Fourth Suit Forcing

[Liversidge]

I am studying FSF responses. Andrew Robson says:

 

1. Bid responder's suit with 3 card support, or, if not...

2. Bid his own second suit with 5 cards, or, if not...

3. Bid his first suit with 6 cards, or, if not....

4. Bid No Trumps with a stopper in the bid suit, or, if not...

 

If none of the above you have to find a bid so..

 

5. Bid responder's suit with a good doubleton, or

6. Bid own first suit with a good 5 card suit.

 

Others say that priority is generally given to showing a stop in the bid suit.

 

What would you respond in these examples:

 

1. [hv=pc=n&w=sq84hkj973dacq963&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp2cp2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

2. [hv=pc=n&w=s8hkj9873dk3caq63&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp2cp2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

3. [hv=pc=n&w=sqj842hkj973dacq9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp2cp2hp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

4. [hv=pc=n&w=sq9hadqj842ckj973&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1sp2cp2hp]133|200[/hv]

[helene_t]

Andy is right. This ought to be unanimous. We find our fit first and look for stoppers aftwards. This princiole always applies as long as qe don't bypass 3nt.

[FelicityR]

My view (rightly or wrongly) is that it is better to emphasis your shape to FSF if the stop isn't a three card suit to an honour (AKQ). There are two important things to realise with FSF: A) it is nowadays unconditionally game forcing, and, B) responder might have an actual 4th suit, but requires other information to judge where the best contract lies.

 

Emphasising your shape then bidding 3NT should say 'This is what my hand shape is like but I have a stop of sorts but it's either a singleton ace or doubleton king

 

1) 2♠ simple 3 card preference

2) 2♥ rebid good ♥ suit

3) 3♥ showing 5-5 shape

4) 3♣ showing 5-5 shape

[SteveMoe]

My view (rightly or wrongly) is that it is better to emphasis your shape to FSF if the stop isn't a three card suit to an honour (AKQ). There are two important things to realise with FSF: A) it is nowadays unconditionally game forcing, and, B) responder might have an actual 4th suit, but requires other information to judge where the best contract lies.

 

Emphasising your shape then bidding 3NT should say 'This is what my hand shape is like but I have a stop of sorts but it's either a singleton ace or doubleton king

 

1) 2♠ simple 3 card preference

2) 2♥ rebid good ♥ suit

3) 3♥ showing 5-5 shape

4) 3♣ showing 5-5 shape

 

This.

 

Adding that you should raise the 4th suit with 4+ cards (2N or rarely 3N should show a stopper fragment, not length). You will come out ahead when partner's 4th suit is natural.

[rmnka447]

1) 2♠ simple 3 card preference

2) 2♥ rebid good ♥ suit

3) 3♥ showing 5-5 shape

4) 3♣ showing 5-5 shape

+1 for the rebids over FSF.

 

With FSF, the idea is to make a descriptive bid to help find the right strain for the contract. With all the examples, responder should have a very good picture of opener's hand and can move to place the contract or explore further.

[Kaitlyn S]

This.

 

Adding that you should raise the 4th suit with 4+ cards (2N or rarely 3N should show a stopper fragment, not length). You will come out ahead when partner's 4th suit is natural.

Many pairs raise the 4th suit with 4+ cards if it's a major (usually hearts) because it's easy for the heart fit to get lost otherwise when opener is 1-4-4-4 (1D-1S-2C-2H...) but will "raise" the minor to show no good bid in a minor

 

Such as 1H-1S-2C-2D-3D on

S-5

H-AQ643

D-742

C-KQJ5, which allows the other bids to show something (2H shows six, 3C shows 5, 2NT shows a stopper, etc.)

 

 

and on your examples, I make the "obvious" bids 2S, 2H, 3H, 3C.

[P_Marlowe]

Andy is right. This ought to be unanimous. We find our fit first and look for stoppers aftwards. This princiole always applies as long as qe don't bypass 3nt.

I agree, as long as responders suit is a major,

which it usually is.

[Liversidge]

My view (rightly or wrongly) is that it is better to emphasis your shape to FSF if the stop isn't a three card suit to an honour (AKQ). There are two important things to realise with FSF: A) it is nowadays unconditionally game forcing, and, B) responder might have an actual 4th suit, but requires other information to judge where the best contract lies.

Has the reason for the trend towards FSF being unconditionally game forcing anything to do with it allowing you two bites at the cherry with a game going hand? I can't quite think it through but there has to be a good reason for giving up FSF with an invitational hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Has the reason for the trend towards FSF being unconditionally game forcing anything to do with it allowing you two bites at the cherry with a game going hand? I can't quite think it through but there has to be a good reason for giving up FSF with an invitational hand.

One reason peoble play FSF as GF is, that those peoble believe to be simpler,

which is not true, but they still believe it.

You need less discussion, when a seq. becomes GF, but you still need to discuss,

what auctions show add. strength, this will beautomatically disussed, if you play

FSF as inv.+

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[steve2005]

This should be unanimousas FelicityR answered. The shape is clear, the only question is whether to show stopper. As the only hands with a stopper it is a singleton Ace, which isn't very good as stoppers go. Plus more important to show shape.

[Liversidge]

This should be unanimousas FelicityR answered. The shape is clear, the only question is whether to show stopper. As the only hands with a stopper it is a singleton Ace, which isn't very good as stoppers go. Plus more important to show shape.

Would it make a difference if partner's suit was a minor?

[FelicityR]

Would it make a difference if partner's suit was a minor?

 

Not as far as I'm aware, but (as far as I am aware, please correct me if i'm wrong) there is only one scenario where the 4th suit is not forcing to game: the auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠, and on this occasion the 1♠ bid is an actual suit.

[Liversidge]

Not as far as I'm aware, but (as far as I am aware, please correct me if i'm wrong) there is only one scenario where the 4th suit is not forcing to game: the auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠, and on this occasion the 1♠ bid is an actual suit.

Some 'sources' suggest that with a stop in the fourth suit then preference should only be given to supporting responder's suit with 3 cards provided it is a major.

 

Marlowe has given one reason for having an agreement where FSF is always game forcing (except for the example you give) even if bid at the 2 level. I'd like to know if there are other reasons.

[Joe_Old]

Some 'sources' suggest that with a stop in the fourth suit then preference should only be given to supporting responder's suit with 3 cards provided it is a major.

 

Marlowe has given one reason for having an agreement where FSF is always game forcing (except for the example you give) even if bid at the 2 level. I'd like to know if there are other reasons.

 

When you play FSF as a GF, the rule of fast arrival doesn't apply. Since responder's hand is unlimited, opener makes minimum bids with minimum openers, but jumps with extras. For example, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT should show 15-17 semi-balanced (1534 or the like).

[Joe_Old]

duplicate

[Liversidge]

When you play FSF as a GF, the rule of fast arrival doesn't apply. Since responder's hand is unlimited, opener makes minimum bids with minimum openers, but jumps with extras. For example, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT should show 15-17 semi-balanced (1534 or the like).

Ah! That makes a lot of sense. If responder has 16-17 HCP he can respond to opener's 3NT with a slam asking 4NT, which he can't do if FSF is not GF.

 

Many thanks - it's been bugging me for days!

[Joe_Old]

Ah! That makes a lot of sense. If responder has 16-17 HCP he can respond to opener's 3NT with a slam asking 4NT, which he can't do if FSF is not GF.

 

Many thanks - it's been bugging me for days!

 

Glad to help. Semi-balanced or balanced 16 HCP opposite 16 HCP hands are notoriously difficult to evaluate for slam purposes.

 

You might also want to look at Marty Bergen's suggestions for finding minor suit slams after a NT opener or rebid; they have relevance here.

[Vampyr]

+1 for the rebids over FSF.

 

With FSF, the idea is to make a descriptive bid to help find the right strain for the contract. With all the examples, responder should have a very good picture of opener's hand and can move to place the contract or explore further.

 

LOL this is a pet peeve of mine. Give her an actual +1.

[rmnka447]

LOL this is a pet peeve of mine. Give her an actual +1.

I'm not sure I agreed with everything Felicity said, but the rebids were spot on. Otherwise, it would have been a simple "+1 for FelicityR".

[rmnka447]

One reason peoble play FSF as GF is, that those peoble believe to be simpler,

which is not true, but they still believe it.

You need less discussion, when a seq. becomes GF, but you still need to discuss,

what auctions show add. strength, this will beautomatically disussed, if you play

FSF as inv.+

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Indeed, when I play K-S (basically 5 card majors, 2/1 with weak NTs), the problem hands over minor suit openings are the 8-10 hands. So FSF is used as one round force to help sort out those hands without getting too high.

 

The important thing is to thoroughly discuss the meaning of various auctions whichever way you play FSF. One of the big advantages of FSF is to provide a means to distinguish between invitational and game forcing hands in certain auctions. For example,

 

1 ♦ - 1 ♥

1 ♠ - 2 ♥

 

is usually a sign off, but

 

1 ♦ - 1 ♥

1 ♠ - 3 ♥

 

can be either invitational or GF but not both. If you add

 

1 ♦ - 1 ♥

1 ♠ - 2 ♣ (FSF)

2 ♦ - 3 ♥

 

you have a 3rd auction showing ♥ and can now differentiate between sign offs, invitational, and game forcing hands depending on how you use FSF. The key is to be on the same page with partner on what each bidding sequence means.

[JLilly]

4) 3♣ showing 5-5 shape

 

On #4, would it be different if the partnership opens 1♦ with 4=5 in ♦=♣? I imagine not, since 3♦ would more useful to deny 5 clubs, and it removes 3♦ as a bid by responder to avoid rebidding their majors. So it could show 4=5 shape but the implications are the same. Thanks.

[Vampyr]

I'm not sure I agreed with everything Felicity said, but the rebids were spot on. Otherwise, it would have been a simple "+1 for FelicityR".

 

But still not enough to actually award the reputation instead of just saying it?

[wank]

The normal uk/us approach is that 2 spades on hand 1 shows a suitable doubleton because with 3 spades and an unbalanced minimum (the given hand type) you raise spades immediately. With 3514 and a hand too strong to raise to 2s you rebid 2c and jump to 3s next.

 

Wrt Robson you have to very careful. He pitches his stuff at a very low level. In his bridge club for example there are no stop cards and, I think (I've never been there myself), no alerts or announcements as you get in real bridge tournaments. Similarly he teaches that reverses don't show extras. This is hopeless from a theoretical viewpoint but, no doubt, good from his because it gets the punters playing (and paying).

[Zelandakh]

1. Bid responder's suit with 3 card support, or, if not...

2. Bid his own second suit with 5 cards, or, if not...

3. Bid his first suit with 6 cards, or, if not....

4. Bid No Trumps with a stopper in the bid suit, or, if not...

 

If none of the above you have to find a bid so..

 

5. Bid responder's suit with a good doubleton, or

6. Bid own first suit with a good 5 card suit.

How about this one?

 

[hv=pc=n&w=skqthkj853dkqt42c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp2cp2dp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Or this?

[hv=pc=n&w=skqthkj8532dkqt4c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp2cp2dp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

I think general rules such as those from AR fall down if not taken into the context of how expensive each call is. 2NT over a 4SF 2♠ is quite different from 2NT over 2♣. The issue is complicated further if invitational hands are included as now we need not only buckets for minimum hands but also a way to show GF values in place of any non-forcing calls. That in turn leads to space-consuming bids being required on occasion, which is probably the main driving force behind the switch to exclusing the invitational hands here.

[Liversidge]

 

Wrt Robson you have to very careful. He pitches his stuff at a very low level. In his bridge club ...... he teaches that reverses don't show extras. This is hopeless from a theoretical viewpoint but, no doubt, good from his because it gets the punters playing (and paying).

Don't know what he teaches at his club but his club website has sections ranging from "beginner" to "experienced" and in his book "Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them" he gives an example of a reverse and writes "a good 15 points should be held".