fourth suit round or gameforcing?

[mike777]

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.

You would also need to discuss what your nt range is when partner opens and rebids 1nt. For many of us it might be 11-13...never 14 or 15........

 

You can do whatever you prefer but it really needs to be done in context of a whole system, not one simple change.

[Elianna]

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.

Hah, really funny there. Adam rebids 1NT on singletons all the time, when no other bid describes the hand.

 

In fact, we alert that bid, as "could have a singleton in partner's bid suit", because we'll rebid that way on more hands than many people.

 

However, just because you HAVE a singleton, that doesn't mean that you SHOULD bid 1NT. If another bid describes the shape of your hand more precisely (length and strength in minors) why not make it?

[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.

Hah, really funny there. Adam rebids 1NT on singletons all the time, when no other bid describes the hand.

 

In fact, we alert that bid, as "could have a singleton in partner's bid suit", because we'll rebid that way on more hands than many people.

 

However, just because you HAVE a singleton, that doesn't mean that you SHOULD bid 1NT. If another bid describes the shape of your hand more precisely (length and strength in minors) why not make it?

Elianna wrote:

 

However, just because you HAVE a singleton, that doesn't mean that you SHOULD bid 1NT. If another bid describes the shape of your hand more precisely (length and strength in minors) why not make it?

 

Because then you can't get to 1NT when that contract is better than whatever you would have reached by rebidding 2C (as it very often is). And because further bidding over a 1NT rebid is much easier. That's why.

 

Learn to rebid 1NT whenever possible and watch your bidding improve. That is the ultimate test of any method, whether it works or not. This does.

[awm]

Any example I give, someone will say: "this is not a good example because in my system we would have rebid something else."

 

Honestly there is too much variety of methods for one example to fit all. One could play a style where all 6-4 hands rebid 2♦, all 1354 and 2254 hands open or rebid 1NT, all 3154 hands raise spades, and all minimum range 5-5 hands rebid 3♣, and 2♣ is an artificial force... then I guess there are no examples where you run into trouble playing any form of fourth suit over a natural 1♦-1M-2♣ because there is no natural 1♦-1M-2♣ sequence in your arsenal?

 

Nonetheless, the point stands. The problem hands are:

 

(1) 4th suit game force. Responder has an exactly invitational hand with no clear fit and no stopper in the fourth suit. There will also occasionally be a problem when responder wants to set the suit and game force, as opener's rebid after 4th suit GF might be above the strain responder wants to set; however this is somewhat rare as opener will not be jumping around in this auction.

 

(2) 4th suit exactly invitational, with paradox responses. Responder has any hand with no clear fit and no stopper in the fourth suit, and cannot effectively ask opener for further description because GF rebids must specify strain and the invitational 4th suit has paradox responses (i.e. opener doesn't show stoppers or extra suit length).

 

(3) 4th suit invitational or better. Responder has a game-forcing hand which wants to look for slam in a specific strain. This must start with 4th suit forcing because direct raises are invitational, but opener will often make an expensive rebid in order to simply show game values, forcing responder to bypass 3NT in order to set the suit.

[Elianna]

Learn to rebid 1NT whenever possible and watch your bidding improve.

Learn to evaluate a hand in context, and not place so much emphasis on WHAT you bid as much as on what it SHOWS, and you see how quickly YOUR bidding improves.

 

My bidding in context of my system is fine. I don't mislead partner and cause him to get to the wrong contract.

 

I also know how to quote correctly on the forums.

[dicklont]

I prefer mancheforcing, to keeps things simple.

[jwmonty]

Elianna wrote:

 

"Learn to evaluate a hand in context, and not place so much emphasis on WHAT you bid as much as on what it SHOWS, and you see how quickly YOUR bidding improves.

 

My bidding in context of my system is fine. I don't mislead partner and cause him to get to the wrong contract."

 

 

Geez louise kid, have you got a lot to learn. Not about bridge (although perhaps that also), but about life. Let's take your above sentences in turn. The first one contains the (implied) assertion that you know how to do the things you say, and that I don't. Assertions need to be backed up by arguments and evidence. Yours aren't. The second sentence ("My bidding . . . is fine") is another assertion. So is the third one. OK, lesson time. Blowing your own horn impresses few people. Especially, saying things like "I don't mislead partner and cause him to get to the wrong contract." What, never? You never misjudge a call or misapply the system you're playing? You're perfect? Oh, and another thing. Capitalizing words for emphasis doesn't make your message any more forceful. Even noobs are expected to know that.

 

"I also know how to quote correctly on the forums."

 

You mean by putting things in a box? I know how to do that too. I don't bother, perhaps out of my preference for substance over form. But you did say "incorrect." My quotations are word for word. I see nothing incorrect about that.

 

What is really untoward about this whole business is that you have taken what was nothing more than a disagreement about bridge bidding theory -- an abstract topic that is notoriously contentious -- and deliberately made it personal. You seem to think that I have somehow insulted your boyfriend, and that this entitles you to get down and dirty with me. Wrong both ways. I wouldn't have bothered to reply at all if I thought AWM was some random clueless joe. I ignore those people. What happened was that I saw that someone whose opinions I respect had ignored an entirely different approach to a large set of hands that I think is worthy of attention (indeed, I think the alternative approach is clearly superior, although I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that), so I pointed it out for the benefit of anyone out there who might not be aware that you don't actually have to rebid 2C on all of those hands. This is a bridge issue and nothing more. There was nothing personal stated or implied.

 

So now here comes the GF, resorting immediately to personal insults. "Hah, really funny there" = your views are, to me, no more than a joke. "I know how to . . ." (and you don't) = yer stoopid. Are you really like this all the time? If so, you need to learn that a perceptive audience sees the immediate resort to insult and snarkasm as a sign of weakness on your part. It means you have no actual arguments worth making.

 

Worst of all is that you seem utterly unaware of the overall impression you are giving to anyone out there who sees this. You needn't care what I think, nor do I expect you to, but presumably there are other people whose good opinion you do value. You are creating the impression that you think AWM is such a weakling that he can't take care of himself, so he needs you to do it for him. Either that, or he is pushing you forward to fight his battles for him while he hides behind your skirt. Neither possibility reflects well on either of you. NB: It makes no difference that these impressions may well have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. The appearance, rather than the reality, is what I am talking about for the moment.

 

Here is a word to the wise, on the house: The next time AWM gets into an argument with someone (or you imagine that he has), stay out of it. Let him deal with it himself if he cares to. You really don't need to be thought of as the couple where you can't say a word to the guy, because if you do you'll get a load of crap from "her." And that's more important than any advice I or anyone else will ever give you about bridge.

[matmat]

Learn to rebid 1NT whenever possible and watch your bidding improve.  That is the ultimate test of any method, whether it works or not.  This does.

Hi

Could you please provide proof of this statement?, in particular the last part?

[matmat]

What is really untoward about this whole business is that you have taken what was nothing more than a disagreement about bridge bidding theory -- an abstract topic that is notoriously contentious -- and deliberately made it personal.

lol

 

lemme see... elianna made statements about her approach, her ideas about rebidding 1NT and about feeling comfortable with her bridge bidding and ability, which, though it may not be perfect, is satisfactory to her and her partner (does much more than that matter?)

 

you take her comments and pick them apart based on semantics, faulty assumptions and poor logic. I guess if you can't win a discussion on argumentative grounds you try to discredit them? I suggest you read up on forum etiquette.

 

you have umpteen posts on these forums. if you intend to make them all contentious and inflammatory, like you seem to be trying to do, i suggest you go find some other board to do it at.

[benlessard]

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

 

 

These hands are np imho

 

case 1

 

 

2Nt GF (this implies not fit is known) ----3C show 5-5 or stuck for a bid.

3H (have hearts stoppers or adv cuebids) 3Nt (i dont have doubleton spades or i prefer 3nt)

4C this is slam tries but denies 4 clubs and show cue in H and denies cue in D etc

 

1♦-1♠-2♣

case2

2Nt GF------3nt (i have h stopper i dont have 3S)

 

case 3

 

2Nt GF------3C (5-5 or stuck)

3H----------3S (doubleton S desire to play 4S instead of 3Nt)

4S

 

 

case 4

 

2Nt GF-----3D

3H----------3S (doubleton S desire to play 4S instead of 3Nt)

4S

 

 

Ive played this method for quite a while. The problems hands are when the 4th forcing are at 2C & 2D and you can setup GF and make a 2level bid in a M.

 

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

2D-----2H(GF)

 

1D-----1H-----1S------3H(GF) here we lose a full level.

 

 

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

2H(3h support)

 

 

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

3H(3h support) lose a full level.

 

 

But its far more likely that responder is having a fit in openers suits (2 of them) then opener have a delayed fit in responder suit. On overall we are better place for slam bidding. However the real benefit of these methods are being able to invite and stop lower.

 

1D----1H------1S------ (to invite in a suit is 3D,3H,3S)

 

but ill be able to invite and stop in 2D,2H,2S.

 

 

The downside of pass or correct responses is that after a multiINV responses by the opener wich is either showing a dead minimum or a very descriptive bid wich allow some double dummy defense.

 

 

edited..

 

there is also the misfit correction

 

1D------1S---------2C------2D(INV+)

2H------2S(inv)----???

 

here a 3C bid just show complete misfit.

 

But

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

here with a void in S you have to respond 2S. (otherwise partner wil lthink you are super-accepting S)

[foo]

OK, let's look at this logically. Here are all the 4SF auctions:

 

1C-1D;1H-1S

1C-1H;1S-2D

1D-1H;1S-2C

1D-1H;2C-2S*

1D-1S;2C-2H*

1H-1S;2C-2D

1H-1S;2D-3C*

 

All the other auctions involve a Reverse by Opener or a 2/1 by Responder and therefore eat so much space they must be GF (I'll ignore the "cheapest new strain by Responder after Opener's Reverse" issue here.).

 

Tradition says that 1C-1S-1H-1S is not considered a 4SF auction in either Standard or 2/1.

 

1D-1H;2C-2S has a Responder's Reverse. This has to be GF.

1H-1S;2D-3C goes past 2N and therefore eats so much space it also has to be GF.

 

Clearly, we have a decent amount of room after Responder rebids 2m.

Playing those auctions as either GF or Inv+ is probably OK since We have enough sequences available to deal with just about any problem board.

 

1D-1S;2C-2H is the potential problem for those who want to play 4SF as Inv or Inv+ since things are just a wee bit cramped.

Therefore, it makes since to make this auction GF.

 

 

Thus the logical "expert" rule is that if a 4SF auction occurs where Responder rebids 2m, then it is Inv+.

OTOH, if Responder's 4th suit rebid is 2M, a Reverse, or past 2N, it is GF.

[Codo]

I am in the 4. suit = inv. or better camp. (As long as the 4. suit is below 2 NT)

I dislike the GF approach because I sometimes have to use small lies to show my hand. (Like using Kxx as support for a 4 card suit with no extra shape, like treating 8765 in a side suti as a stopper or like treating my 5 card suit as 6 carder.)

 

And as long as I overlooked something, there had been no single hand in which this approach fails.

I agree that there are hands where it is nice to have 4. suit GF, but I cannot see many hands which you cannnot handle quite simple even if 4FF is just inv. +

[ASkolnick]

A novel approach.

 

We play 4th suit forcing and above as transfers. This allows you to get in your invitational hands quicker and find out if partner has support one level lower. The transfer does not have to be accepted though.

 

So, 1D-1S-2C-2H shows a 5th spade.

2N Natural

3C shows diamonds support.

3D shows hearts. GF.

 

This way with the one bid hands. you will be able to get out in 3 if appropriate.

 

This also gets your minor suit slam tries in at a much cheaper level

[mink]

We play 4th suit forcing and above as transfers.

Sounds interesting. So 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ would show 3 Diamond cards? Maybe you can give us an URL where this concept is explained more detailed?

 

Karl

[awm]

Learn to rebid 1NT whenever possible and watch your bidding improve.  That is the ultimate test of any method, whether it works or not.  This does.

I think that this is where the insults started, to be honest. The suggestion is that Elianna and I need to "learn to bid better" and that our bidding would improve if we bid your way. I think that implies that you think you're a better bidder?

 

Anyways, I have read the Revision Club book. I am not impressed with the style of rebidding 1NT on as many hands as possible, despite the fact that I will rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit on many occasions. The singleton is not the problem. Consider an auction like:

 

1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT

 

Where 1♦ shows "2+ diamonds, precision style" and 1NT is 11-15 points with 1-3 spades. The problems are:

 

(1) Responder has to invite on as few as 11 points, which could easily mean reaching 2NT on 11 opposite 11. It also means your invitational range is quite wide since you have to invite with any hand that wants game opposite 15 and you can't force game with any hand where game is bad opposite 11. In your methods this means two different invite sequences (wasting sequences that could be used for something else).

 

(2) You have no idea at all about your minor suit fits. Say responder has 4234 shape. You could easily have 8 cards in each minor if opener is 2254 or 1354. Or you could have no minor suit fit at all if opener is 3433. Even if you have a minor suit fit, it could easily be in either minor because you have no clue which minor is longer for the 1♦...1NT sequence. This makes it hard to reach the best partial, and you will often end up passing 1NT when 2m is substantially better.

 

I think one of the signs of a good system is playing 2NT as infrequently as possible, while still not overreaching to poor games too often. Having a limited 1NT rebid is quite helpful in this case. Note that after 1♦-1♠-2♣ in standard bidding, responder knows a lot about opener's shape. He knows opener has at least five diamonds, at least four clubs, and usually less than three spades. After 1♦-1♠-1NT in your style opener could have between two and five cards in any suit except spades and between one and three spades. This is a ridiculous number of possible shapes; I don't like your chances of reaching a good partial.

 

Perhaps a major point is that in an ideal world, partner would know a lot about both my strength and distribution. The more tightly limited these things are, the better decisions partner can make and the less likely partner has to get us higher to "ask" me about my hand further before placing a contract. In standard bidding, the 1NT rebid is very limited in terms of strength whereas the 2m rebid is very limited in terms of shape. Either of these is basically getting only one of the two things you want, but at least you always have one of the two. A style where you open a nebulous diamond and rebid a nebulous 1NT with a wide range is losing on both counts.

[SoTired]

The current methodology used by most 2/1 players is that 4th suit is GF and jumps are invitational.

 

But I know many top experts that play all jumps forcing, and, of those, many still play 4th suit GF.

 

Although this appears to screw you if you have the invitational hand without a clear option, I think the philosophy is that if you are GF with something to say (long suit or fit with partner), the ability to say that immediately and put both partners on the same page is more important than having many pinpoint invitational bids.

 

To quote Kit Woolsey, "The best game-try is to bid game and try to make it."

[jwmonty]

AWM wrote:

 

"I think that this is where the insults started, to be honest. The suggestion is that Elianna and I need to 'learn to bid better' and that our bidding would improve if we bid your way. I think that implies that you think you're a better bidder?"

 

I don't agree with any of this. I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, nor do I think I did so inadvertently. If any statement along the lines of 'I play A and you play B, and I think A is better' is to be taken as insulting, it becomes difficult to engage in civil discussions while expressing disagreement. Nor do I say that I am a better bidder than anyone in particular, although I do think I know something about bidding. I suppose it is possible to interpret any expression of disagreement as a statement that anyone who holds a different view is wrong, therefore in need of education, but most people don't take it that way.

 

I appreciate that you give arguments and examples to show why you play a different way than I do. None of what you say is untrue in its particulars, and indeed, I knew about these problems and others when I adopted the style I use. Any style or system is going to have soft spots, categories of hands where it does not work as well as it does on others. What is important is how it works in the long run over the entire universe of deals you will encounter. Many years of experience have convinced me that avoiding the natural, nonforcing rebid of 2C whenever possible keeps you out of a lot of trouble. It is a bid you don't want to use unless you have to.

 

I'm not the only one who thinks this way (although it is a minority view). Al Roth thought so little of the auction 1D-1M, 2C that in Picture Bidding, he tried to redefine the 2C rebid as quasi-natural (could be three cards), guaranteeing extra values, and forcing for one round. Bill Cole, in inventing the Cole 2C convention, made the bid totally artificial. I trust you will agree that both of them knew what they were doing and had reasons for doing it, even if you don't use their methods.

 

If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading. In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

 

K10542

QJ1043

3

95

 

9

765

AQ95

AQ843

 

The players who actually held these hands bid 1D-1S; 2C-2H; 2NT-3H; 4H-P. There was considerable disagreement about what went wrong and what should have been done differently. Edgar Kaplan observed that the auction had begun with "the most awkward common sequence in standard bidding -- one-diamond opening, major response, two-club rebid." He suggested 1C-1S, 1NT-2H, P. Which is the auction I would have, except that the opening bid would be 1D. (If you don't like the 1D opening, either because of shape or weakness, add a point and move a small club into the diamond suit; you will have an auto 1D opening, and facing responder's actual hand, the problems will be the same. And yes, I do know that some people avoid this problem by playing reverse Flannery responses.)

 

So you can add Kaplan's name to those of Roth and Cole as part of the faction that isn't crazy about the 1D/2C auction. Of course, when you actually hold these problem hands you have to bid something. For me, that something is 1D followed by 1NT. Kind of like what Alan Sontag did in a world championship when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx. I have found that using the 1NT rebid as a dumping ground for all of these problem hands is an approach that works quite well in practice, better than anything else I have tried. Sure, it's not perfect, but if something were perfect the hands wouldn't be problem hands in the first place. This is not something that can be proved true or false through armchair analysis. Only experience can tell you what works best. My experience tells me rebidding 1NT instead of 2C when you have a choice is what works. I don't think it is close, either.

 

Although it is not necessary to understand why it works best -- if something works, it works, even if you do not understand the underlying reasons -- I am pretty sure of a couple of the reasons. One is that a final contract of 1NT (if that is where you end up) tends to score very well. It is much harder to defend, by a wide margin, than two of a suit (and this is even more true when declarer can have a lot of different shapes; the defenders won't know your hand for a long time). Another, and probably the more important one, is that a 1NT rebid serves as a launching pad for a wide variety of forcing and invitational auctions, many more than are available after a 2C rebid, whatever your methods are for advancing the 2C bid. Jlall said a while back (sorry, can't find it among his millions of posts) something to the effect that his idea of good bidding methods is lots of ways to look for the best games and slams, and that he really doesn't care about getting to contracts of 2D. Which is not to say that he would agree with me in the present dispute, but I agree with his general approach. Modern Precision is not designed to reach partscores with the greatest degree of accuracy. It is not particularly designed to find minor suit spots. It is about games and slams. That's how I try to bid, and my methods are biased in that direction.

 

I don't expect you to change your mind because of anything I say here. After all, you've read my book, and if that didn't do it, fair enough. And your view falls into the mainstream of expert thinking, which mine does not. But know this: I'm just as aware as you are of the potential pluses and minuses of my approach, and of yours as well, and I'm satisfied that in actual play, mine works best. That's why I play it. Not because I'm smarter or better than you or anyone else, but rather because after many years of experimenting with pretty much every method on the market that is legal in ACBL play, I managed to stumble into an approach to constructive bidding that is at least reasonable on the vast majority of hands you pick up in the real world. Take my word for it, achieving results that even qualify as decent is more difficult than most people think. At least (and at last) I've learned to manage that much.

[mike777]

"But I know many top experts that play all jumps forcing, and, of those, many still play 4th suit GF."

 

I just ran into this last month..now here..wow....once is an aberation.....twice may be a trend.

[mike777]

"If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading. In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

 

K10542

QJ1043

3

95

 

9

765

AQ95

AQ843"

 

 

 

You may be making a very good point and I just missed it.

Sure Roth passes the south hand and says wtp or bbo forum members

reverse flannery the north hand

 

so...I missed your point?

[awm]

In fact my auction on the example hand would be 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♥ also. It's not rebidding 1NT with a singleton that I have a problem with. I do think that raising with balanced hands including 3-card support and a doubleton on the side helps here, since if 1♣-1♠-1NT could be rebid on singleton, responder can't go bidding 2♠ "to play" on a weak hand with five spades.

 

My major issues are with the idea that a 1NT rebid should have a huge range (say 12-16 in standard, or 11-15 in a big club) just so that we can rebid 1NT with all the potential problem hands with singleton that exist. I think that adopting this wider range will make our bidding a lot worse on the 1NT rebid hands, because now we have to invite with hands that would pass when the 1NT rebid has a tighter range.

 

Of course, you can counter (as you did in your book) with the comment that 1♦-1♠-2♣ has a huge range and people cope, so how is it such a big problem for the 1NT rebid to have a huge range? There are two reasons. First, the 1♦-1♠-2♣ auction shows a lot about shape. Very often 2♦ will be an acceptable contract, and responder can preference to this contract without raising the level, giving opener a chance at another call with the stronger hands in the range. Over 1NT, there is no particular reason to think that any contract above 1NT is likely to be acceptable -- responder will much more frequently want to pass. Second, the reason that 1NT is a "launching pad" for a great variety of signoff bids is only partially because of the promise for support for the two unmentioned suits -- the tight range is also important here since responder can very frequently determine that he wants to sign off and not look for game.

 

My examples for the 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥ fourth suit sequence were a 14-count and a good 15-count. Add a jack to the first example if you want -- I think these examples will be beyond the 1NT rebid range that most people are playing. Surely some people will reply "well then I would open them 1NT" but there are many reasons why rebidding 1NT with singleton in partner's suit is a lot more palatable than opening 1NT with a random small singleton.

[han]

Strange discussion.

 

AWM wrote:

 

"I think that this is where the insults started, to be honest. The suggestion is that Elianna and I need to 'learn to bid better' and that our bidding would improve if we bid your way. I think that implies that you think you're a better bidder?"

 

I don't agree with any of this.  I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone, nor do I think I did so inadvertently.

 

It seems you measure with two different cups because:

 

Elianna wrote:

 

"Learn to evaluate a hand in context, and not place so much emphasis on WHAT you bid as much as on what it SHOWS, and you see how quickly YOUR bidding improves.

 

My bidding in context of my system is fine. I don't mislead partner and cause him to get to the wrong contract."

 

Let's take your above sentences in turn.  The first one contains the (implied) assertion that you know how to do the things you say, and that I don't.  Assertions need to be backed up by arguments and evidence.  Yours aren't.

 

Just as much back-up as you gave. Maybe your arguments are in your book but if it is as well written as your posts here then you can't expect anybody to read the book.

 

If you have or can get hold of a copy of the November 1983 issue of The Bridge World, you will find it interesting reading.  In the You Be The Judge feature on page 23, the following pair of hands is given:

 

K10542

QJ1043

3

95

 

9

765

AQ95

AQ843

 

So you can add Kaplan's name to those of Roth and Cole as part of the faction that isn't crazy about the 1D/2C auction.  Of course, when you actually hold these problem hands you have to bid something.  For me, that something is 1D followed by 1NT.  Kind of like what Alan Sontag did in a world championship when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx.

 

On these hands there is no accurate rebid available so Sontag and Kaplan and Roth and Cole rebid 1NT as I'm 100% sure Adam would do as well. But on the hands that Adam gave there is no rebid problem, as you have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs, exactly what 1D-1M-2C shows. Don't you see that these hands are entirely different?

 

If you don't, I hope that you at least appreciate the nice boxes that I used, they make for easy reading. And for the record, Adam and I are not dating.

[vbalbi]

4th Colour Forcing is one of the 4 legs of Natural.

The other 3 being:

Economic bid principle

2 level save bid discouraging

Reverse two suited hand strong

 

4th colour forcing is a TOTEM and it is often misused.

There is no EXACT RULE and there is NOT "THE" perfect answer to your question

since Bridge is only a matter of Style.

 

4th colour covers too many a number of situations to be "regulated" as such.

(My Opinion).

 

But ask yourself a few questions:

Which are sequences in which I surely DO NOT NEED USE 4ht Colour Forcing?

Which are sequences yelding tough (or simly new) bidding difficulties?

Which is Partner feeling in those very situations?

Is the use of 4th CF a tools to eventually better agree with partner an escape path?

 

Bonne chances

vittorio

[jwmonty]

AWM wrote:

 

"My major issues are with the idea that a 1NT rebid should have a huge range (say 12-16 in standard, or 11-15 in a big club) just so that we can rebid 1NT with all the potential problem hands with singleton that exist."

 

You can say that the range is 12-16 or 11-15, but I don't. My practice, playing a Precision style, is to pass with 11 or a mediocre 12 points if the rebid is going to have to be 1NT over one or more of partner's possible responses. Often I will pass a hand short in spades that others might want to open (another Roth idea). So the range is effectively 3 1/2 points, not much wider than anyone else's.

 

"My examples for the 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥ fourth suit sequence were a 14-count and a good 15-count. Add a jack to the first example if you want -- I think these examples will be beyond the 1NT rebid range that most people are playing."

 

They aren't beyond the range Alan Sontag was playing when he held Q/A9xx/Jxx/AKJxx. If Hannie is to be believed, you and others would also rebid 1NT with that hand. So we are all effectively playing that a 1NT rebid can show a fifteen count (sixteen is impossible, at least for me, since Precision opens 1C with that), which means responder must invite with eleven or a good ten. I don't really believe there are all that many people out there who restrict their 1NT rebids to a range of 11-13 or 12-14 100% of the time. If they did, they would have to open and rebid in five-card suits or rebid in three-card suits on some hands, and I don't see them doing that. Or open 1NT with a singleton, which neither you nor I like and which few people actually do. (It might be interesting to know how many people would go that route if it were not so strongly disfavored by the ACBL and its tournament directors.)

[awm]

I think that there is a difference between 15 hcp with a singleton queen and a rebid problem:

 

♠Q ♥A9xx ♦Jxx ♣AKJxx

 

Versus 15 hcp with a small stiff, three aces, a decent second suit, and no rebid problem:

 

♠x ♥AJx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx

 

I'd be tempted to rebid 1NT on the first after 1♣-1♠. I have no interest in rebidding 1NT on the second after 1♦-1♠.

[Tcyk]

AWM said:

1) Responder has to invite on as few as 11 points, which could easily mean reaching 2NT on 11 opposite 11. It also means your invitational range is quite wide since you have to invite with any hand that wants game opposite 15 and you can't force game with any hand where game is bad opposite 11. In your methods this means two different invite sequences (wasting sequences that could be used for something else).

 

I really don't want to enter into this discussion. I happen to believe the best bidding system is the one that you and your partner know. However, I was struck by the final parenthetical statement about wasting sequences. Bergen raises are a case in point. They are extremely popular with those playing 2/1 GF. These jumps to 3C and 3D can be put to better use such as limit jump shifts as advocated in Revision or fit jump shifts as used by Oliver Clarke Precision or weak jump shifts or game forcing jump shifts or ...

 

As far as fourth suit forcing, I have seen many cases where I wish the bid was natural, perhaps more often than when I would like it to be forcing to game. For this reason, I guess I have to agree with Inquiry, forcing to game if a reverse or at the 3-level otherwise, a 1-round force.