My Pard Bid Fourth Suit Forcing

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&s=sahkq862dj42ckj98]133|100|1H-1S

2C-2D[/hv]

 

 

Here is the premise: if 4th suit forcing is defined as artificial, it follows that the best use of continuations should not attempt to establish a fit with the 4th suit, i.e., a raise of that suit does not need to show 4-card length and in fact may be better used than 4-card length.

 

I would argue that conventional wisdom should say that the best response with the above hand is 3D.

 

I bet someone here may well disagree. :P

[Phil]

This is an interesting cousin to the other thread.

 

I wouldn't bid 3♦ because it takes up so much room.

 

I would rebid 2♥ and await developments.

[Winstonm]

This is an interesting cousin to the other thread.

 

I wouldn't bid 3♦ because it takes up so much room.

 

I would rebid 2♥ and await developments.

The thought here is that 3D is a picture bid - hence the room use is justified by having a precise definition.

 

Yes, the thought was prompted by the other thread - I didn't think it proper to bring up this concept in beginner/intermediate.

[P_Marlowe]

Ok, the first question is: is FSF forcing to game?

 

Players from North America will say yes, even in Germany

most experts would say yes, but there is a minority out

there, similar to the small village in France which continues

to hold out agains the barbarians, who want to conquer

the complete land.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[JLOL]

Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me!

[skjaeran]

This is a typical case for agreements.

 

I'm used to rebidding 3♦ with this hand, showing 2-3 small. That's how I played it with Helgemo ages ago (he was only 17 back then), and with all partners since then. I believe that's the most common treatment over here.

 

If you play 3♦ as natural, showing four, 2♥ as the default bid on hand that doesn't fit any other rebid seems best to me.

[Winstonm]

This is a typical case for agreements.

 

I'm used to rebidding 3♦ with this hand, showing 2-3 small. That's how I played it with Helgemo ages ago (he was only 17 back then), and with all partners since then. I believe that's the most common treatment over here.

 

If you play 3♦ as natural, showing four, 2♥ as the default bid on hand that doesn't fit any other rebid seems best to me.

 

JLOL: Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me

 

 

Yes, and that is the question I am asking. What should the expert standard agreement be if undiscussed - NOTE: I'm not asking what it is NOW but what it SHOULD be.

 

The argument I am making is the better method should be to say 3D in this sequence is an artificial response to an artificial inquiry: the response denies certain holdings such as 3-card support for reponder's suit, a stopper in the 4th suit, a 6-card suit or 5-5 shape, etc.

 

What I am arguing is the lowest prority for this 3D bid should be support for what is really an unbid suit - that the 4-card holding can be incorporated into the 2N bid if is is good enough to be a stop and into the 3D bid if if isn't a stop.

 

But simply to show 4 cards in the suit seems wastefully dumb.

[P_Marlowe]

This is a typical case for agreements.

 

I'm used to rebidding 3♦ with this hand, showing 2-3 small. That's how I played it with Helgemo ages ago (he was only 17 back then), and with all partners since then. I believe that's the most common treatment over here.

 

If you play 3♦ as natural, showing four, 2♥ as the default bid on hand that doesn't fit any other rebid seems best to me.

 

JLOL: Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me

 

 

Yes, and that is the question I am asking. What should the expert standard agreement be if undiscussed - NOTE: I'm not asking what it is NOW but what it SHOULD be.

 

The argument I am making is the better method should be to say 3D in this sequence is an artificial response to an artificial inquiry: the response denies certain holdings such as 3-card support for reponder's suit, a stopper in the 4th suit, a 6-card suit or 5-5 shape, etc.

 

What I am arguing is the lowest prority for this 3D bid should be support for what is really an unbid suit - that the 4-card holding can be incorporated into the 2N bid if is is good enough to be a stop and into the 3D bid if if isn't a stop.

 

But simply to show 4 cards in the suit seems wastefully dumb.

If you play 2D as inv.+

 

3D showes a hand strong enough to accept the game,

but without a clear bid.

In effect, it asks partner to bid NT himself, if he has a

stopper, i.e. it retransfers the stopper ask.

 

If you play 2D as gf, you dont need a bid, which accepts

the inv., but has no clear bid, you can always make the

default bid.

Hence you can use 3D to show 5440.

 

Another issue is, that sometimes, 2C may be artificial, not

sure, if it makes sense to play 2D as FSF in this scenario,

but maybe.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

If you play 2D as gf, you dont need a bid, which accepts

the inv., but has no clear bid, you can always make the

default bid.

Hence you can use 3D to show 5440

 

What difference is there in making the default the 3D bid and a rebid to show extra length? In other words, which is more likely to be of value, rebidding 2H to show 6+ hearts or 3D to convey a 0544 pattern? It makes more sense to me to keep the natural bid natural and the artificial bid artificial.

[Fluffy]

Standard tends to be natural, I'd say 2♥ is more standard.

[Winstonm]

Standard tends to be natural, I'd say 2♥ is more standard.

Sounds like something a Creationist-theist would say. :)

[JLOL]

Rebidding 2H to always show 6+ hearts so that you can bid 3D with 1534/2524 and no stopper has no value to me. You are a whole level of bidding in an auction and preempting partner in an auciton where he has already not had a chance to clarify what he is doing because he had to bid fourth suit forcing. If partner has, for instance, club support his first chance to support you will be at the four level. If partner has 6 spades and a diamond stopper he will be feeling pretty endplayed. If he bids 3N and you have 2 spades that sucks, but if he bids 3S and you have a stiff spade and bid 3N you are now wrong siding the NT after advertising that you have no stopper.

 

The fact that 3D shows a rare hand type (5044) that cannot be shown otherwise does not make it wasteful, that is how it is supposed to be. It is perfectly natural that you are bidding 2H here very often and 3D very rarely, you don't WANT to bid 3D that often. Lumping 0544 in with 2N is inadequate to say the least. It is really important for 2N to show at least 1 spade so that responder can force spades on partner when he has a suit that is playable opposite a stiff like QJT9xx or KQJ9xx or KQxxxxx etc, and is especially important for when he is slamming. It is also really important to be able to find 44 diamond fits as well a 35 diamond fits easily, and that is done nicely when 2N denies 4 diamonds and then 3D from responder shows 5. After 2N with 0544 you will either have a lot more trouble finding 53 fits or 44 fits depending on which route you choose to go.

 

All of this at what gain, I still don't get it? 2H promising 6 is way too defined for an auction like this and unneccessary, the heart length can easily be sorted out in the subsequent auction, you are at a GF at the 2 level and you have already described 9 of your cards and partner has shown a suit already. You are very well placed to sort everything out.

[Winstonm]

Rebidding 2H to always show 6+ hearts so that you can bid 3D with 1534/2524 and no stopper has no value to me. You are a whole level of bidding in an auction and preempting partner in an auciton where he has already not had a chance to clarify what he is doing because he had to bid fourth suit forcing. If partner has, for instance, club support his first chance to support you will be at the four level. If partner has 6 spades and a diamond stopper he will be feeling pretty endplayed. If he bids 3N and you have 2 spades that sucks, but if he bids 3S and you have a stiff spade and bid 3N you are now wrong siding the NT after advertising that you have no stopper.

 

The fact that 3D shows a rare hand type (5044) that cannot be shown otherwise does not make it wasteful, that is how it is supposed to be. It is perfectly natural that you are bidding 2H here very often and 3D very rarely, you don't WANT to bid 3D that often. Lumping 0544 in with 2N is inadequate to say the least. It is really important for 2N to show at least 1 spade so that responder can force spades on partner when he has a suit that is playable opposite a stiff like QJT9xx or KQJ9xx or KQxxxxx etc, and is especially important for when he is slamming. It is also really important to be able to find 44 diamond fits as well a 35 diamond fits easily, and that is done nicely when 2N denies 4 diamonds and then 3D from responder shows 5. After 2N with 0544 you will either have a lot more trouble finding 53 fits or 44 fits depending on which route you choose to go.

 

All of this at what gain, I still don't get it? 2H promising 6 is way too defined for an auction like this and unneccessary, the heart length can easily be sorted out in the subsequent auction, you are at a GF at the 2 level and you have already described 9 of your cards and partner has shown a suit already. You are very well placed to sort everything out.

Made ya think. Nyah, nyah, nyah!!! :)

 

Actually, you bring up a good point about diamonds - the possibility of a fit. But if that is the case, why wouldn't it be better to treat the 4th suit bid as a real suit until proven otherwise - meaning it unnecessary to hold a stopper to bid NT.

 

What would the problem be in bidding NT with 1534 or 2524 patterns without a stop?

[jdonn]

What would the problem be in bidding NT with 1534 or 2524 patterns without a stop?

Two things that come to mind are rightsiding, and partner knowing whether the suit is stopped or not (he would want to bid 3NT on many hands if he knows it is stopped, but will have to make something up and continue a slow painful auction if he can't be sure.)

 

Btw it would honestly never have occurred to me that 2♥ here is anything but 6(+) hearts, but JLOL's points are extremely convincing. It's probably worth discussing, since my real qualm now is that I would expect most partners to believe I am showing extra heart length if I bid it. That is certainly what I would generally have assumed.

[Winstonm]

Btw it would honestly never have occurred to me that 2♥ here is anything but 6(+) hearts, but JLOL's points are extremely convincing. It's probably worth discussing, since my real qualm now is that I would expect most partners to believe I am showing extra heart length if I bid it. That is certainly what I would generally have assumed.

 

Yes, Justin's points were well thought out and well presented. It gave me pause to my own train of thought. I was only halfway kidding about that "at least I made you think" comment.

 

As to 2N leading to a more complicated auction - that is true but we are already in a overly complicated auction when we have to use 4SF. Is it really so bad to have to reask about diamonds stops compared to a nebulous 2H that creates its own set of reasks? Granted, 2H allows a 2S rebid - but that appears to be its only real advantage. If 2H is more of a denial bid, the responder still won't find a 5-3 diamond fit until the 4-level, will have to temporize to find out if opener has 6 hearts or only 5.

[jdonn]

As to 2N leading to a more complicated auction - that is true but we are already in a overly complicated auction when we have to use 4SF.  Is it really so bad to have to reask about diamonds stops compared to a nebulous 2H that creates its own set of reasks?

Yes. It is obvious (at least to me) that if something must be vague or a 'default' bid then whenever reasonable it should be the cheapest bid.

[the hog]

Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me!

I agree with this.

[Fluffy]

Standard tends to be natural, I'd say 2♥ is more standard.

Sounds like something a Creationist-theist would say. :P

Intelligent design please :)

[gwnn]

what is

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-4♣?

 

Of course gerber is the best meaning but maybe the event banned it

[andy_h]

Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me!

I agree. Thought this was trivial!

[Winstonm]

Seems like an obvious 2H bid ?!

 

Also 3D sounds like 0544 to me!

I agree. Thought this was trivial!

Trivial Pursuit?

[RichMor]

[hv=d=s&s=sahkq862dj42ckj98]133|100|1H-1S

2C-2D[/hv]

 

 

Here is the premise: if 4th suit forcing is defined as artificial, it follows that the best use of continuations should not attempt to establish a fit with the 4th suit, i.e., a raise of that suit does not need to show 4-card length and in fact may be better used than 4-card length.

 

I would argue that conventional wisdom should say that the best response with the above hand is 3D.

 

I bet someone here may well disagree.  :blink:

Maybe 3♦ should show something like:

 

♠)x

♥)KQxxx

♦)Axx

♣)KJxx

 

We would prefer that pard declared NT with Qx or the like in Diamonds.

[Old York]

Hi

 

I think that partner has used 4SF simply to show a 5 card spade suit, asking for support. You have an ugly decision to make, but the most honest rebid is 2 Hearts.

On a bad day, (I have many) I might try 3NT

This hand is going to play badly in any denomination unless partner has a great deal of undisclosed strength, so leave the decision to him/her

 

Tony

[gnasher]

I think that being able to show specifically a 0544 shape is much less valuable than being able to distinguish between a hand with six hearts and an awkward hand without a good bid. The six-card suit won't necessarily come to light after an ambiguous 2♥. What about

  1♥-1♠

  2♣-2♦

  2♥-3♥

or

  1♥-1♠

  2♣-2♦

  2♥-3♣

  3♠

However, Justin's point about keeping the bidding low on the hands where you need to explore options is also valid. Why not play that 2♥ shows a 2524 or a stopless 1534, and 3♦ shows six hearts? Extending the principle, after any two-level fourth suit bid, I play that step one shows a hand without an obvious bid, and raising fourth suit shows an extra card in the step-one suit.

[jdonn]

Why not play that 2♥ shows a 2524 or a stopless 1534, and 3♦ shows six hearts?  Extending the principle, after any two-level fourth suit bid, I play that step one shows a hand without an obvious bid, and raising fourth suit shows an extra card in the step-one suit.

I think using 3♦ as 6+ hearts wastes way too much space for way too common a hand. At least when it's 0544 it's uncommon, shows your entire hand, and that's aside from not risking misunderstandings.

 

As for your example auctions, true the sixth heart is not established on the first auction but at least the fit is known by both players, and opener can use the extra length as part of his evaluation. On the second auction I really don't understand what you are talking about, of course opener would bid 3♥ not 3♠ to show his 6-4.