Anything else?

[gwnn]

Jx

AKTxx

xx

A8xx

 

pard opens at MP:

1D-1H

1S-2C(fourth suit forcing, but not GF)

2D-?

 

I'm afraid 2H would just be strongly invitational here.

[Mbodell]

What is 2♣? I don't have a good feel for this as natural as this would basically always be either fourth-suit-forcing to game for me or else a puppet to 2♦ playing xyz. If the former 2♥ is clear, if the latter 2♦ on the last round was clear. If everything was natural I guess 3nt is right? Partner is suggesting something like dead minimum opener with 4=2=5=2 or 4=1=6=2 or something.

[gwnn]

2C was fourth suit forcing, sorry.

[lowerline]

Jx

AKTxx

xx

A8xx

 

pard opens at MP:

1D-1H

1S-2C(fourth suit forcing, but not GF)

2D-?

 

I'm afraid 2H would just be strongly invitational here.

 

I suppose you play 4SF as inv+? Then partner has denied 3crd hearts or extra values, so I bid 3nt now.

 

Steven

[Cyberyeti]

I don't know about your partner, but mine probably has a 10 or 11 count here, I would only bid 2N.

[Zelandakh]

If I was not willing to bid 3NT now then I would have bid 2NT on the previous round. Which route to prefer might depend on partner's opening tendencies.

[Fluffy]

depending on opening style 2NT or 3NT now.

[Cyberyeti]

If I was not willing to bid 3NT now then I would have bid 2NT on the previous round. Which route to prefer might depend on partner's opening tendencies.

Depends on bidding style to some extent (like do you always bid 2♥ if 4351 minimum), if you play an invitational 2N I see no difference in range, just in hand type, I may well be 3424 (or 2425 if playing 2/1) rather than 2524 for a direct 2N.

[barmar]

Agree with Fluffy. The point of 4SF was to find out if partner has 3 hearts. Now you know, and it's just a style/judgement call whether to bid 2NT or 3NT. If partner's openings are generally sound, 3NT seems clear.

[JLOGIC]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to declare NT at all? I would still be trying to get partner to bid NT if I could bid 2H, but if 2H is not forcing I guess I have no choice unless I want to make it really messy by bidding 3C, but that's going a little too far lol.

 

Also, I would just bid 2N if thats not forcing and be happy about it. Even opposite a sound opener we have no fit, no fitting honors (well ok a jack in his 4 card suit), and a horrible club holding. GF would be bad if we can avoid it imo.

[FM75]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to declare NT at all? I would still be trying to get partner to bid NT if I could bid 2H, but if 2H is not forcing I guess I have no choice unless I want to make it really messy by bidding 3C, but that's going a little too far lol.

 

Also, I would just bid 2N if thats not forcing and be happy about it. Even opposite a sound opener we have no fit, no fitting honors (well ok a jack in his 4 card suit), and a horrible club holding. GF would be bad if we can avoid it imo.

 

I can picture partner with the same holding, just pointed and rounded reversed - also trying to avoid declaring NT?

[barmar]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to declare NT at all? I would still be trying to get partner to bid NT if I could bid 2H, but if 2H is not forcing I guess I have no choice unless I want to make it really messy by bidding 3C, but that's going a little too far lol.

Would 2♥ be non-forcing in this auction? If you had an invitational hand with 6+ ♥ you would have bid 3♥ over 1♠. Even though 4SF isn't immediately a game force, I think it becomes one when you later make a bid that implies a hand type that could have invited naturally earlier. Do you think it's necessary to jump to 3♥ now to force?

[mikeh]

This hand has become ugly in a hurry, notwithstanding the controls. 4=1=5=3 with no club stopper is entirely possible. I think we have to give him an out.

 

By the way, I assume that this sequence of ours conveys some inferences about our hand compared to an immediate 2N call over 1♠. Thus he'll be encouraged if he has, for example, Qx in hearts, but be discouraged if he has a stiff, which is what I want. So I bid a heavy 2N.

 

Red at imps, I'd have to bid 3N I think, since I almost surely have some play even opposite most minimums.

[WellSpyder]

Would 2♥ be non-forcing in this auction? If you had an invitational hand with 6+ ♥ you would have bid 3♥ over 1♠. Even though 4SF isn't immediately a game force, I think it becomes one when you later make a bid that implies a hand type that could have invited naturally earlier.

I agree with this approach. I typically play 4SF as inv+ rather than GF, but the only way to stay out of game is for the hand bidding the 4th suit to pass or bid 2N on the next round.

[aguahombre]

I agree with this approach. I typically play 4SF as inv+ rather than GF, but the only way to stay out of game is for the hand bidding the 4th suit to pass or bid 2N on the next round.

If 4SF bidder might pass opener's continuation, the style creates confusion and requires opener to make awkward jump bids. We would have bid 2NT as responder's rebid, rather than 4SF..reserving that for G.F. so that opener can pattern out without bouncing around.

 

After:

1D-1H

1S-2N...opener can bid 3H enroute to game if accepting.

 

BTW: Our 1S rebid did not show an unbalanced hand, yet; partnership agreement about that issue might affect all choices about continuations.

[barmar]

After:

1D-1H

1S-2N...opener can bid 3H enroute to game if accepting.

But he can't bid ♥ if he doesn't want to accept the invitation. Isn't that why you play 4SF non-GF, so you can find the 5-3 fit when there's no game?

 

The general logic is that whichever meaning your 4SF agreement has, NOT using 4SF implies the other type of hand.

[JLOGIC]

Would 2♥ be non-forcing in this auction? If you had an invitational hand with 6+ ♥ you would have bid 3♥ over 1♠. Even though 4SF isn't immediately a game force, I think it becomes one when you later make a bid that implies a hand type that could have invited naturally earlier. Do you think it's necessary to jump to 3♥ now to force?

 

I took it as it would be NF since OP said he was worried 2H would only be invitational. I have never played 4th suit not forcing to game so I have no idea if 2H would be non forcing playing that method, I agree jumping around sounds very unpleasant.

[gwnn]

I was trying to be polite, in fact I was quite sure that 2H would be NF and was indeed passed out. I was trying to get him to declare NT.

[aguahombre]

But he can't bid ♥ if he doesn't want to accept the invitation. Isn't that why you play 4SF non-GF, so you can find the 5-3 fit when there's no game?

I don't know whether that is why others play 4SF non-GF; I only know why I don't play it that way. There are many hand types other than those with 5 hearts, where we want to explore the correct strain for game or slam and not have opener consume unnecessary space for fear the auction will die while we are doing so. I am willing to pay the price of occasionally missing the 5-3 partscore in order to accomodate all these other possibilities.

[mike777]

Jx

AKTxx

xx

A8xx

 

pard opens at MP:

1D-1H

1S-2C(fourth suit forcing, but not GF)

2D-?

 

I'm afraid 2H would just be strongly invitational here.

 

 

 

2nt

 

 

btw I think:

1d=1h

1s=2nt

3h needs to be gf with 3h. for that matter any bid over 2nt would be gf so pard must pass and cannot runnout to 3d to play.

 

I dont mind playing 2nt rather than 3h in a partscore.

[JLOGIC]

I can picture partner with the same holding, just pointed and rounded reversed - also trying to avoid declaring NT?

 

Yes it is always possible that neither of us want to play NT, in that case it won't really matter who ends up playing it. But we do know that we have A8xx of clubs and would like a lot if partner played it with Qx or KJ or K9 or etc etc. We know clubs is the unbid suit so that is likely what they're going to lead. Sometimes it will be unavoidable that we have to bid NT at some point because we have a stopper and no fit, and sometimes it won't matter, but when it does matter it will be important that we get it right and bidding 2H if it is forcing will certainly allow partner to bid NT on those holdings.