[paulg]

---

My teammates had this problem at the weekend playing a knockout match. The crux of the issue was the meaning of 4♣, since that affected the meaning of the 3♠ cue bid that was eventually chosen. As it happened, considering this problem at the table blinded them to the best call, so I won't give the hands as that will detract from the question!

[helene_t]

3♠ would just be a waiting bid, ostensibly denying heart support and denying a spade stopper, ostensibly a somewhat flexible hand.

4♣ I would take as natural if undiscussed. But we do need a way to show a good heart raise. So one could play 4♣ as natural and 4♦ as a good heart raise since a natural 4♦ bid shouldn't really exist - a one-suited hand will almost always be looking for notrumps.

Then again, the good heart raise is more frequent the minor two-suiter, so maybe 4♣ should be the heart raise and 4♦ should show clubs.

So I dunno what is technically best. And what is easier to remember obviously depends on your meta-agreements.

[shyams]

My (non-expert) view:

North has 3♠ to show a good, ambiguous hand. It can be enroute asking partner to bid 3NT with suitable hands. If North did have a minor two suited hand, they can remove a 3NT bid by partner to 4♣ and indicate such a hand.

So, I would say that 4♣ shows a cue in support of ♥.

[KurtGodel]

It may also depend on what a direct 3♠ might have shown. For example if you play leaping Michaels then 3♠ here would be the minors, and then there would be more of an argument for playing 4♣ here as a cuebid. Not playing any unusual treatments I would assume that 3♠ is either probing for NT or a heart raise, and if 3NT gets pulled it shows a cue. That would make 4♣ natural, it might just be that there is no standard way to play this sequence.

[WesleyC]

Given that 3H is forcing, 3S needs to show any hand without support or a stopper - basically just a waiting bid. It could also be a very strong hand (possibly with support), that is hoping to reveal itself later.

In that context 4C pretty much has to be natural.

[cherdano]

100% Natural for me - we could have a 10-card fit in clubs! (5-5 in the minors doesn't always scream for a 4NT overcall, and advancer has no other option with a hearts-club 2-suiter.) Could be 5=4 in the minors unsuitable for double, 6=4, or 5=5.

[mikeh]

I don't understand why anyone would tie themselves into knots trying to persuade themselves that 4♣ could ever be artificial.


If a call can be natural, then unless context compels a different conclusion, it should be natural

If we can logically hold a hand with which we need the call to be natural, and have an alternative action for hands where we would like it to be artificial, then it should be natural.

Obviously North could be 6=4 in the minors, as one example. xx x AKJxxx AQxx: wtf are we doing over 3♥? Note that North could, in many partnerships, have 5 clubs...depending on agreements as to how to show minor 2-suiters, and what strength is promised in doing so.

Meanwhile, North can always cuebid spades with a slam-interest hand in hearts. Now, the cuebid is not perfect, but few calls in preemptive auctions are. Most of the time North will be able to clarify the intent of the cuebid.

He will pull 3N and 4♦ to 4♥. Actions over 4♣ or 4♥, the other plausible next calls by advancer, are not as clear.

As for Helene's notion: I am not arguing that artificiality is a bad idea: I am arguing against the notion that anyone at the table should start thinking that partner shows clubs by rebidding diamonds, absent an agreement. Just imagine the post-mortem if the player who bid diamonds held....diamonds....and S started bidding as if it showed clubs.

[paulg]

My view, when quizzed in the car, was along the same lines as mikeh.

The problem that ensued on the actual hand was confusion over the trump suit after the cue bid ...

(2♠) - 3♦ - (Pass) - 3♥
(Pass) - 3♠ - (Pass) - 4♦
(Pass) - 4♥

They ended up in the second best slam (diamonds) rather than hearts, although all slams failed on bad breaks.