[Tramticket]

---

Pairs.
We play 4th Suit Forcing as 100% Forcing to game at both the three and two level. You are not playing 2-over-1 game forcing - the 2♣ response initially promised a good 9+ points.

I am looking for general advice in this area, not just the answer on this specific hand. I realise that many of you will play 2-over-1 game forcing and a bid of the 4th suit after a two-level response will have different meanings in this case, so please assume that your two-level response does not force to game for this discussion.

What is your philosophy in responding to 4th suit forcing (4SF)? If you have more than one feature to show how do you prioritise them? I have seen various advice on this subject and much of it is contradictory. The advice that I have seen doesn't seem to make any distinction between responding to 4SF at the two level and 4SF at the three level. Similarly, there is no distinction made between partner initially responding in a major and a minor. What bid do you make if you are unable to show additional length in you suits, you are unable to show support for partner's suit and you don't have adequate stoppers for NT. Under what circumstances would you be prepared to go beyond 3NT?

[Edited to confirm 4SF is 100% Game Forcing]

[nullve]

I voted 3N. (No, I don't have a diamond stopper.)

[Tramticket]

nullve, on 2018-August-08, 02:39, said:

I voted 3N. (No, I don't have a diamond stopper.)

Ok, but why did you choose this response rather than (say) showing your club fragment or keeping the bidding lower with a 3♥/3♠ response?

I guess this question is trying to establish what are the priorities to show? And if you have tell a lie, which is the least misleading / most helpful lie to tell?

[apollo1201]

I play rebid 1st suit if nothing special to say. So I’d rebid 3S. After all, partner maybe just wanted to right size NTs or is contemplating a rock crusher. And if desperately she puts me in 4S with Hx or Tx, I could probably survive or fail like every other table.
I think it is too early to by pass 3NT even if AK of clubs are good cards. The rest of my hand is not a dream, if it is just what partner needs, she’ll keep bidding. After all I’ve opened...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

priority

#1 secondary support for partners major
#2 stopper
#3 secondary support for partners minor
#4 distribution

With the given hand, I would go with the nothing bid / default,
either 3H or 3S, basically a partnership agreement, 3H is most
likely better (my vote) / more common, i.e.
3H could still be 54, 3S would show a 6th spade, but if you agreed
to use 3S as nothing bid, than 3S it is.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JanisW]

It's close between 4♣ and 3♠. 3♥ should show 5, 3NT has to have a ♦stopper.
With a ♦ stopper and nothing special partner would've bid 3NT on his own. So the question is: is AK doubleton enough support for a 4♣bid? Partner might have x,Kx,Axx,QJxxxxx where 5♣ is an easy make and 3NT might go down. But we might as well land in 6♣ because partner believes us to be 5413 for our 4♣ bid...
I voted 3♠ with the intention of passing a subsequent 3NT and raising 4♣ to 5.

[Cyberyeti]

Firstly while you can choose whether 4SF at the 2 level is GF, it really needs to be GF at the 3 level or you have this sort of problem (it's a lot worse with AJxxx, AKQx, xx, xx).

I would bid 3♠ which is the default "nothing more to say" bid, it really depends what partner would 4SF on that would pass 3♠, I can't imagine doing it even if it wasn't GF as you can't cope with all of partner's possible rebids.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-08, 04:22, said:

Firstly while you can choose whether 4SF at the 2 level is GF, it really needs to be GF at the 3 level or you have this sort of problem (it's a lot worse with AJxxx, AKQx, xx, xx).

Just to confirm that 4SF is 100% forcing for us (at 2 and 3-level). But there is still a need for a default. Or to otherwise find a bid.

[Tramticket]

P_Marlowe, on 2018-August-08, 03:48, said:

Hi,

priority

#1 secondary support for partners major
#2 stopper
#3 secondary support for partners minor
#4 distribution

With the given hand, I would go with the nothing bid / default,
either 3H or 3S, basically a partnership agreement, 3H is most
likely better (my vote) / more common, i.e.
3H could still be 54, 3S would show a 6th spade, but if you agreed
to use 3S as nothing bid, than 3S it is.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Your number 1 priority is showing secondary support for partner's major. Which seems right.

How is this compatible with using one of partner's majors as the default? How will partner know?

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2018-August-08, 04:35, said:

Just to confirm that 4SF is 100% forcing for us (at 2 and 3-level). But there is still a need for a default. Or to otherwise find a bid.

Obv it's 100% forcing, but is it 100% GAME forcing. To me the default is always a return to the first suit. (We play F1 at 2 level, GF at 3)

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-08, 04:42, said:

Obv it's 100% forcing, but is it 100% GAME forcing. To me the default is always a return to the first suit. (We play F1 at 2 level, GF at 3)

100% Game Forcing. I have edited the opening post to confirm.

[P_Marlowe]

Tramticket, on 2018-August-08, 04:41, said:

Your number 1 priority is showing secondary support for partner's major. Which seems right.

How is this compatible with using one of partner's majors as the default? How will partner know?

I am a bid confused, what your question is.

The situation is opener showed 2-suits, responder makes a FSF bid.
The question is, which suit bid by opener is the default, and which suit bid showes distributional
information, you can go with openers first suit, or with the cheapest suit rebid.
If opener bid both majors, responder cant have bid a major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[StevenG]

Tramticket, on 2018-August-08, 04:35, said:

Just to confirm that 4SF is 100% forcing for us (at 2 and 3-level).

Is that sensible at matchpoints?

[Tramticket]

StevenG, on 2018-August-08, 05:20, said:

Is that sensible at matchpoints?

I have played a two-level 4SF as only a one-round force and there are hands (around 11 HCP and no stop) where that method can be an advantage.

But we find constructive bidding more accurate if played as a game force - even at match-points.

[Tramticket]

P_Marlowe, on 2018-August-08, 04:59, said:

I am a bid confused, what your question is.

The situation is opener showed 2-suits, responder makes a FSF bid.
The question is, which suit bid by opener is the default, and which suit bid showes distributional
information, you can go with openers first suit, or with the cheapest suit rebid.
If opener bid both majors, responder cant have bid a major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Yes, I understand. I am just highlighting the paradox: You want to make finding a major-suit fit a priority, but you also need(?) a default bid. You would like the default bid not to take you past 3NT and you don't want to bid 3NT without a stop. It isn't possible to achieve all of these objectives

[Winstonm]

From my POV, part of good bidding is anticipating problems for partner that my bidding may cause and trying to minimize those problems - 3D in this sequence kind of endplays partner in the bidding, so IMO it should be made judiciously and rarely, keeping in mind partner's rebidding problems.

Playing with a good partner with whom I am unfamiliar, I would take 3D in this sequence as one of two possibles: 1) looking for the best game Kx, AKx, xxx, QJ9xxx or 2) looking specifically for club support Kx, AKx, Ax, QJ10xxx. I am of the opinion that even with a partial diamond stopper 2NT is superior to 3D.

I would bid 4C - if my partner cannot bid NT over 2H, there is no need for me to bid it unless it has a specialized meaning. The really difficult question is now whether or not 4H/4S are cue bids or an offer to play; however, I think it would behoove partner with a club hand to guarantee diamond control with a 4D call at this point, so I would take 4H/4S as suggestions of a final contract.

[nullve]

Winstonm, on 2018-August-08, 11:24, said:

Playing with a good partner with whom I am unfamiliar, I would take 3D in this sequence as one of two possibles: 1) looking for the best game Kx, AKx, xxx, QJ9xxx or 2) looking specifically for club support Kx, AKx, Ax, QJ10xxx. I am of the opinion that even with a partial diamond stopper 2NT is superior to 3D.

I don't think 2N would be forcing in this system (= Acol?).

[helene_t]

Maybe it's worth considering playing 3♥ as a clubs raise and 4♣ as showing hearts. You are less likely to want to stop in 3NT when you are 5-5 in the majors than when you have a clubs fit.

[Winstonm]

nullve, on 2018-August-08, 12:42, said:

I don't think 2N would be forcing in this system (= Acol?).

OK. Thanks. I missed that part. That certainly makes things more challenging - when playing a less precise system, though, less precise results must be accepted. If 2NT is not forcing then, IMO, rather than 3D, 3NT should be bid with the proper shape and a partial stop or even xxxx.

The bigger issue to me is that this particular 3D 4th suit bid is better utilized for finding the right game or slam instead of worrying too much about specifically 4th suit stoppage. Opener can always bid 3NT over 3D - but that bid IMO should be taken as a suggestion as to the best contract, not specifically a response to a question about a diamond stopper.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-August-08, 05:27, said:

But we find constructive bidding more accurate if played as a game force - even at match-points.

Amen.
Our system abounds with unconditional game forces (even 1♣ - 2♣) and I wouldn't weaken any of them.
It makes for more detailed and accurate bidding and the few times an unlucky hand match condemns you to bid to an impossible game are compensated by the times an improbable game actually makes.
An added bonus is that it weeds out partners who lack trust and courage or the sensibility to interpret the first rounds of bidding.