Answer to fsf

[ochinko]

2.  Of course 3 spades can't show 4.  What source are you using that says that the raise of a 4th suit shows 4 cards in SAYC?  On a routine auction, eg. 

 

1♣ 1♥

1♠ 2♦

3♦

 

I certainly wouldn't expect the 3 diamond bidder to promise 4.

It is from Standard Bidding With SAYC. If there's any other book featuring SAYC that says otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong.

 

According to it:

"FSF can be used in a large variety of situations. The most common are:

- When looking for a stopper for a no trump contract.

- When lookin for delayed three-card trump support."

 

I will quote their summary about FSF:

"A bid of the fourth suit at the two-level or higher is forcing for one round and may be artificial. By partnership agreement this bid may be forcing to game.

 

In response to a fourth suit forcing bid opener will:

- Return responder's first suit with three card support (jump raise with extra values).

- Rebid his own second suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values.

- Rebid his own first suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values.

- Bid NT to show a stopper in the fourth suit.

- Raise the fourth suit (with four cards)."

 

Example:

1♣ 1♦

1♠ 2♥

2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

[jtfanclub]

Example:

1♣ 1♦

1♠ 2♥

2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

But they think that a 3♥ bid in this auction would show 4 cards?

 

Huh. Who was the author?

[ochinko]

Example:

1♣ 1♦

1♠ 2♥

2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

But they think that a 3♥ bid in this auction would show 4 cards?

 

Huh. Who was the author?

You can easily see the authors in amazon.com. What you won't see there is the list of the editors, so I'll mention some of them instead: Marty Bergen, Larry Cohen, Fred Gitelman, Mathew Granovetter, Ron Klinger, Alvin Roth.

 

What was your source again?

[han]

This is irrelevant to the discussion here, 1D-1H-2C denies 4 spades.

[ochinko]

This is irrelevant to the discussion here, 1D-1H-2C denies 4 spades.

Of course not in all cases it would make sense to expect four cards when the fourth suit is raised. But as Mikeh said as well, 3♠ here would show a hand better than the expected minimum, not worse.

[jtfanclub]

What was your source again?

I have no source, which is why I find that this source says this so interesting.

[mike777]

Could responder's hand be?

 

QJT8

AKQTx

Kx

xx

 

or

 

QJT8

AKQTx

Kxx

x

[jdonn]

Whats the most relevant feature of this hand? The double spade stop or the ♣Jxxxx? Most of the time, we will be marching toward 3N on power, and the spade stops are key. 

 

I don't want pard to think I have a weak or even a single spade stop, and that what it sounds like to me if I try 3♣ (3♥) - 3N.

I agree with this post most of all. It's possible we belong in a 5-3 club fit but really not that likely compared to the concern of partner being worried we have just one spade stopper if we bid 3♣ then 3NT, as well as him playing us for better clubs.

 

I would tend to bid out my shape here, but this hand just seems like an exception to me. I do not like having 3 points in the two suits I'm going out of my way to show an extra card in.

 

I completely agree with Frances/Mike per what 3♠ shows. It is not an option on a hand this weak.

[Guest Jlall]

GL to the 2N bidders when partner forces you to play in hearts since you can't have a void.

[cnszsun]

So 3♣ is left. Partner can bid 3♦, over which we can bid 3♠... bidding 3N would be dangerous with a heart void and a partner who did not rebid the suit.

1D-1H

2C-2S

3C-3D

3S

Hi, Mike,

My first impression of that 3S is stop-ask, rather than shape showing.

If 3S shows shape, how to bid if you have a 2-1-5-5 hand and no spade stop unless partner's 3D expressed no interest in 3NT?

[han]

1D-1H-2C-2S-3C-3H-3NT shows an honest stop. With doubt we could have bid 3S.

[ochinko]

1D-1H-2C-2S-3C-3H-3NT shows an honest stop. With doubt we could have bid 3S.

To me this reluctant NT from opener shows only half a stopper: Qx willing to play NT against Axx. Now if partner has ♠J10, she'll abandon the idea, even though with our AKx we stop spades 3 times on a spade lead, and opps can't harm us with their nine spades. And all that because we insisted to show our small club instead.

 

We can't bid 3♠ after 3♥ showing doubt as that would wrong side the contract when our spades are Qx:Axx.

[mink]

GL to the 2N bidders when partner forces you to play in hearts since you can't have a void.

If I have a responder hand like

[hv=s=sxhakqjxxxxdxxckx]133|100|[/hv]I would bid 3nt over 2nt by opener. After all, the 2nt promises a ♠ stopper and not a balanced hand.

 

Karl

[ArtK78]

Karl:

 

If you play that hand in 3NT, you may wind up going down 7 tricks! - you may never take a heart trick.

 

However, if you play that hand in 4H, at least you will have a chance other than the CA onside, and you will score 8 heart tricks.

[mikeh]

So 3♣ is left. Partner can bid 3♦, over which we can bid 3♠... bidding 3N would be dangerous with a heart void and a partner who did not rebid the suit.

1D-1H

2C-2S

3C-3D

3S

Hi, Mike,

My first impression of that 3S is stop-ask, rather than shape showing.

If 3S shows shape, how to bid if you have a 2-1-5-5 hand and no spade stop unless partner's 3D expressed no interest in 3NT?

If the auction were 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ 3♣ 3♥, then I'd play 3♠ as denying a stopper (altho if I then pulled 3N to 4♥, I'd be 1=2=5=5 or even 0=xxx=5=5 with slam interest).

 

As it is, responder's 3♦ over my 3♣, sets trump. I do not think it is merely a preference, altho there can be hands on which he is stuck: some 3=5=2=3 with no spade stopper and Hx diamonds.

 

Remember that opener is almost unlimited by 3♣: he has shown opening values (I happen to think that he doesn't have them on this hand, but that's irrelevent) and less than a strong gf jump shift over 1♥. He could still have as much as 17 (maybe even a bad 18) hcp. And responder is completely unlimited.

 

Thus, to my mind, we have to cater to slam bidding here, once responder uses 4th suit and then bids 3♦. If I have to bid 3N with all hands containing a spade stopper, then responder is going to be doing a lot of guessing over 3N: do I hold my actual garbage, or do I hold a decent 16? And so on.

 

Now, it is possible that we could play 3♠ as either stopper asking or big hand, but we are venturing into a morass, where one player or the other has to decide whether to pull (or bid) 3N with no real idea as to who holds what values.

 

So I prefer, once responder bids 3♦, to bid 3♠ as showing spade values and no immediate desire to bid 3N... either because, on this hand, my shape and lack of strength dissuades me from wanting to play 3N or because I have too much playing strength in diamonds to give up on slam.

 

I admit that this approach makes Jx x AQxxx KQJxx difficult to bid, but when partner bid 3♦ opposite this hand, I'd assume that he didn't have a strong desire to play 3N anyway, and I'd probably end up in 5♦, maybe failing when 3N is cold.

 

But, in the long run, I think that using 3♠ as I have suggested makes for more accurate bidding on more hands than the converse.

 

Incidentally, the problems inherent in responder evaluation (what does he need for 4SF... how does he handle misfits...?) are one powerful reason why I thoroughly detest the Rule of 20. Of course, make my hand a tiny bit stronger, and I have the same problem, so maybe I'm being unfair :huh:

[jdonn]

As it is, responder's 3♦ over my 3♣, sets trump. I do not think it is merely a preference, altho there can be hands on which he is stuck: some 3=5=2=3 with no spade stopper and Hx diamonds.

I have posted this before. It is superior IMO for responder's 4SF then rebid the 4th suit to say responder has no other bid, on this auction prototypically 4522 with no spade stopper, but 3523 is possible if responder doesn't want to bypass 3NT (or if the 4♣ bid could be on 2254). It is so important that responder doesn't take vague preferences after 4SF, but instead just either sets trumps or rebids his own suit.

 

Though I understand your point about 3♠, I can't believe someone could bid their Qxxxx Jxxxx three times and then still not bid notrump with AKx in the last suit. Even given playing 3♠ as you suggest, our hand is so minimum and bad for slam, and so impossible for partner to evaluate given how many terrible suits we have bid, that putting on the breaks really seems right.