Who should push a little more?

[Statto]

But I don't like South's 4♠ bid either, unless it was a non-GF auction and slow arrival hadn't kicked in. If it was GF, then South should be able to predict that their values are working, in particular there is unlikely to be wastage in ♥Axx, so they should make some slam attempt.

[gnasher]

FSF can conveniently be taken as responder saying: We're going to game....I'll tell you what denomination I prefer next time.

If it really meant that, and only that, we'd play 2♥ as a puppet to 2♠, so that responder could issue his decree at a sensible level.

 

Assuming it's GF, I think a more common usage is to say: We're going to game... but I'm not sure where.

That's close to what FSF was orginally invented for, but the usage has broadened somewhat. FSF has to cover both types of hand: the ones where responder has a good idea of the right strain but not of the right level, and the ones where he wants to discuss strain as well. We're going to be dealt both 5233 shapes and 4243 shapes, so we have to cater for both.

 

With [Qxxx Axx AQxx xx], responder has various options, including 2NT or 3♦ instead of 2♥; or 3NT over 3♠ after 2♥.

Saying that Mike's example isn't worth game doesn't address his point, which is that a 4342 shape with game values will often want to bid 4♦. As for bidding 2♥-3♠;3NT, you might find it worthwhile to write down some 3154 15-counts and see where you want to play. Here's one to get you started: KJx x KJxxx AKxx. (OK, I admit that this wasn't randomly selected.)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♥(GF)

2♠(3154 or better)-2NT! (spades agreed)

 

The more I think about it, the more I can't find fault with it .

 

Because... if Responder didn't have 5 cards ♠ and his real intent was to show GF+ support in one of Opener's 2 suits, then he had an easy 3♣ or 3♦ over 2♠-- thus cancelling interest in ♠.

 

And, as you said, 2NT! certainly is a " more intelligent allocation of space" than having to bid 3♠ over 2♠ to set trump.

[phil_20686]

I think aswell on this auction its rare to have three spades, as most people will raise immediately with 12-14 and 3154 shape. So it follows that 3S is always 15-17 with 3154 shape. Since it describes out hand so precisely partner should have a very good idea what do do next.

 

Having a two spade bid show three spades when partner cannot have a minimum hand with 3 spades seems wasteful to me.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think aswell on this auction its rare to have three spades, as most people will raise immediately with 12-14 and 3154 shape. So it follows that 3S is always 15-17 with 3154 shape. Since it describes out hand so precisely partner should have a very good idea what do do next.

 

Having a two spade bid show three spades when partner cannot have a minimum hand with 3 spades seems wasteful to me.

But what if Responder doesn't have 5 cards ♠ and really wanted to make a GF, slammish raise in either of opener's 2 suits ( ♣ or ♦ )?

How do you handle that after the 3S-jump ?

Most here say 4♣ or 4♦ next by Responder are cuebids agreeing ♠. But Mikeh pointed out that they should be natural, support bids -- in essence cancelling out interest in ♠.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♥!(GF)

 

2♠(3154 or better)- ?? 2NT! (spades agreed)

 

Of the SEVEN 4th suit Forcing sequences, there are only TWO where

-- Opener has limited and

-- Responder has not reversed.

 

The one above is one of them.

The other is:

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦!

 

It also involves a 1♠ Response.

 

Ken, I presume you would also use 2NT! over 2♠ by Opener to "agree Spades" .

[mikeh]

If it really meant that, and only that, we'd play 2♥ as a puppet to 2♠, so that responder could issue his decree at a sensible level.

 

I didn't say, and didn't mean, that responder's intention to tell opener of his desired strain was already formed before opener bid over the FSF. But if you think about what responder's bid over that response emans, I suspect you'll agree with my view. That isn't to say that responder's call 'freezes' the denomination...the partnership is still allowed to bid co-operatively

[gnasher]

But what if Responder doesn't have 5 cards ♠ and really wanted to make a GF, slammish raise in either of opener's 2 suits ( ♣ or ♦ )?

How do you handle that after the 3S-jump ?

Most here say 4♣ or 4♦ next by Responder are cuebids agreeing ♠. But Mikeh pointed out that they should be natural, support bids -- in essence cancelling out interest in ♠.

"Most" is an overstatement. So far as I can see there have been one auction where 4♦ is described as a cue bid, two people who agreed with that auction, and one other who argued for playing 4m as a cue-bid.

 

Anyway, however many of them there are, I think they're plainly wrong. 4m is natural for the reasons that Mike gave, and 3NT is natural for the reasons I gave. Thus the only way to make a slam try with spades agreed is to bid 4♥. As in other such situations, it's sensible to play that this 4♥ says nothing about control.

[phil_20686]

"Most" is an overstatement. So far as I can see there have been one auction where 4♦ is described as a cue bid, two people who agreed with that auction, and one other who argued for playing 4m as a cue-bid.

 

Anyway, however many of them there are, I think they're plainly wrong. 4m is natural for the reasons that Mike gave, and 3NT is natural for the reasons I gave. Thus the only way to make a slam try with spades agreed is to bid 4♥. As in other such situations, it's sensible to play that this 4♥ says nothing about control.

 

+1

 

Also, I dont see how you are better placed if you have to bid 3d on a 2254 shape with no heart stop. Then you still have to go to the 4m to agree a minor, but you have two major suit shapes to worry about rather than just one 1354 or 2254. If you can bid 2s on a a doubleton then when you go to 3d you always have a singleton spade, which is valuable information.

[Statto]

Saying that Mike's example isn't worth game doesn't address his point, which is that a 4342 shape with game values will often want to bid 4♦. As for bidding 2♥-3♠;3NT, you might find it worthwhile to write down some 3154 15-counts and see where you want to play. Here's one to get you started: KJx x KJxxx AKxx. (OK, I admit that this wasn't randomly selected.)

Ok, I'm sold. After 1♦-1♠;2♣-2♥;3♠, 4♣/4♦ cannot be a cue - it's saying that in light of further information, this is the denomination we should be playing in, having now rejected 3NT; now decide if you want to try for slam (by control-cueing something), or just play in game there. Many thanks to both of you for posting :)

[kenrexford]

Of the SEVEN 4th suit Forcing sequences, there are only TWO where

-- Opener has limited and

-- Responder has not reversed.

 

The one above is one of them.

The other is:

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 2♦!

 

It also involves a 1♠ Response.

 

Ken, I presume you would also use 2NT! over 2♠ by Opener to "agree Spades" .

 

After any (1) 4SGF or (2) 2♦GF Checkback, I play that Responder's 2NT agrees whatever major Opener just bid. So, 2NT could also agree hearts in some sequences. This occurs in all seven non-reverse sequences and in all 1minor-1MAJOR-1NT-2♦ sequences.

 

This structure seems so much better. As others have pointed out, whenever the bid of a major by Opener after a 4SGF (or a 2♦ GF Checkback) does not esdtablish for Responder a fit, Responder almost always has support for one of the suits that Opener bid himself. When that is not the case, and perhaps Responder was hoping to just make a quantitative notrump invite (which cannot really exist in the OP problem), then THAT call could be three of the major by Responder. (Meanning, Responder bids 2NT to establish the fit but three of the major that is shown via 2NT as quantitative notrump, a much rarer situation.)

 

Avoiding the jump by Opener, which is enabled by allowing space through this 2NT call, keeps open the below-3NT minor GF agreements that are MUCH better than the ideas to set this up at the four-level, which bypasses 3NT (and is really bad for that reason alone) and which deprives the partnership of cues (equally bad, IMO).

 

The fact that this mega-agreement seems to me easy and easily translatable across multiple sequences seals the deal for me. The nonsense discussion of what you do after the jump convinces me that I am right, as well.

 

As an aside, this same exact reasoning is why I want 2♠ in this sequence to promise three. I could blast 3♠ as Opener to show the very rare 2254 if I really want to. But, for those who insist that 2♠ with that 2254 hand makes sense, then 2NT still works better. Opener bids 2♠ with either; 2NT suggests spades; Opener bids 3NT after 2NT to show 2254. Still better than jamming the auction. (Or, if you want to save space even more, have Opener bid 3♣ with the 2254, and then unwind from there, alll else re-confirming spades.)

[wank]

using 3♦ as a catchall is clearly inferior to using 2♠, otherwise you lose the ability to show a 6th diamond.

 

gnasher is obviously right about 3M-4m. bit surprised that mikeh considers this an issue tbh: yes some people get confused. equally, some people get confused over stayman and jump reply, if you search hard enough around the bottom tables of a swiss.

[Poky]

Very easy board.

 

When you have 3154 and 11-13 you raise 1♠ to 2♠.

 

When you have a doubleton spade, you bid it on the 4th suit forcing.

 

Therefore, the sequence:

1♦ 1♠

2♣ 2♥

3♠

shows exactly 3154 and 14-16.

 

Responder can now bid 6♠ even directly.

[Codo]

using 3♦ as a catchall is clearly inferior to using 2♠, otherwise you lose the ability to show a 6th diamond.

 

gnasher is obviously right about 3M-4m. bit surprised that mikeh considers this an issue tbh: yes some people get confused. equally, some people get confused over stayman and jump reply, if you search hard enough around the bottom tables of a swiss.

But if you use 2 ♠ as a catch all, you cannot use it to show spades, you need a lot af work to do later on to show your support at the right level. Seems to be a bigger drawback for me, I have quite often some kind of spade support which I need to show somehow- much more often then 6/4 in the minors....

I guess both styles are playable and I hope that I can convince my partner to play Kens suggestion from now on.

[MrAce]

Ok, I'm sold. After 1♦-1♠;2♣-2♥;3♠, 4♣/4♦ cannot be a cue - it's saying that in light of further information, this is the denomination we should be playing in, having now rejected 3NT; now decide if you want to try for slam (by control-cueing something), or just play in game there. Many thanks to both of you for posting :)

 

 

It also has a lot to do with what this means for pdship;

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-4m

[mikeh]

using 3♦ as a catchall is clearly inferior to using 2♠, otherwise you lose the ability to show a 6th diamond.

 

gnasher is obviously right about 3M-4m. bit surprised that mikeh considers this an issue tbh: yes some people get confused. equally, some people get confused over stayman and jump reply, if you search hard enough around the bottom tables of a swiss.

Well, it isn't an issue for me, i can assure you :D What I said was that I have seen pairs go off the rails here....and, guess what? We had several posts suggesting that, to those posters, 4m would be or could be a cue!

 

If regulars on BBF are that prone to what I see as a basic failure to understand bidding (sorry, but that's how I see this issue) then imagine how common the problem will be in the real world....and not merely at the bottom of the swiss.

 

Incidentally, for those disenchanted with normal FSF responses, years ago I played what was a very effective relay style, in which opener's responses showed specific patterns. This was in a walsh style in that opener's rebid of 1M was always unbalanced, thus reducing the number of patterns shown. The response structure was based on relative frequency of shapes, with the most common being shown first, the next most common by the 2nd step and so on.

 

Hence 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ showed 4=2=2=5, 2N showed 4=1=3=5, 3♣ showed 4=3=1=5 and for more extreme shapes we had two-way steps where responder could ask (so we might show a 4306/4036 with one step and responder could ask which).Responder could keep relaying or break the relay, setting denomination.

 

We also played a lot of relay in other sequences, which helped with memory work....the full-blown method allowed responder to then ask about controls, Queens, specific A/K location and, if the combined strength permitted such high-level asking, about specific jacks.

 

I may be able to find the notes if anyone is interested.

[Statto]

It also has a lot to do with what this means for pdship;

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-4m

I'm assuming this would agree trumps and be forcing with slam interest. But responder might want to look for 3NT (particularly as this is MPs) and/or find out more about openers hand (perhaps a 5-3 ♠ fit) before bidding 4m.

 

BTW, like the new boxing cat pic :D

[MrAce]

 

I may be able to find the notes if anyone is interested.

 

I am definetely interested. Are the notes in computer and can be emailed or on paper ?

[phil_20686]

I'm assuming this would agree trumps and be forcing with slam interest. But responder might want to look for 3NT (particularly as this is MPs) and/or find out more about openers hand (perhaps a 5-3 ♠ fit) before bidding 4m.

 

BTW, like the new boxing cat pic :D

 

This should be a hand that responded walsh style and has 5+ card support for the minor and a singleton in partners other suit.

 

Axxx

xx

Axxxxx

x

 

for example would be super. If its strong enough in HCP for FSF you should do that instead.