Forcing to game when spades is the fourth suit

[zdedo]

[hv=pc=n&s=s82ha986daq84ca73&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1dp1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

what you bid here? 1♠ or 2♠? and why?

[spotlight7]

I use 2S to show a GF with 4S and 5+ Ds.

 

1S* is used as 4th suit. It leaves much more room to explore.

[gordontd]

I use 2S to show a GF with 4S and 5+ Ds.

 

1S* is used as 4th suit. It leaves much more room to explore.

That works fine when you are playing Walsh, as you will never have a weak hand with spades. But otherwise, it has advantages to play 1S as natural with 2S as FSF.

[Stephen Tu]

I at one time played 2S as 4th suit artificial but grew to hate it after the umpteenth time I wanted to make a forcing 3c bid below 3nt but partner didn't cooperate by not having a 2nt rebid.Also the times where you want to show a hand too strong for 3nt (16-17 hcp or so) often gets awkward without the extra room.

 

If playing Walsh it's easy for 1S to be 4sf, you can bid it with natural spades as well IMO and preserve the room.

If not playing Walsh I'd still want 1S to be 1rf, may or not be natural, doesn't promise rebid, then maybe define responder's 2nt+ 3rd round bids as GF natural.

 

[nekthen]

My preferred solution is xyz

 

So after 1c 1d 1h

 

1S is natural and weak

1N is also weak with 4 diamonds

2C is invitational strength major suit length not yet revealed or weak with 5+ diamonds. Partner will bid 2D unless he does not want to hear pass from a weak diamond hand

2D is artificial GF

2H is a weak raise

[RD350LC]

[hv=pc=n&s=s82ha986daq84ca73&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1dp1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

what you bid here? 1♠ or 2♠? and why?

Some here may use an artificial 1 ♠ or 2♠ bid, but I tend to be more straight forward in my bidding. I would simply bid 4♥.

I do not see a slam, and I have enough to bid game-so will bid it.

[pescetom]

Some here may use an artificial 1 ♠ or 2♠ bid, but I tend to be more straight forward in my bidding. I would simply bid 4♥.

I do not see a slam, and I have enough to bid game-so will bid it.

 

It looks premature to exclude a slam - partner could still have 17 HCP and you have no shortage of controls.

[aawk]

1♠ is better used as natural bid and 2♠ as the 4th suit. The argument to use 1♠ as the 4th suit to gain extra bidding room baffles me after 2♠ you got all the room you need and with 1♠ as natural you tell 8 cards from your holdings (not if 1♦ is a relay in your system).

[neilkaz]

My preferred solution is xyz

 

So after 1c 1d 1h

 

1S is natural and weak

1N is also weak with 4 diamonds

2C is invitational strength major suit length not yet revealed or weak with 5+ diamonds. Partner will bid 2D unless he does not want to hear pass from a weak diamond hand

2D is artificial GF

2H is a weak raise

 

Same for as you are a bit too strong to basically s/off with 4♥

[RD350LC]

It looks premature to exclude a slam - partner could still have 17 HCP and you have no shortage of controls.

True enough-but by my counting, 17 + 14 = 31, and usually 33+ hcp are required for slam.

[nekthen]

Same for as you are a bit too strong to basically s/off with 4♥

 

Not sure what you mean, 2♦ is unlimited. I have not said I am signing off in 4♥

[mikeh]

XYZ is not a good idea in this situation, especially if but not only if opener is promising an unbalanced hand with the 1H bid.

 

This gets a bit complex in terms of the I/A nature of this thread, but here goes:

 

I will ignore those who play transfer responses to 1C, since their auctions have entirely different implications and meanings, and most I/A players won't be using them.

 

For 'natural' bidders, the first question is whether one responds up the line, either all the time or with hands limited to less than game values (some would say less than invitational values).

 

There is a style know as Walsh whereby responder will bid a 4 card major, in response to 1C, even with a longer diamond suit (let alone an equal diamond suit) unless he has a certain minimum strength, often but not always defined as gf...if not gf then as invitational or better. I will assume gf in what follows to the extent that it makes a difference.

 

Clearly the OP doesn't play Walsh, since even tho he has gf values, Walsh players would respond 1H here. The reason is that Walsh players will, as opener, rebid 1N with all balanced hands in range, bypassing a 4 card major. Thus with 4=4=2=3, a Walsh player opens 1C and rebids 1N over 1D.

 

Now, if responder reverses over 1N, by bidding 2H, he shows gf values AND longer diamonds than hearts...at least 4=5 in the reds.

 

Now, for a walsh player, the 1H rebid guarantees shape....at worst 4=4=1=4 and otherwise at least 5 clubs...4=4=0=5 is possible but 3=4=1=5 and so on is more likely.

 

The point is that sometimes the best contract is 2C, and the odds that this is the best contract are higher for walsh players than for non-walsh players, since a non-walsh player might rebid 1H on hands such as 3=4=3=3 or 4=4=2=3.

 

Incidentally, the definition provided by the walsh style, in terms of 1C then 1M promising an unbalanced hand is a very strong reason for adopting the style.

 

But even non-walsh players occasionally get dealt a hand such as xxx x KQxxx Qxxx where the 1H rebid stymies them. They can hardly bid 1N on xxx in the unbid suit, cannot afford to rebid that diamond suit, and therefore need to bid 2C. XYZ eliminates that.

 

It also renders bidding a hand such as xxx x KQJxxx Jxx impossible...this is a 2D rebid, yet XYZ makes 2D an artificial game force.

 

Getting back to the OP, another inference from Walsh is that responder cannot hold a 4 card spade suit and have responded 1D unless he is gf! Therefore, bidding 1S over 1H shows a gf hand regardless of whether it is FSF or 'natural'.

 

Many and probably most walsh players do use 1S as natural and forcing (as noted some play that this would promise only invitational + while others play it as gf), and 2S as FSF denying 4 spades.

 

I am thus in a minority, and caution readers not to assume that prospective partners would see things as I do, when I suggest that it makes little sense to consume an entire level of bidding just to distinguish between hands where responder holds 4 spades and hands where he doesn't.

 

Now, if 1S shows only invitational+, then I'd agree that it makes sense to use 2S as a gf, but I happen to play 'strong walsh' so that if I respond 1D and then show a major, I am forcing to game. This allows me to always use 1S here as a gf, not caring how many spades I hold. I won't jump to 2S with any hand...I want to keep that 2-level (and 1N) available to partner.

 

If partner raises, then he does so by bidding 2S, showing either 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5, and I can now make whatever call seems best, and note that I am ahead a tempo in the auction, and have far more information than I'd have had I jumped to 2S.

 

If I have 4 spades, I can bid 3S (slam try), or 4S to play, suggesting a minimum, or even keycard or splinters. If I lack 4 spades I can bid notrump suggesting we play notrump, 3C supporting clubs, 3H supporting hearts and so on.

 

If partner doesn't have 4 spades, we are even further ahead of the '2S shows gf with fewer than 4 spades' school. Those players have opener making his rebid at 2N or the 3-level....I have opener making essentially the same rebid at 1N or the 2-level. I can set trump a full level lower than they can.

 

I've set out a lot of info, and only hope that I haven't added to the confusion level.

[nekthen]

True enough-but by my counting, 17 + 14 = 31, and usually 33+ hcp are required for slam.

 

33+ is required for 6NT but if p is distributional, we can easily have enough for a slam

[silvr bull]

I prefer a simple system in which I mostly bid what I have. My 4th suit bids are forcing, but they also show values in that suit. A simple rule I ask my partners to play is that any jump by an unpassed hand is a one round force. With this hand, I have no need to bid any number of S. I can simply bid a forcing 3H. Then if opener has something like void KQxx Kxx KQxxxx, he can make a mild slam try with 3S and I can drive this hand to slam. Old school simple can be a great style!

[GrahamJson]

Some here may use an artificial 1 ♠ or 2♠ bid, but I tend to be more straight forward in my bidding. I would simply bid 4♥.

I do not see a slam, and I have enough to bid game-so will bid it.

If you have not agreed what 1S or 2S mean then this looks like an imminently sensible approach.

[RD350LC]

If you have not agreed what 1S or 2S mean then this looks like an imminently sensible approach.

Playing with partners who (generally) have no idea what fourth suit forcing is, I tend to agree.

[nekthen]

MikeH

 

"It also renders bidding a hand such as xxx x KQJxxx Jxx impossible...this is a 2D rebid, yet XYZ makes 2D an artificial game force."

 

Playing XYZ the bidding goes

 

1C 1D

1H 2C

2D pass

 

simples

 

If opener is strong he avoids the 2D puppet

 

"But even non-walsh players occasionally get dealt a hand such as xxx x KQxxx Qxxx where the 1H rebid stymies them. They can hardly bid 1N on xxx in the unbid suit, cannot afford to rebid that diamond suit, and therefore need to bid 2C. XYZ eliminates that."

 

Of course you can rebid 1N.

 

Yes once in a blue moon 2C will be the best contract but 1N will usually be as good or better and do you really want to bid 2C when partner could have only 3?

[mikeh]

MikeH

 

"It also renders bidding a hand such as xxx x KQJxxx Jxx impossible...this is a 2D rebid, yet XYZ makes 2D an artificial game force."

 

Playing XYZ the bidding goes

 

1C 1D

1H 2C

2D pass

 

simples

 

If opener is strong he avoids the 2D puppet

 

"But even non-walsh players occasionally get dealt a hand such as xxx x KQxxx Qxxx where the 1H rebid stymies them. They can hardly bid 1N on xxx in the unbid suit, cannot afford to rebid that diamond suit, and therefore need to bid 2C. XYZ eliminates that."

 

Of course you can rebid 1N.

 

Yes once in a blue moon 2C will be the best contract but 1N will usually be as good or better and do you really want to bid 2C when partner could have only 3?

 

good point on the ability to get to 2D playing xzy, and I am embarrassed to have screwed that up. The ability to get to 2C, however, is to me a big deal, especially when added to the space consumption involved, modest tho it may appear to be, in having to bid 2D to force to game rather than 1S.

 

I think bidding space is perhaps the bidding concept least understood and most under-valued by non-expert players.

[nekthen]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq742ht7dk532cq72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Sorry I want to bid 1♠ and I am happy that partner may pass

 

[hv=pc=n&n=skt63hak95dt5cqj5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1dp1hp2cp]133|200|God I wish p had bid 1N[/hv]

[msjennifer]

My bid over 1H is 4H.Shows a 7loser hand with good support.Opener had S-xxxx,,H-KQxx,D-Kx,C-KQx. Over partners 1/2 Spade over 1H .what is he supposed to bid? 1S—1NT/2S ? And 2S—3S/2NT,? one does not get any nformation by bidding 1/2S unless it’s a fixed partnership .Isnt it?Please correct me If vice versa.As also how do you propose to continue after any of the above responses by opener over 1S/2S ?

[msjennifer]

It looks premature to exclude a slam - partner could still have 17 HCP and you have no shortage of controls.

4H bid does not necessarily exclude a slam as opener now knows that responder is confident to bid 4H even facing a poor 11/12 HCP. and with the possibility of 1C a prepared bid.

[RD350LC]

My bid over 1H is 4H.Shows a 7loser hand with good support.Opener had S-xxxx,,H-KQxx,D-Kx,C-KQx. Over partners 1/2 Spade over 1H .what is he supposed to bid? 1S—1NT/2S ? And 2S—3S/2NT,? one does not get any nformation by bidding 1/2S unless it’s a fixed partnership .Isnt it?Please correct me If vice versa.As also how do you propose to continue after any of the above responses by opener over 1S/2S ?

I agree with this-though a lot of people do not. Over 1 ♥ I would make the simple bid of 4 ♥. Playing partner for a perfect minimum is one thing. Playing partner for a perfect maximum is not good bridge-it is greed.

As he puts it, you run into a rebid problem if partner makes a fourth suit forcing bid.