[Flame]

I want try to have a rule or a set of rules to decide whather a 4th suit bid is nat rather then artificial.
one rule that might solve many cases is that for it to be 4th suit forcing we need each player to show 2 of the suits, so if one of the players show 3 suits its natural.
Is this rule right ?
There might be a rule about 4th suit is nat after 3rd suit forcing.
I believe in rules.

[blackshoe]

Here's a rule for you: rules are made to be broken.

Google "fourth suit forcing". Read. Study. You'll figure it out.

[helene_t]

There are only six (oops seven, I forgot one, tx jtfanclub) situations in which FSF clearly applies:
1♣-1♦
1♠-2♥

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦

1♦-1♥
1♠-2♣

1♦-1♥
2♣-2♠

1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦

1♥-1♠
2♦-3♣

After a 2/1, FSF may also apply if a GF has not been established.

After a reverse, a different system applies, one that does not include FSF.

Opener's 3rd suit, when responder has shown the remaining suit, is generally patterning out. In some other situations it makes sense to play the fourth suit as artificial, for example
1♦-2♣
3♣-3♥
3♠*
probably shows/asks for half a spade guard. But this is not part of the FSF convention.

[han]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

There are only six situations in which FSF clearly applies:
1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦

1♦-1♥
1♠-2♣

1♦-1♥
2♣-2♠

1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦

1♥-1♠
2♦-3♣

I am sure that Flame can summarize these situations in a nice rule.

[jtfanclub]

What about....
1♣-1♦
1♠-2♥
?

I am not used to playing
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

as 4th suit forcing. I am used to that showing 5+ spades and 4 hearts, or with some people I play with 5+ spades and 5 hearts.

Am I alone again?

[helene_t]

han, on Jun 1 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I am sure that Flame can summarize these situations in a nice rule.

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for
1♣-1♦
1♥-?
where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this).

[pclayton]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

han, on Jun 1 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I am sure that Flame can summarize these situations in a nice rule.

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for
1♣-1♦
1♥-?
where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this).

If they do, they play 2♠ as 4SF.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jun 1 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

What about....
1♣-1♦
1♠-2♥
?

I am not used to playing
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

as 4th suit forcing. I am used to that showing 5+ spades and 4 hearts, or with some people I play with 5+ spades and 5 hearts.

Am I alone again?

Yes. Sorry.

[matmat]

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣

an efficient sequence, no doubt.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a simple, but fairly effective rule:

If the partnership has bid 3 suits natural, bidding
the 4th suit at the cheapest level is artficial (*).

You may exclude the auction

1C - 1D
1H - 1S

It works, although you will find, that lots of posters
on this forum wont agree.
They will tell you, that in lots of situation bidding the
4th suit has to be natural, because you need it to be
natural, but of course there are other hands a artficial
bid ("a marktime bid" as Alvin Roth called it once) will
be handy as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Flame]

To those who dont need rules, i have lots of bridge expirence and i learned that the last thing you need at the bridge table is to start inteperate bidding because your "stupid"? partner will many time have other ideas then you. Also rules are good to make you bid in good tempo which is also important. So trust me you do need rules.
There are 2 opinions on thid thread, one is that any 4st suit is 4st suit forcing, the other one is that only the basic bidding sequences are 4th suit forcing.
There are many other sequences then those 7 showed above.
I bet there is someone who is good at math who can tell us how many possibilities of bidding 4 suits (dont forget NT, rebids and support for minor suits) there are.
The always 4st suit is a simple effective rule which is much better then guessing what parner is thinking at the table but maybe we can refine it a bit.
Here is one examples that will not be on your everyday list, and there are many more.
1C-1S
2C-2H
3D

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

han, on Jun 1 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I am sure that Flame can summarize these situations in a nice rule.

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for
1♣-1♦
1♥-?
where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this).

No flame from me. It makes perfect sense to play this as FSF, if opener has shown two genuine suits. Typical examples are: Acol (the genuine variation where 4 card majors are often bid before 4 card minors), or a 5 card major system including Walsh.

However, when opener only promises a genuine heart suit (and therefore a 4=4=2=3 (or even a 4=4=3=2) distribution would be as likely as a 2=4=3=4 distribution) it does make more sense to play 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠ as "1blup-1♦; 1♥-1♠", thus making 1♠ the third suit. In that case, good hands without direction can always use 2♠ as FSF.

Rik

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

jtfanclub said:

I am not used to playing
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

as 4th suit forcing.  I am used to that showing 5+ spades and 4 hearts, or with some people I play with 5+ spades and 5 hearts.

Am I alone again?

Yes. Sorry.

Opener hasn't denied 4 hearts, responder hasn't denied 4 hearts. Why do I have to force to game to find out if we should be playing in freakin' hearts?

Same logic as 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠. Again, why do I need to force to game to find our major suit fit?

I'm not saying that 2♥ and 1♠ here have to be natural 100% of the time, but if you play 4SF as GF, shouldn't these be exceptions?

[andy_h]

jtfanclub, on Jun 2 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

jtfanclub said:

I am not used to playing
1♦-1♠
2♣-2♥

as 4th suit forcing.  I am used to that showing 5+ spades and 4 hearts, or with some people I play with 5+ spades and 5 hearts.

Am I alone again?

Yes. Sorry.

Opener hasn't denied 4 hearts, responder hasn't denied 4 hearts. Why do I have to force to game to find out if we should be playing in freakin' hearts?

Same logic as 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠. Again, why do I need to force to game to find our major suit fit?

I'm not saying that 2♥ and 1♠ here have to be natural 100% of the time, but if you play 4SF as GF, shouldn't these be exceptions?

I think this most definitely depends what kind of system/convention you're playing. Take the 1st example of 1D-1S; 2C-2H. Yes it's true that opener can still have 0-4-5-4 and responder may have a weak 5-5Majors hand but the question you should ask is, what if responder's got the ordinary game forcing hand? What is he meant to bid now? 4C/D whilst bypassing 3NT? 3H bumping up an extra level? The answer is that it's too hard without 2H being 4th suit GF. So, now what if the hands were really 0-4-5-4 opposite 5-4+Majors and a weak hand? Responder then will have to deal with a false preference or whatever. This is also the reason why people have devised a convention for this sort of problem, a 1C-2D/H or 1D-2M or something alike aka "(reverse) flannery".

The auction 1C-1D; 1H-1S.
If you are playing walsh style, opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 5-4 or 4144 if you open those 1C. Playing walsh style also means that responder with <GF hand strives to bid their major first before diamonds so they can uncover the major fit before partner bids 1NT or the opponents start pre-empting. So if that's the case, responder will only respond 1D with a GF hand or any hand with just diamonds. So therefore this sequence, responder doesn't need 1S to be natural and have 2S as the 4sGF as that also bumps up the auction very high and it also doesn't really exist as a 'natural-but-NF' bid.
However, if you play the normal everyone-bids-up-the-line, then in that sequence opener can still have 3424, 3433, 4423 type of hands as well as the unbalanced ones? Not being so familiar in this kind of area where opener doesn't rebid 1NT with a balanced hand, by all means you can have this auction as 1S being natural and 2S the 4sGF.

[jtfanclub]

andy_h, on Jun 1 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

I think this most definitely depends what kind of system/convention you're playing. Take the 1st example of 1D-1S; 2C-2H. Yes it's true that opener can still have 0-4-5-4 and responder may have a weak 5-5Majors hand but the question you should ask is, what if responder's got the ordinary game forcing hand? What is he meant to bid now? 4C/D whilst bypassing 3NT? 3H bumping up an extra level? The answer is that it's too hard without 2H being 4th suit GF.

How do you plan to bid 1-4-4-4 as opener? Open a heart? Bid 1NT over 1 spade? I suppose we could survey to see what people do in that situation. But I think a rebid of 2♣ is reasonable.

It's not that 2♥ should always be natural, I agree with the problems there. The question is, can you play it as forcing to at least 3♥, instead of playing it as a game force, without encountering all of the problems you mention?

[FrancesHinden]

Back to the original question.
There are two basic approaches to this. From my reading of the forums, I think the first of these is the 'standard' American approach, and I know the second is a lot more common round 'ere.

1. FSF is a convention that only applies in particular, well-defined situations which are
---At responder's second turn to call in an uncontested auction, after three suits have been bid naturally and the auction is not already game forced
(if you play special methods such as ingberman after a reverse, these take precedence)
In all other auctions, a bid of the 4th suit is natural (in context).

The majority of people playing this approach also play that FSF is game forcing, though that is not compulsory.

2. After three suits have been bid naturally in an uncontested auction, a bid of the fourth suit by either hand is an artificial force, meaning "I don't have anything more natural to bid".
In this approach, FSF is game forcing at the 3-level or higher, but some people play that it only promises invitational values at the 2-level (or have slightly more complex agreements).

The auction 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S/2S is by agreement in either approach

Under (1) the auction 1S - 2C (game forcing) - 2H - 3D is natural. Under (2) it is fourth suit forcing.
Under (1) the auction 1D - 1S - 2C - 2D - 2H is natural (ish). Under (2) it is fourth suit forcing.

In short, the pros of the methods are:
1. Easy to agree with little discussion. Fewer auctions where you need to discuss continuations in detail. If you are forced anyway, there's no need for an articiail bid, you can just bid naturally, otherwise you can never get to play in the 4th suit.
2. It's very helpful to have a mark time bid even in forcing auctions, it adds definition to your bids whenever you don't bid the fourth suit and maks available a neutral forcing bid if you are too strong to bid 3NT.


Independent of this agreement, it's also helpful to agree what a raise of the fourth suit shows (e.g. 1D - 1S - 2C - 2H - 3H). The correlation is not perfect, but I believe that
1. People playing approach (1) tend to play this as natural, showing length in the suit
2. People playing approach (2) tend to play this as artificial, showing extra values but nothing useful to bid ("re-fourth suit"). This agreement is particularly important if the fourth suit bid was not game forcing.

Independent of these agreements, it's also helpful to agree what a jump in the fourth suit shows. The two options are
1. Splinter for partner's last bid suit
2. Natural

For example, I follow approach (2) and my partnership agreements are
- After a 4th suit bid, a bid of NT by partner, another 4th suit bid is natural
- 1m - 1H - 1S - 1NT - 2om is natural
- 1D - 1M - 2C - 3OM is natural
- A raise of the fourth suit is usually extra values no descriptive bid, but 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S - 2S is natural, showing a 4414/4405
- 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S is 4SF but does not promise a rebid; 1C - 1D - 1H - 2S shows invitational values with 3 clubs.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

it's also helpful to agree what a jump in the fourth suit shows. The two options are
1. Splinter for partner's last bid suit
2. Natural

Another method I've seen is that it's an artificial game-forcing raise of opener's last-bid suit.

[barryallen]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

han, on Jun 1 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I am sure that Flame can summarize these situations in a nice rule.

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for
1♣-1♦
1♥-?
where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this).

Is there anyone who is going to pass 1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠, if no then what is the problem? All gets revealed after the subsequent bid and what damage can be done by assuming the 1♠ as natural initially?

[helene_t]

barryallen, on Jun 3 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

Is there anyone who is going to pass 1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠, if no then what is the problem? All gets revealed after the subsequent bid and what damage can be done by assuming the 1♠ as natural initially?

Yes, 1♠ as either natural or FSF is what came out of the Biedermeijer enquete also (there was also a majority for not playing Walsh but the two questions were asked independently).

Obviously 1♠ is forcing whether it is natural or not. I think the problem is that if it goes
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠
3♠-4c/d/h

4c/d/h is ambiguous. Is it a hand that wanted to set that suit as trump via fsf, or is it a cue for spades?

[barryallen]

helene_t, on Jun 3 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

barryallen, on Jun 3 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

Is there anyone who is going to pass 1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠, if no then what is the problem? All gets revealed after the subsequent bid and what damage can be done by assuming the 1♠ as natural initially?

Yes, 1♠ as either natural or FSF is what came out of the Biedermeijer enquete also (there was also a majority for not playing Walsh but the two questions were asked independently).

Obviously 1♠ is forcing whether it is natural or not. I think the problem is that if it goes
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠
3♠-4c/d/h

4c/d/h is ambiguous. Is it a hand that wanted to set that suit as trump via fsf, or is it a cue for spades?

You must have an exact definition for 3♠, it is not the subsequent 4♣♦♥ that require defining, it is the 3♠ bid. Bidding another undefined after an initial undefined is just asking for trouble from interference?