fourth suit round or gameforcing?

[mamo2500]

When playing fourth suit, which do you prefer?

Forcing for one round only or forcing to game?

And why prefer one to the other?

 

Regards

 

Marianne B)

[Gerardo]

Forcing to game.

 

It allows to support a minor after showing a major, and still stay under 3NT if needed, and generally save space when you need it.

[inquiry]

I prefer a hybrid...

 

If the 4th suit is at the three level, i prefer it forcing to game.

If the 4th suit is a reverse at the two level, i prefer it forcing to game

If the 4th suit is at the two level, and is below responders first suit, i prefer it just as forcing, but not to game.

[helene_t]

I prefer GF for two reasons:

- Easier to remember. If it's not GF you have to remember which subsequent biddings are forcing and which are not.

- If opener has to jump with any 14-pointers because a non-jump would not be forcing, those jumps take away too much bidding space without clarifying opener's hand.

 

There is one exception:

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠*

If you play 1♠ as FSF it should probably not be game forcing since there's plenty of bidding space left. In fact it might not even need to be invitational.

[awm]

I prefer game force. The hand where invitational really wins is very specific. For example:

 

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣...

 

Normally you can bid 2NT or 3♣ or 3♦ with an invite. The only time you really have a problem is when you have no heart stopper, fewer than three diamonds, and fewer than four clubs. Since a four-card heart suit is probably worth considering a stopper in any case, this basically means you have to be 5-3-2-3 exactly with weak hearts. Yes, this hand does occasionally come up, but frequency-wise playing GF will be better any time you have a game force, since you get to describe your hand more cheaply.

 

An interesting alternative is to play fourth suit as exactly invitational, or a GF with the awkward hand, whereas direct three-level bids are all game force. This potentially has advantages and I play this in some sequences and some partnerships. But I don't think "inv+" is really a good treatment, especially in my preferred style where opener often raises a major-suit response with three-card support (so I'm happy to bid 1♦-1♠-2♣-2NT with five spades, we won't miss a fit).

[foo]

I prefer a hybrid...

 

If the 4th suit is at the three level, i prefer it forcing to game.

If the 4th suit is a reverse at the two level, i prefer it forcing to game

If the 4th suit is at the two level, and is below responders first suit, i prefer it just as forcing, but not to game.

I'm with Inquiry on this. Unfortunately, you have to be in the right partnership to play anything more complicated than the "standard" 4th Suit GF.

[mike777]

1) Prefer game force, makes game biddding or slam bidding easier though we all know going through 4sf can also be a mess.

2) Why bother to stop on a dime with an invite hand? Do your opp defend perfectly?

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing for one round (*).

 

Why? 4th suit was invented for a certain class

of hand, and it works perfect for those hands,

and that are hands, which quite often just want to

invite.

 

Someone said, fourth suit as inv.+ is better but

more complicated than if the fourth suit would be

gameforcing.

 

(*) Of course the fourth suit is forcing to game

if it occurrs on the 3 level, and if the guy who

used it bids again.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

Always GF for me. Only exception would be 1♠ if playing standard or Walsh.

[benlessard]

Im challenging everybody who read this post to find a hand where my method will give inferior result compare to 4suit GF.

 

I prefer a modern approach wich is quite simple.

 

Just reversing the INV hands and the GF hands

 

4th suit like our new minor is the only inv and is always inv. 2 level is to play (2Nt and higher is GF)

 

So what used to be INV is now GF and the 4Th suit is now INV.

 

1D----1H----2C----????

 

2D,2H is to play (non-invitationnal)

 

2S is INV (replace, all nat INV 2Nt,3C,3D,3H)

 

2Nt & higher is GF

 

 

The big difference is that on GF hand we know the fit instantly. And we are better placed to find stoppers half a stopper to rightside the contract.

 

if you play

1D----1H----2C-----2S as GF

 

and partner bid 3D.

 

You are badly placed to show a club fit.

 

Worse

1D----1H----2C-----2S (GF)

3H----???

 

How do you handle a slammish hand with a m fit ?

 

 

There no downside to my method just a more complicated pass or correct responses.

 

1D-----1H-----2C------2S(inv)

???

 

2Nt I would refuse a bal inv.*

3C I would accept a bal inv but refuse a club INV

3D i would accept a bal inv or a Club inv but refuse a D INV

3H GF with H fit

3S GF with half a stopper

3Nt GF with S stopper.

 

We dont really lose precision because after a 4th suit inv there is no slam possibility. However we sometimes wrongside with a INV hand facing a maximum.

 

A positive thing is that it allowed us to sometime stop in 2M

 

1D-----1S-----2C-----???

 

here with a long S INV you have to bid 3S.

 

With my method just bid 2H. if partner rebid 2S (wich mean he refuse a 2S inv) you pass and play 2S instead of 3S.

 

1D-----1S-----2C-----???

 

what do you do with S&H INV in my method you just bid 2H. partner will respond 2S and i comeback at 3H showing 5-5 INV.

 

 

Our only bad result so far have come from not playing the hand from the same side when 1 side bid 2Nt.

 

 

Im challenging everybody who read this post to find a hand where my method will give inferior result compare to 4suit GF.

[lexlogan]

When playing fourth suit, which do you prefer?

Forcing for one round only or forcing to game?

And why prefer one to the other?

 

Regards

 

Marianne :)

This goes hand-in-hand with how you play responder's rebids. In Old Goren, all jump rebids by responder were game-forcing; an invitational hand was supposed to make two forcing bids, which was difficult without the fourth-suit convention. In the modern style, a jump rebid is usually invitational, except in a new suit (which would mean the fourth suit in a potential FSF auction.)

 

Having multiple game-forcing bids (so you can make a descriptive bid at the same time you set up the force) is probably best for most slam hands; so it makes sense to use the fourth suit as a one-round force in that style. For matchpoint bidding, it's nice to have multiple game invitational hands (which come up more frequently than the game-forcing ones), so it makes sense to treat the fourth suit as a game force.

 

All in all, it's probably easier to remember 4th suit as a game force.

[awm]

There are certainly hands where 4th suit invitational is inferior to 4th suit game force. For example, after 1♦-1♠-2♣:

 

♠AKxxx

♥Axxx

♦x

♣KJx

 

Give opener one of:

 

(1) ♠x ♥xx ♦AKxxx ♣AQxxx

(2) ♠xx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣Axxx

(3) ♠Qx ♥xx ♦KQJxx ♣Axxx

(4) ♠Qx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣Qxxx

 

Playing 4th suit GF, it's not hard to reach 6♣ on (1), 3NT on (2), and 4♠ on (3) and (4).

 

Playing 4th suit exactly invitational, the problem is that you don't know strain at responder's second call. Probably your best bet is to bid 2NT GF, but it seems like both (2) and (3) are very normal 3NT calls over this, and it's not totally clear after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2NT-3♦ on hand (4), that 3♠ is necessarily a suggestion to play in spades and not a cue for diamonds.

 

This problem only gets worse if you give opener no heart stopper at all, for example:

 

AKxxx

xxxx

x

AKx

 

The point is that 4th suit forcing serves two purposes: first, to help distinguish game force hands from invite hands (by giving two sequences to reach 3m for example), and second to probe for strain when it's not clear where to play the hand. In general, when you have no doubt about strain you will do slightly better when you can make a direct bid rather than going through 4sf, since sometimes opener's rebid creates awkwardness. When you have doubt about strain, you are much happier to go through 4sf. The "inv+" style puts all hands with doubt about strain through 4sf, but this is a bit of an overload at times.

[P_Marlowe]

There are certainly hands where 4th suit invitational is inferior to 4th suit game force. For example, after 1♦-1♠-2♣:

 

♠AKxxx

♥Axxx

♦x

♣KJx

 

Give opener one of:

 

(1) ♠x ♥xx ♦AKxxx ♣AQxxx

(2) ♠xx ♥Kx ♦KQJxx ♣Axxx

(3) ♠Qx ♥xx ♦KQJxx ♣Axxx

(4) ♠Qx ♥x ♦AKJxxx ♣Qxxx

 

Playing 4th suit GF, it's not hard to reach 6♣ on (1), 3NT on (2), and 4♠ on (3) and (4).

 

Playing 4th suit exactly invitational, the problem is that you don't know strain at responder's second call. Probably your best bet is to bid 2NT GF, but it seems like both (2) and (3) are very normal 3NT calls over this, and it's not totally clear after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2NT-3♦ on hand (4), that 3♠ is necessarily a suggestion to play in spades and not a cue for diamonds.

 

This problem only gets worse if you give opener no heart stopper at all, for example:

 

AKxxx

xxxx

x

AKx

 

The point is that 4th suit forcing serves two purposes: first, to help distinguish game force hands from invite hands (by giving two sequences to reach 3m for example), and second to probe for strain when it's not clear where to play the hand. In general, when you have no doubt about strain you will do slightly better when you can make a direct bid rather than going through 4sf, since sometimes opener's rebid creates awkwardness. When you have doubt about strain, you are much happier to go through 4sf. The "inv+" style puts all hands with doubt about strain through 4sf, but this is a bit of an overload at times.

You need better examples.

 

#1

 

1D.... - 1S

2C.... - 2H (1)

3C.(2)- 4C (3)

... (4)

 

 

(1) 4th suit forcing, inv.+

(2) 5-5, can be passed

(3) natural, forcing

(4) 6C

 

#2

 

1D.... - 1S

2C.... - 2H (1)

2NT.(2) - 3NT (3)

 

(1) 4th suit forcing, inv.+

(2) stopper in hearts, min, can be passed

(3) so be it

 

#3 / #4

 

1D.... - 1S

2C.... - 2H (1)

3D. (2) - 3NT (3)

 

(1) 4th suit forcing, inv.+

(2) 5-4, no 3 card spade support,

no stopper in hearts, min,

can be passed

(3) so be it

 

I am not sure if 4S is better than 3NT, but it

is certainly not bad, at least #3

 

With your last example opener bids 3H showing

max., but denying 3 card spade support and a

heart stopper, asking the reponder about a heart

stopper.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Benlessard's method looks similar to Pavlicek's method which has been reinvented here a couple of times (by Han and by me and probably by others). I have never actually played it but I would like to, I think it's sound.

[1eyedjack]

Independently but certainly not originally I (with reg p) evolved into Benlessard's philosophy in this area, although I would not claim that it is devoid of problem hands. awm's point is valid and is along similar lines to Frances Hinden's objection when I posted something along similar lines in April 07:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=186294

 

I see that Hannie got there much earlier (thinking only of these forum pages), in Feb 05:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=54793

[awm]

My response was to Benlessard's "exactly invite" method, not to "invitational-plus."

 

The issue is that he's using direct bids as GF and fourth suit as "invitational exactly" with paradox style responses. This leaves no room for any hand with doubt about strain, regardless of strength, since a game force must specify strain directly and opener's priority opposite "4th suit" is to show which strain-specific invites he accepts, not to describe his own hand further.

 

With the invitational-plus method, these hands are not particularly problematic. The invitational-plus method is actually great on hands with doubt about strain. The issue there is hands with game forcing values where strain is known, for example:

 

♠AKxx

♥Kxx

♦xx

♣KJTx

 

(1) ♠x ♥QJx ♦KQxxx ♣AQxx

(2) ♠x ♥AJx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx

 

On both hands we see 1♦-1♠-2♣. Responder really wants to issue a slam try in clubs. But of course 3♣ is not forcing, so we start with 2♥ as 4th suit invitational-plus. Now opener must rebid 3NT on both example hands, because 2NT would be non-forcing. This makes it rather hard to stop in 3NT on hand (1) while reaching a decent 6♣ on hand (2).

 

If we used 4th suit GF, we would see 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2NT-3♣ on both hands and then opener can bid 3NT on hand (1) or cooperate with the slam try in (2). Of course, this set of hands is not a problem for "4th suit exactly inv" because you can bid 3♣ forcing over 2♣.

[neilkaz]

Always GF for me. Only exception would be 1♠ if playing standard or Walsh.

We agree and this makes it simple to play in the average advanced/expert pickup games in MBC where I play.

 

For a permanent partnership I think there are a couple sequences with 4th suit at the 2 level that might be a bit better if just invitational but I don't worry about them with pcikups/casual (ie weekly or so) PD's.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[1eyedjack]

The obvious question to those who play fourth suit GF is, what do you do with an invitational hand that does not know what strain to play in? 2N without a guard in 4th suit? No doubt this is given in the Beg/Int section and I am just too lazy to find it.

[P_Marlowe]

The obvious question to those who play fourth suit GF is, what do you do with an invitational hand that does not know what strain to play in? 2N without a guard in 4th suit? No doubt this is given in the Beg/Int section and I am just too lazy to find it.

The answer is simple: Pretend you hold a game force.

Although I know the answer, I cant bring myself to play

that way.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

The obvious question to those who play fourth suit GF is, what do you do with an invitational hand that does not know what strain to play in? 2N without a guard in 4th suit? No doubt this is given in the Beg/Int section and I am just too lazy to find it.

Usually one of:

 

(1) Bid 4th suit anyway, and hope that game makes.

(2) Downgrade and correct to one of opener's suits.

(3) Rebid a strong five-card suit, treating it as six.

(4) Treat a holding like Jxx as a stopper, since partner may well have a half stopper too.

(5) Raise opener's five-card suit on Hx.

(6) Raise opener's four-card suit on Hxx or HHx.

 

Basically, it depends on honor-location and how close the hand is to a game force. Generally "underbidding" seems to work well in many circumstances, since you rarely have more than a single stopper in the 4th suit, making a close 3NT likely to fail.

[1eyedjack]

pretty comprehensive, thanks.

 

re. option 5, this will normally be treated as simple preference promising no more than a minimum for the original 1 level response, which is quite a way removed from a full-blown game try. To some extent style dependent the same could be said for option 3 - rebidding own suit could be pretty weak.

 

But I take the point that with inadequate guard and no obvious fit it is a way to go to game.

 

It may be that opening 1N range may have some knock-on relevance.

[mike777]

The obvious question to those who play fourth suit GF is, what do you do with an invitational hand that does not know what strain to play in?  2N without a guard in 4th suit?  No doubt this is given in the Beg/Int section and I am just too lazy to find it.

Of course you can have problems with invite hands. You choose to pick which system hole you can live with. If your system does not have any holes, then see you at the WC. :)

 

For me one hole is responder hands with a long minor invite. For some reason this hand type seems to exist more in theory than at the table where the opp bid often.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I play both inv. and/or game forcing depending on the auction.

 

4th suit forcing at the three level is game forcing.

 

I also play XYZ convention where 1 any-1 any-1 any-2C* forces 2D to invite and 2D* here is a game forcing 4th suit force type bid.

 

How exactly do the game forcing players bid a hand with say 10-11 points after

1D-1S-2C holding 5=3=2=3 without a heart stopper? Jumping to 2NT with xx in the 4th suit is not really good. Raising clubs with 3 card support or diamonds with 2 is also not accurate.

 

Regards,

Robert

[mike777]

"How exactly do the game forcing players bid a hand with say 10-11 points after

1D-1S-2C holding 5=3=2=3 without a heart stopper? Jumping to 2NT with xx in the 4th suit is not really good. Raising clubs with 3 card support or diamonds with 2 is also not accurate."

 

btw your example tells us we have xxx in hearts not xx. :)

 

 

I rebid 2D with 10-11 pts.

I rebid 2nt with 12-13 pts, invite.

 

 

With a sound opener I rebid 2H...4sf to game.

[jwmonty]

AWM wrote:

 

 

(1) ♠x ♥QJx ♦KQxxx ♣AQxx

(2) ♠x ♥AJx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx

 

On both hands we see 1♦-1♠-2♣.

 

That's your problem right there. Play a system in which opener rebids 1NT with both of these hands (and others, such as 1=4=4=4). It is much easier for responder to distinguish between invitational and GF hands over a 1NT rebid than over a rebid of two of a new suit. Two-way checkback, with 2C invitational and 2D GF, is a good way to do it.

 

The ancient superstition against rebidding 1NT with a singleton strikes again.