4th suit forcing

[adhoc3]

I am arguing with a freind about 4th suit forcing. I think it is no more necessary after pd's 2/1 rebid. For an instance:

 

1H-2D, 2S-3C or

1S-2C, 2D-2H

 

The 4th suit bidder should have real suit -- the 2nd suit of his strong hand. If the responder has balanced hand and no stopper in the 4th suit, just rebid the 2/1 suit or support PD's first suit (doubleton with an honor is of coz accepable). Bidding NT confirm stopper and imply having length in the unbid suit --no strong enough to bid directly.

 

I can't construct a hand that strong enough to make a 2/1 bid but can do neither of the following: 1)rebid his suit, 2)support PD's suit 3)bid NT.

 

Am I correct?

[Echognome]

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

Had a similar discussion with my partner. You asked if I can construct some hands, well here they are. I think in all of these, have a FSF for partner to describe his hand further is best. In the 3rd case, you'd probably be OK with 2NT.

[awm]

Well it depends on whether 2/1s are game forcing of course, since if they are not you may well need the 4th suit to establish a game force in some auctions.

 

Playing 2/1, I think it makes more sense to bid 2NT when you have the fourth suit, and thus use the actual 4th suit bid as a catch-all. You're not likely to find partner with a fit for the 4th suit after partner's shown 9 cards in other suits, and even if you do you can easily find it when partner patterns out over 2NT by bidding the 3-card fragment.

[mike777]

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

Had a similar discussion with my partner.  You asked if I can construct some hands, well here they are.  I think in all of these, have a FSF for partner to describe his hand further is best.  In the 3rd case, you'd probably be OK with 2NT.

1) Hand one..not strong enough to force to game bid...one semi-forcing nt, even 1nt may go down, come on you only have 13 hcp across from partner's opening bid!

2) Come on now, partner has bid 2D and you have AKQ of D...raise...easy!

3) 2nt....

 

 

Please note in none of these hands are you bidding 4sf,,next problem!

[adhoc3]

I try to solve these 3 case without FSF :) :

 

1)3NT: I'm not encouraged enough to run for 6C unless PD can bid over 3NT. 2 Aces are fine, but wrong place.

2)3NT: I need to possesse right position. If he has xx in S, I will have to pray for 44 break.

3)2NT: as you've pointed out.

 

For case 1), FSF 3H would be the most 'comfortable' than the other 2. But PD still in fog. I wonder where he can go without knowing club fitting.

[Echognome]

Hand 1: Give responder a minor suit J then. Surely you must force with a 14 count now. Let's make it fun and give him ♣KQJ. Easy raise?

 

Hand 2: Easy is it? Opener has:

 

♠K

♥QJTxx

♦xxxx

♣AKx

 

1♥-2♣-2♦-3♦-?

 

or maybe he has:

 

♠xx

♥AKQT9

♦JT9x

♣Kx

 

In 3, 2NT is fine as declarer can still bid out his hand shape just as over 3♣FSF (with the additional step of bidding 3♣). The question here is namely the difference between 3♣ and 2NT (which would be nice to be reserved for hands that want to play in NT!).

[adhoc3]

2) Come on now, partner has bid 2D and you have AKQ of D...raise...easy!

 

3D just fine. If PD wants to play NT, surely he will bid 3S to comfirm stopper.

[han]

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

[hv=s=sxxhaxxdaxxxxckqx]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - ?[/hv]

 

Had a similar discussion with my partner.  You asked if I can construct some hands, well here they are.  I think in all of these, have a FSF for partner to describe his hand further is best.  In the 3rd case, you'd probably be OK with 2NT.

1) Hand one..not strong enough to force to game bid...one semi-forcing nt, even 1nt may go down, come on you only have 13 hcp across from partner's opening bid!

2) Come on now, partner has bid 2D and you have AKQ of D...raise...easy!

3) 2nt....

 

 

Please note in none of these hands are you bidding 4sf,,next problem!

(1) I know of no strong pair that would force to game with this, a prime 13-count.

 

(2) I prefer not to raise partner's secondary suit with 3, as nice as they might be. Isn't it a little early to start looking for a minor 4-3 fit? Qxx is funny, if partner has Ax then you want to declare 3NT, and if he has Kx then he has to declare. I think I'd just bid 2NT (partner will expect 3-2-3-5 shape won't he?) but it shouldn't be hard to tweak the hand a little bid so that FSF becomes appealing.

 

(3) This one I agree, you either bid 2NT or 3NT, depending on your agreements. (isn't it "standard to play that 3NT shows about 15-17?).

 

 

I would play the 4th suit as potentially artificial at the 3-level but natural at the 2-level. (so with hand (2) I would not bid 2S because it would show 4).

[mike777]

Hand 1: Give responder a minor suit J then.  Surely you must force with a 14 count now. Let's make it fun and give him ♣KQJ.  Easy raise?

 

Hand 2: Easy is it?  Opener has:

 

♠K

♥QJTxx

♦xxxx

♣AKx

 

1♥-2♣-2♦-3♦-?

 

or maybe he has:

 

♠xx

♥AKQT9

♦JT9x

♣Kx

 

In 3, 2NT is fine as declarer can still bid out his hand shape just as over 3♣FSF (with the additional step of bidding 3♣). The question here is namely the difference between 3♣ and 2NT (which would be nice to be reserved for hands that want to play in NT!).

1) yes, on hand one I would bid 4clubs if you give me KQJ tight of clubs over my 2D game force bid.

2a) Yes, easy raise to 3 clubs over 2clubs by responder.

2b*) Yes easy rebid of 2h: 1H=2C=2H,EASY

[Echognome]

By the way, I'm not advocating one method over another. I'm simply coming up with hands to favour one method (as asked by poster!). In order to come up with a hand I'm required that responder:

 

Doesn't have Hx or xxx in opener's suit.

Doesn't have a 2/1 suit worth rebidding.

Doesn't have a natural NT call.

Doesn't have a natural 2nd suit of his own.

 

That limits the hand types considerably. They almost all start with xx in opener's suit. They all will have honours in their short suits other than the 2/1 suit and opener's suit. The honours in the 4th suit are such that declaring NT from our side will often be wrong. So, I'll try another one. :)

 

[hv=s=sxxhakqdjxxxxxcax]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥[/hv]

[mike777]

By the way, I'm not advocating one method over another.  I'm simply coming up with hands to favour one method (as asked by poster!).  In order to come up with a hand I'm required that responder:

 

Doesn't have Hx or xxx in opener's suit.

Doesn't have a 2/1 suit worth rebidding.

Doesn't have a natural NT call.

Doesn't have a natural 2nd suit of his own.

 

That limits the hand types considerably.  They almost all start with xx in opener's suit.  They all will have honours in their short suits other than the 2/1 suit and opener's suit. The honours in the 4th suit are such that declaring NT from our side will often be wrong.  So, I'll try another one. :)

 

[hv=s=sxxhakqdjxxxxxcax]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥[/hv]

GREAT example but I am still not bidding 4sf! I rebid 3h or 2nt! I would pick 3H but understand 2nt! Now we can argue what the heck is partner bidding 2h on? In any case I will sleep like a baby after my 3H rebid :).

[EricK]

While it may not be strictly necessary to have an artificial forcing bid it is occasionally useful. Bear in mind that a natural bid of the fourth suit is only occasionally useful as well!

 

Another point to consider is that having both players make descriptive bids is not always an optimum use of bidding space.

 

With these points in mind, you may want to consider making the cheapest bid by responder as an artificial force asking opener to continue describing his hand, and allow ing him the maximum room to do so.

 

So after 1♠ 2♣ 2♦, 2♥ would be artificial force

But after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥, 2♠ would be the general force

And after 1♠ 2♥ 3♦, 3♥ would be the bid. However, in this last case there is not much room to pick the best contract whatever methods you play!

 

Eric

[mike777]

By the way, I'm not advocating one method over another.  I'm simply coming up with hands to favour one method (as asked by poster!).  In order to come up with a hand I'm required that responder:

 

Doesn't have Hx or xxx in opener's suit.

Doesn't have a 2/1 suit worth rebidding.

Doesn't have a natural NT call.

Doesn't have a natural 2nd suit of his own.

 

That limits the hand types considerably.  They almost all start with xx in opener's suit.  They all will have honours in their short suits other than the 2/1 suit and opener's suit. The honours in the 4th suit are such that declaring NT from our side will often be wrong.  So, I'll try another one. :)

 

[hv=s=sxxhakqdjxxxxxcax]133|100|1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥[/hv]

GREAT example but I am still not bidding 4sf! I rebid 3h or 2nt! I would pick 3H but understand 2nt! Now we can argue what the heck is partner bidding 2h on? In any case I will sleep like a baby after my 3H rebid :).

BTW this is a huge problem in 2/1 when we are bidding long suits and we have zero hcp in our long suits. 2 things seem to save us, 1) the opp end up bidding a bunch very often, 2) we try to minimize our strength when HCP are in our short suits.

[Fluffy]

Playing 2/1, I think it makes more sense to bid 2NT when you have the fourth suit, and thus use the actual 4th suit bid as a catch-all. You're not likely to find partner with a fit for the 4th suit after partner's shown 9 cards in other suits, and even if you do you can easily find it when partner patterns out over 2NT by bidding the 3-card fragment.

Playing 2/1 I use 2Nt OR 4SF, whoever is cheaper, as a kind of relay further asking. Whenever in GF situation I tend to like to use 4SF as natural if there is another way to bid avaible.

[Finch]

Rather than quote example hands, I'd like to give a bit of theory.

There are 2 main "2/1" schools of thought, and two minority schools.

 

i) You don't need FSF because you are forced to game anyway; responder makes his most descriptive call, be that raising partner's 2nd suit with 3, or partner's first suit with Hx, or bidding NT with a stop in the 4th suit, or bidding the 4th suit naturally, or rebidding his own suit. With serious support for partner's first suit you can jump, so simple preference on a doubleton is fine.

 

ii) You try and make responder's second call as descriptive as possible. Preference to opener's first suit shows (usually) 3 card support, raising the second suit shows 4, rebidding your own suit shows a seriously good suit, bidding NT shows a chunky holding in the unbid suit that wants to be led up to (so Q109x better than Axx), jump preference to partner's first suit shows 4-card support (and by inference a good holding in your 2/1 suit as no Jacoby 2NT). In this style you need 4SF to cover all the hands that don't have one of the above.

 

(as a side issue, if you bid 4th suit and partner bids NT and you bid 4th suit again that is natural with 5 in the suit).

 

Style (i) gives you advantage of bidding your hand out & finding your fit in the 4th suit. Style (ii) gives you the advantage of better-defined auctions when you don't have a fit in the 4th suit, and gets NT played the right way up more often.

 

I think (ii) is better, but plenty of people play (i). Just make sure your partner is playing the same way as you.

 

Similarly I still play 4SF after a 2C opening, though I think this is a closer decision.

 

The other two schools are

iii) a 2/1 is not game forcing if you rebid your 2/1 suit. I don't like this approach so haven't thought much about it, but I think you then need to play 4SF.

 

iv) Opener's first rebid is partly artificial, and responder then has a choice of an artificial relay (equivalent of 4SF in practice) or a descriptive natural bid. This is what I play in my 2/1 partnership, but I wouldn't impose it on a non-regular partner.

[pclayton]

I play the 4th suit as similar to what Matt suggests - but its not 4SF per se - its more of a 4th suit "punt" - i.e. - I don't have a better call at this point, please continue.

 

I generally post alert this call to the opponents before they lead.

[Kalvan14]

I'm mostly in agreement with frances' analysis, and I play method ii, btw.

As usual, it is a matter of style, but also of numbers: there are many more hands where it is interesting to find a stopper in the 4th suit to play a confident 3NT (or maybe to go for a 5 of a minor, if there is no stopper there) that hands in which you need to find a fit in the 4th suit.

Btw, in sequences where you can raise the 4th suit below 3NT:

- 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠

- 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♠

- 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥

pard is required to support with 4 cards (which means that 2/3 NT does not include 4 cards in 4th suit).

A possibly awkward sequence is:

- 1♠-2♥-3♣-3♦ . OK, here you cannot raise, and I am just looking for a stopper (or maybe half a stopper, there is space for that). I never had big trouble here.

An auction like:

- 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣

is certainly not looking for a fit in ♣.

Please note that:

- 1♣ [or ♦] - 1♠ - 2♦ [or ♣]- 2♥ : 2♥ is FSF [needed as a force]. OTOH, pard supports with 4 cards.

 

As a related topic, I play NMF. Therefore, 1m-1♠-1N [or 2m]-2♥ is not forcing

The force [with 4 hearts] goes through NMF. Everything is fine and good, if the auction is not exactly 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣.

My partnership agreement is that priorities are: fit in ♠; stopper in ♥ [3N] or 4 cards in ♥ [3♥]- 3♦as default

[Guest Jlall]

I don't play FSF in 2/1 auctions but there are certainly hands where I'd like to :ph34r: On the other hand, there are certainly hands I'm glad I don't.

[Wackojack]

Rather than quote example hands, I'd like to give a bit of theory.

There are 2 main "2/1" schools of thought, and two minority schools.

 

i) You don't need FSF because you are forced to game anyway; responder makes his most descriptive call, be that raising partner's 2nd suit with 3, or partner's first suit with Hx, or bidding NT with a stop in the 4th suit, or bidding the 4th suit naturally, or rebidding his own suit. With serious support for partner's first suit you can jump, so simple preference on a doubleton is fine.

 

ii) You try and make responder's second call as descriptive as possible. Preference to opener's first suit shows (usually) 3 card support, raising the second suit shows 4, rebidding your own suit shows a seriously good suit, bidding NT shows a chunky holding in the unbid suit that wants to be led up to (so Q109x better than Axx), jump preference to partner's first suit shows 4-card support (and by inference a good holding in your 2/1 suit as no Jacoby 2NT). In this style you need 4SF to cover all the hands that don't have one of the above.

 

(as a side issue, if you bid 4th suit and partner bids NT and you bid 4th suit again that is natural with 5 in the suit).

 

Style (i) gives you advantage of bidding your hand out & finding your fit in the 4th suit.  Style (ii) gives you the advantage of better-defined auctions when you don't have a fit in the 4th suit, and gets NT played the right way up more often.

 

I think (ii) is better, but plenty of people play (i). Just make sure your partner is playing the same way as you.

 

Similarly I still play 4SF after a 2C opening, though I think this is a closer decision.

 

The other two schools are

iii) a 2/1 is not game forcing if you rebid your 2/1 suit. I don't like this approach so haven't thought much about it, but I think you then need to play 4SF.

 

iv) Opener's first rebid is partly artificial, and responder then has a choice of an artificial relay (equivalent of 4SF in practice) or a descriptive natural bid. This is what I play in my 2/1 partnership, but I wouldn't impose it on a non-regular partner.

Barely one month into my 2/1 learning curve, the theory you have given has been very useful and very relavent to some things I would like confirmed. Playing 1nt=15-17, and all 4 card raises of 1M either raise immediately, splinter or bid 2nt.

 

Then after:

1s-2c-2d or 1s-2c-2h or 1s-2d-2h

 

2nt = stop in 4th suit 13-14 or 18-19

2s = any doubleton support with no stops in 4th suit

3s= strong 3-card raise

4s = min 3-card raise

 

and generally:

4th suit bid is 4 or more genuine suit.

raise of 2nd suit promises 4.

 

Is this consistent with style (i)?

It seems that most contributors do not subscribe to this method. Is bidding 2s with Hx more normal? Is it not normal to show a 4-card raise on the 1st response?

 

I hope I am on the right track

[Kalvan14]

Rather than quote example hands, I'd like to give a bit of theory.

There are 2 main "2/1" schools of thought, and two minority schools.

 

i) You don't need FSF because you are forced to game anyway; responder makes his most descriptive call, be that raising partner's 2nd suit with 3, or partner's first suit with Hx, or bidding NT with a stop in the 4th suit, or bidding the 4th suit naturally, or rebidding his own suit. With serious support for partner's first suit you can jump, so simple preference on a doubleton is fine.

 

ii) You try and make responder's second call as descriptive as possible. Preference to opener's first suit shows (usually) 3 card support, raising the second suit shows 4, rebidding your own suit shows a seriously good suit, bidding NT shows a chunky holding in the unbid suit that wants to be led up to (so Q109x better than Axx), jump preference to partner's first suit shows 4-card support (and by inference a good holding in your 2/1 suit as no Jacoby 2NT). In this style you need 4SF to cover all the hands that don't have one of the above.

 

(as a side issue, if you bid 4th suit and partner bids NT and you bid 4th suit again that is natural with 5 in the suit).

 

Style (i) gives you advantage of bidding your hand out & finding your fit in the 4th suit.  Style (ii) gives you the advantage of better-defined auctions when you don't have a fit in the 4th suit, and gets NT played the right way up more often.

 

I think (ii) is better, but plenty of people play (i). Just make sure your partner is playing the same way as you.

 

Similarly I still play 4SF after a 2C opening, though I think this is a closer decision.

 

The other two schools are

iii) a 2/1 is not game forcing if you rebid your 2/1 suit. I don't like this approach so haven't thought much about it, but I think you then need to play 4SF.

 

iv) Opener's first rebid is partly artificial, and responder then has a choice of an artificial relay (equivalent of 4SF in practice) or a descriptive natural bid. This is what I play in my 2/1 partnership, but I wouldn't impose it on a non-regular partner.

Barely one month into my 2/1 learning curve, the theory you have given has been very useful and very relavent to some things I would like confirmed. Playing 1nt=15-17, and all 4 card raises of 1M either raise immediately, splinter or bid 2nt.

 

Then after:

1s-2c-2d or 1s-2c-2h or 1s-2d-2h

 

2nt = stop in 4th suit 13-14 or 18-19

2s = any doubleton support with no stops in 4th suit

3s= strong 3-card raise

4s = min 3-card raise

 

and generally:

4th suit bid is 4 or more genuine suit.

raise of 2nd suit promises 4.

 

Is this consistent with style (i)?

It seems that most contributors do not subscribe to this method. Is bidding 2s with Hx more normal? Is it not normal to show a 4-card raise on the 1st response?

 

I hope I am on the right track

In the Hardy version of 2/1, 2♠ is fixing trumps; 4♠ is fast arrival (i.e., denies any 1st or 2nd round control in unbidden suits). 3♠ is an RKC.

 

I could not go for a 2♠ which might be just 2 small cards (and even a doubleton honor would be stretching).

 

One of the best points of 2/1 is the capacity of imposing trumps at low level, leaving space for cue-bidding. If you give away the 2-level, it must be for a benefit. Finding a theoretical 4-4 fit in the 4th suit is not good enough for me.

Suppose you hold xx, AQx, KQJxx, Qxx or even xx, AQx, KJxxx, Axx. What are you going to bid after 1♠-2♦-2♥?

 

As far as the other question, you should certainly immediately show a 4-card fit, unless you have a significant side suit (eg, Kxxx, Ax, AQJxx, xx: I would never hide ♦ when pard opens 1♠).