4th suit forcing-to-game?

[kenberg]

http://rpbridge.net/5m81.htm addresses some of this.

 

I have reviewed the posts here but sometimes I err, so I apologize if this link has already appeared.

 

 

I think that one take away from this is that it is hard to address this issue in isolation. RP plays 4th suit as invitational strength, but within a context of other calls.

 

Also, XYZ has been mentioned. There are some comments about this on

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/jump-or-invitational-suit-rebids-richard-pavlicek/#new_1

 

 

I have always thought that the right question is not "Should 4th suit be gf?" but rather "In which sequences should the 4th suit be gf?" As a somewhat casual player, I usually play it as gf in all instances and hope the problem hands don't come up too often. I go through some issues with a partner, but not everything.

 

I like this topic.

[Stefan_O]

I also put up a Poll, here:

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/are-you-playing-4th-suit-forcing-one-round-or-forcing-to-game/

[aawk]

If you play the 4th suit game forcing 2nt is a invite and does not garantee a c stopper that is the price you pay for it being game forcing.

 

What to bid with the hands you gave us depends on the style of your partner openings bid, if it can be light bid 2nt if not bid the 4th suit.

[iandayre]

OK, thats one way :)

 

I just get the impression many good players today play 4sf forcing-to-game.

Or is this not correct?

 

I would say yes. 4SF forcing to game has been quite popular for years, and I get the impression that most new players for the past 25 years or so never learned any other way.

[Vampyr]

I would say yes. 4SF forcing to game has been quite popular for years, and I get the impression that most new players for the past 25 years or so never learned any other way.

 

25 years? I would be very surprised if this were the case.

[victorhugo]

Stefan,

 

A lot of people play a convention called XYZ where when three bids have been made, ending in 1NT or not, there is a new structure to show a game forcing hand or simply an invitational hand.

 

2♣ forces 2♦ and a direct 2♦ is game forcing.

 

So on your acution:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣ (beginning of invite sequence or ♦ bust)

2♦ (forced) - 2♠ Inviting with 3♠ and denying the ♣ stop.

[Stefan_O]

Yes, XYZ was an interesting outcome of this discussion.

I've been playing XY-NT, but never encountered XYZ before...

 

It still only covers the cases where opener rebids on the 1-level.

So the issues remain after 2-level rebids, like

1D-1M-2C-?

etc.

[kenberg]

I have played the X-Y-NT, (rather I have played 2-way new minor but as near as I can see it is the same thing). There is a mild cost. After 1C-1S-1NT it is posssible you would like to bid 2C to play and you can't, but this does not seem to really be a problem. When you are that weak and partner is 12-14 the opponents have probably climbed into the auction already or are about to, and you are probably willing to compete to 3C, so I have not found it a problem.

 

But 1C-1H-1NT is a whole lot different from 1C-1H-1S. In the NT case I know partner is 12-14 balanced, in the 1S case I know much less. Perhaps this makes X-Y-Z even more useful, I am not sure, I haven't tried it.

 

With 1D-1M-2C problems seem less frequent. I am not sure why, but maybe because 1D-1M-2C-2D is generally pretty open endd. Presumably opener has five diamonds. My 2D call is a willingness to play in diamonds but not necessarily enthusiasm. If partner has non-minimal values he will bid again, maybe showing three card support for M, maybe showing a 2NT bid, maybe 3C showing 5-5. At any rate, I find that if he passes this is usually just fine. He seldom has three card support for M since he has nine cards in the minors but if he does he is apt to show it. If he has only one card in the other major and the opponents are not in the auction he probably has some extra hcps to go with his stiff.

At any rate I have not often found problems with 1D-1M-2C.

 

Despite the above comments, I am far from sure I am right. These simple auctions do not get the discussion that they deserve, I suppose everyone thinks it is all settled or all clear. For me it is far from either settled or clear.

[jogs]

If you play 4th suit forcing to game,

after

    1♦-1♥

    1♠-?

what do you bid with invitational hands and no ♣-stopper, like:

 

Qxx   AQxxx   Kxx   xx

xxx   AQxx   KQx   xxx

Qxx   AQxxx   Kx   xxx

I suspect that 5332 plays nearly one full trick better than 4333.

Qxx   AQxxx   Kxx   xx

This is worth a 2♣ call.

xxx   AQxx   KQx   xxx

Bid 1NT with this hand. It has a flat pattern and the NT is wrong sided.

Occasionally aggressive opponents reopen and go for -1100.

[mycroft]

A common agreement is that 4th suit 1♠ is F1, ostensibly NAT, and 2♠ is the ART GF. It has been pointed out that that's kind of silly, inverting those bids would be better; I would tend to agree, but have no experience with that. As many have said, I've moved to XYZ, so for us 4th suit 1♠ is NAT and probably passable (in the "if you pass, it had better be right" kind of way).

 

Note that there are other discussions here - in particular, "do you bypass a 4cM to rebid 1NT?" If you do, then 1♣-1♦; 1♥ is a warning sign that the opener is likely short in a pointed suit. It's probably diamonds, sure, but do you necessarily want to show 4 spades and stuff knowing what you know about partner's hand (and telling the opponents at the same time)?

 

As for stoppers (at least for 1NT), stoppers are for your drink - especially minor suit stoppers. If you're going to game, you have time to look for a hole; if you don't, they might lead an unsupported major over the unbid suit anyway; if you're not going to game, then you can afford to lose 5 clubs and still beat 2-of-whatever (and, if it's a fit, are you sure you're going to get to *play* 2-of-whatever? When they have a club fit and see you settle in?)

[jogs]

A common agreement is that 4th suit 1♠ is F1, ostensibly NAT, and 2♠ is the ART GF.

A better agreement is 1♠ is natural and ostensibly forcing. If pd decides to pass, it's probably right.

[Stefan_O]

"ostensibly NAT" = At least 3-card?

 

"ostensibly forcing" = Almost forcing? (Unless pd is like sub-minimum?)

 

Or what?

[mycroft]

"It shows spades. That is what he promises, but he doesn't have to have it. It is forcing. That's what I promise, but again, I may not. If we don't have/do what we promise, we had better be right."

 

In other words, there's going to be the odd hand where showing 4 spades is the best call after 1♣-1♦; 1♥ even though the hand doesn't have 4 spades; there are going to be hands where this "unlimited, therefore forcing" bid gets passed. They should number in the countable (without requiring the wearing of sandals, probably).

[Kaitlyn S]

"It shows spades. That is what he promises, but he doesn't have to have it. It is forcing. That's what I promise, but again, I may not. If we don't have/do what we promise, we had better be right."

 

In other words, there's going to be the odd hand where showing 4 spades is the best call after 1♣-1♦; 1♥ even though the hand doesn't have 4 spades; there are going to be hands where this "unlimited, therefore forcing" bid gets passed. They should number in the countable (without requiring the wearing of sandals, probably).

Forcing is forcing. In my favorite partnership the following auctions are all possible:

1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT-6NT, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2S-6S, and 1C-1D-1H-1S-3S-7S (possibly with RKCB thrown in.)

[mycroft]

Yes, and "ostensibly forcing" is ostensibly, but not absolutely, forcing. I agree with you that that auction, for me, is 100% forcing (but might not have 4 spades if there's no other bid that counts) - see my first comment. Jogs suggested reversing what was required and what was fudgeable. Fine, it's workable (especially with XYZ). I was just answering Stefan's question of what "ostensibly" means in context.

 

You want to play it 100% forcing? More power to you. You will run up against the rare hand where it plays badly, which you will chalk up to a system loss, and get your wins back in those slam auctions. Jogs will win on other hands. I will win on yet others.

 

Partnerships where one can not say "yep, I took a view, where it's 100% my fault if it was wrong, no matter how bad your bidding was; it was wrong; it's 100% my fault. Next hand?" are, to me, not long for this world. Partnerships that don't realize that there is no system that doesn't have unbiddable hands, or hands where you're behind off the top and there's nothing you can do about it, are also not long for this world.

 

That's why I love this game.

[jogs]

Hand types for the partnership (for practical purposes) are infinite. Bids available to describe them is in finite linear space. There are very few bids in the bidding box. Every system will have holes. The best systems will have the fewest holes(in terms of frequency).

[mgoetze]

The only reason this is a problem is because people are bidding 1♦-1♥-1♠ with such a wide range of hands as 4243 and 4261. (And yes, Stefanie, this is absolutely standard.) The obvious solution is to play a system such as Transfer Walsh that clarifies your hand-type (balanced or unbalanced).

 

Anyway, you've found a hole in the system, but I'm pretty sure it's smaller than the holes that can be found in the alternative system (4th suit invitational).

[Stefan_O]

 

But the std style is that you always bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ with a 4-card ♠-suit even if you have balanced hand, right?

 

Is this standard?

 

I think/hope so :)

 

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced,

you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.

Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

[Jinksy]

I think/hope so :)

 

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced,

you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.

Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

 

If you don't bid in only with unbalanced hands, you might end up playing in 1N with a 5-4 diamond fit.

 

I'm not saying showing unbalanced is better, but presenting just the downside of a particular treatment isn't a good way to figure out its value.

[fromageGB]

Otherwise -- if you bid 1♦-1♥-1♠ only with unbalanced hands, while chosing 1NT and conceal your ♠-suit when balanced, you may obviously end up playing in 1NT with a 4-4 ♠-fit -- at least when responder has less than invitational values.

Does not seem like a very attractive idea.

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit, even a sequence like 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, where 1♥ is either natural or artificial. Similarly, if you open 1♣ only when balanced or long, you will have methods that always find a spade fit.

 

It is the "while choosing 1NT" that is the stupid thing. Of course if you play silly bids you miss the contracts, it is nothing to do with balanced/unbalanced.

[Stefan_O]

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit...

 

Errr... what bidding-system are you referring to? What do you open with a balanced 12-14 and no 5-card major?

 

I was assuming a context of SAYC or 2/1...

[Wackojack]

If you play FSF to game then:

1♦ 1♥

2♣ 2♠

3♥?

How many hearts does this show?

If 3 then is this stronger than bidding 4 ♥ on the principle of fast arrival?

 

Similarly:

1♠ 2♣

2♦ 2♥

2NT 3♠

If this shows 3 card support is it stronger than bidding 4♠

 

There many other sequences where after 4SF you can bid game or raise below game. What general principles are in play here?

[Vampyr]

This doesn't make sense. If you open only 1♦ when unbalanced, you will have methods to find a spade fit, even a sequence like 1♦ 1♥ 1♠, where 1♥ is either natural or artificial. Similarly, if you open 1♣ only when balanced or long, you will have methods that always find a spade fit.

 

It is the "while choosing 1NT" that is the stupid thing. Of course if you play silly bids you miss the contracts, it is nothing to do with balanced/unbalanced.

 

No, the post you quoted did not say that an opening 1♦ was unbalanced, but 1♦-♥1♠ was.

[Stefan_O]

If you play FSF to game then:

1♦ 1♥

2♣ 2♠

3♥?

How many hearts does this show?

If 3 then is this stronger than bidding 4 ♥ on the principle of fast arrival?

 

Logically, if 2♠ is GF, you would hardly jump to 4♥ at all over 2♠, because responder might have only 4 ♥'s, but slam-interest in one of opener's minors, in which case he plans to set the trump with 4♣/♦.

So seems you should bid only 3♥ to show your 3-card support, regardless of strength here.

 

Similarly:

1♠ 2♣

2♦ 2♥

2NT 3♠

If this shows 3 card support, is it stronger than bidding 4♠?

 

Ummm.... probably....

Only, if responder jumps to 4♠ over 2NT as "signoff", he might as well have jumped to 4♠ over 2♦... so not sure what the difference between those sequences would be...

Sometimes, there are more possible ways to bid than you actually have use for :)