is a convention, not a contract" is a thing, is to try to get some of those bailouts back, while still keeping all the flexibility with the more profitable and more common good hands.

[1] 2♦ reverse shows extras
[2] I play Lebensohl after reverses, so 3♣ shows GF opposite minimum reverse, so a decent 8-ish.

[Zelandakh]

It depends on what system you have agreed over a reverse. If 3♣ is weak and non-forcing then 4♣ is also non-forcing. If 3♣ is GF and unlimited then 4♣ is forcing with slam interest.

[bluenikki]

 mycroft, on 2020-October-18, 09:59, said:

I
[1] 2♦ reverse shows extras
[2] I play Lebensohl after reverses, so 3♣ shows GF opposite minimum reverse, so a decent 8-ish.

QJxx
QJ
-
8765432

If you leben, how is opener to know you have this rather than

QJxx
QJ
Jx
65432

The first is a *good* hand. 11 Goren points. Just unplayable in anything but clubs.

Your point of view is that minor-suit hands must resign themselves to minuses when pluses are easy.

Minor suit hands happen.

[Stephen Tu]

 bluenikki, on 2020-October-18, 11:44, said:

Your point of view is that minor-suit hands must resign themselves to minuses when pluses are easy.

Minor suit hands happen.

I don't understand your point. The first hand is incredibly unlikely. You have 12 cd fit in clubs, the opps silent? With the 2nd hand, you bid your weakness signal (2nt if lebensohl; 2H if BWS style), then pass 3c. If partner forces to 3nt anyway (he has a moose), you let him try to make it, he is suggesting he has play for it opposite such a hand. The first hand, you are going to bid to 5c presumably, bidding the weakness signal first can be an effective warning to partner that you are doing this based on extreme shape rather than high cards so partner doesn't try 6 without the goods.

I'm not going to try to park the first hand in exactly 4c. I hope you aren't suggesting that?

Playing Lebensohl or other structure doesn't mean that you can't insist on clubs instead of NT. The main suggestion is that you aren't ever pulling 3nt to 4c with an intent to play there. If you are pulling 3nt, you are either pulling to 5c because you think that's better than 3nt, or bidding 4c as a forcing slam try (not slam *force* as a poster above suggested, that's insane). Bidding 4c to play over 3nt doesn't make much sense at all.

If you really evaluated the hand as wanting to play 4c and 4c only, you would have done whatever system bid to try to get out in 3c if partner doesn't have a GF. This is either 2h/2nt for the vast majority of better players; 3c as weak NF is extremely uncommon these days. 3c NF is mainly played by weaker players who haven't learned about reverse principles, or very, very old-fashioned bidders. And after having shown such potential weakness, if partner offers 3nt anyway, try to make it if you are declaring or let him declare, he is saying he wants to play in 3nt opposite such a hand. Will it always be right, of course not, but you'll get a ton more points in the long run for successful 3nts than getting to 4c making exactly 130 when 3nt fails.

[DavidKok]

I don't understand your example. For the first hand, you have a known 12-card fit in clubs (unless you have sophisticated agreements about the 2♦ reverse, which is quite standard these days actually). I wouldn't dare sign off with that hand.

But regardless of your evaluation of these hands, Lebensohl sacrifices the natural 2NT bid to make a strength distinction. How does this turn a plus into a minus? Are you worried 2NT is the last playable contract after the reverse? If so I hear for example the Ingberman convention over reverses might solve the issue (using the cheapest unbid suit as the 'Lebensohl 2NT', or 2NT itself, depending on which is cheaper).

[helene_t]

If 3♣ was non-forcing then 4♣ is a weird bid. As Stephen Tu explains, it shouldn't be to play, but it can't show slam interest either. And it's hard to see how it could be choice of game since 4♠ or 5♦ can hardly be options here. I would think most likely we have a misunderstanding or the 4♣ bidder lost it. I think I would just shrug and bid 5♣, or maybe 4NT if my hand screams of notrump.

If 3♣ was forcing, obviously 4♣ is forcing, too.

[jamf1]

It's Gerber.

[fuzzyquack]

To meaningfully ask this question, you should have a system discussion. If 3♣ is just a bad hand, then partner has heard it. Then 4♣ is to play, with something like ♠QJxxx,♥xx,♦xxx,♣xxx. If 3♣ is ambiguous, then 4♣ must be forcing, denying ♦A/K.

[egg46]

With a barrage hand bid 5C after 3nt so 4C if not using lebensohl is forcing and a better hand for exploring slam

[Douglas43]

 bluenikki, on 2020-October-18, 11:44, said:

QJxx
QJ
-
8765432

If you leben, how is opener to know you have this rather than

QJxx
QJ
Jx
65432

The first is a *good* hand. 11 Goren points. Just unplayable in anything but clubs.

Your point of view is that minor-suit hands must resign themselves to minuses when pluses are easy.

Minor suit hands happen.

Apologies if this is missing the point as I'm used to a system with 4 card Majors and thus also 4 card minors, but even playing 5cM / better minor, surely you can raise a minor immediately with 7 card support?