My Pard Bid Fourth Suit Forcing

[bluenikki]

I think there has to be some way of saying "I have nothing extra to show" such as holding a 1534 or 2524 minimum without a diamond stop. I play 2♥ as could be this hand.

The common use of "default" for such a bid is misleading. A more correct description is "waiting bid giving no further information about the suit bid."

[mycroft]

An even less helpful description than "default", that. It says nothing about what you have - and it says nothing about what you don't have. It doesn't say anything about whether there are other options, the way "default" at least implies, and it either discourages the questions that find this out (convenient, that) or it triggers them (so you get to do the "here's what it denies" as a followup, making the first description a waste of time, or this pair doesn't actually understand their full disclosure requirements, and think that your explanation is sufficient, and that also causes issues.)

 

It gives a *huge* amount of information - I agree, not about the suit bid; but conveniently for the bidding side, the opponents might not notice. For your system notes, fine. For the table, bad.

 

"Catchall, denies any other call, may not have extra length". Still not great, but at least points out what it *denies*. Which I'm sure the bidding side uses in their decisions.

[Lovera]

What I can add is that one can reason whether to consider only the 6-4-3-0 hands or also the 6-4-2-1 for the jump response while maintaining the additional control in the suit 3.th (= the suit of the FSF) or in that of the partner no more than 2.nd (Kx at least) with 16-17 points and bearing in mind that such bids (also including 5-5) are reserved (raising or with the jump) to describe opener's two suits and their strength .

[Lovera]

Previously I had thought of using the FSF to indicate the presence of a Q in minor suits by associating the answer to the information on the opener's two suits (for the raise also in a delayed way) but I was not satisfied because I felt that the convention was brought to be more artificial. So I too (like Winstonm) think the 5-4-4-0 response was limited as well as rare. Later I changed to prefer the solution I indicated regarding the extension to 6-4 and / or 5-5 "strong" with the addition that in one of the other two suits there is a control and no more than a loser in the other (distributions, however, close to 5-4-4-0 constituting a small change but more frequent in use).