[kenberg]

This is a hand where we reached the right contract, but there was a lot of luck, including a fortunate misunderstanding, and so I thought some might wish to comment.

---

Ok, it's a pretty good hand. We do not,as you will see, have any detailed or exotic agreements. My thoughts?
If partner has four clubs, we want to be in (at least) 6C. It might go down, but it is likely to have a reasonable play.
If partner's only four card suit is spades, then it is far from clear that we wish to be in any slam. The auction continues:

---

The 2D was FSF, but not much more was discussed about it.
Ok, I now reason
Partner does not have three hearts else s/he would have bid 2H. That means partner must have four clubs. 6C should have a play, I have no idea how to see if we belong in 7C, so I just bid 6C. Science? Who needs it?

The hands:

---

Ok, we have four clubs, four diamonds, two major suit aces and two spade ruffs.12 tricks. Brilliantly bid. I jest.

I note that partner, with three hearts and a diamond stop, chose 2NT showing the diamond stop. Not the usual priority I think See, for example, http://web2.acbl.org...suitforcing.pdf

But it's hardly crazy to bid 2NT. Not discussed, as I said. I played partner for only two hearts, thus four clubs, instead partner had only two diamonds, thus four clubs. Whew.

Some thoughts and questions:

Suppose, over the FSF 2D bid partner actually had bid 2H. I would now bid 3C, trusting that either FSF is GF or at least that bidding FSF and then showing the clubs is forcing. Do we still get to 6C? How?
Suppose partner is 4=3=3=3. Now some might rebid 1NT over my 1H with that shape, but suppose not. Can we then stay out of slam?
Suppose partner has four clubs and better strength. Can we reach 7C? Changing the spade Q to the spade K would be enough to have a decent play for a slam.

This is the I/A Forum so let us suppose that most people do not have unusual gadgets here. That is certainly true of me. How would you see the auction going, both with the actual hands and on some modest variants where either you might want to be in 7C or you might want to settle in 3NT or 5C. I never have been embarrassed to just take my best shot, it works or it doesn't, but obviously we could hope for better.

It's easy to say that of course on BBO, with the typical lack of full discussion, there will be trouble. But I think a fair number of I/A partnerships, on BBO and elsewhere, could have trouble with this hand. Including me.

[JanisW]

kenberg, on 2017-September-12, 11:43, said:

This is a hand where we reached the right contract, but there was a lot of luck, including a fortunate misunderstanding, and so I thought some might wish to comment.

---

I'm not sure whether this is standard treatment, but we would've bit 1♦ over 1♣ showing either a weak response w/o a 4 card major, or at least invitational strength with a major. After 1♦ opener knows there either is no ♠-Fit or it will get discovered later, meaning he does not have to bid 1♠ on just 4 spades (which would often lead to a wrongsided 1NT if 1♦ was xxx,Kxx,QJxx,Jxx ). So my partners 1 ♠-rebid shows 2 decent black suits, because if he was 4-3-3-3 he would've bid 1NT.

So after 1♣-1♦-1♠ I know there was at least a 4-4 Fit in ♣

Regards
JW

[kenberg]

I don't think we have any agreement about 1C-1D-1S or 1C-1D-1NT. I have played what might be called both extremes. That is, 1C-1D responder has either a game forcing hand or else no major (Walsh style) and I have played up the line responses. And in between. I a not sure but I think most Walshies would bid 1NT over my 1D. The hand is more or less flat. But of course you are not describing strict Walshism.

Let's take your beginning, 1C-1D-1S, showing four spades and at least four clubs. It would definitely be useful here. But what next? I assume that 1C-1D-1S-2H would be an artificial force to game. But then?

Still a tricky situation, I think. But with your agreements it would settle the club fit issue.

[The_Badger]

This is why the XYZ convention is used these days, so that hands like this have the space to bid and find slams as on these two hands.

Fourth suit forcing does traditionally ask for a stopper in the suit bid, so bidding 2NT instead of showing 3 card support with 2♥ isn't as bad as it seems.

Other than that, yes 6♣ is a non-science (not a nonsense ) bid but why blast when you have all the time in the world to describe your hands in detail?

[kenberg]

The_Badger, on 2017-September-12, 14:46, said:

This is why the XYZ convention is used these days, so that hands like this have the space to bid and find slams as on these two hands.

Fourth suit forcing does traditionally ask for a stopper in the suit bid, so bidding 2NT instead of showing 3 card support with 2♥ isn't as bad as it seems.

Other than that, yes 6♣ is a non-science (not a nonsense ) bid but why blast when you have all the time in the world to describe your hands in detail?

I checked a few references. Mike Lawrence, on his conventions disk, asserts that 2NT denies three hearts. Above I referenced The Bidding Toolkit from the acbl bulletin. I tried other places.
As near as I could see, Larry Cohen does not address the issue of priority. No doubt he does somewhere, I just couldn't find it. See https://www.larryco....nter/detail/550

The Bridgeguys consider the auction 1H-1S-2D-3C but that's pretty different. Opener presumably has five hearts and four diamonds so if he has three spades he doesn't have a club stop unless it is the stiff Ace, in which case he probably wants to show his three card spade support anyway.

I found other references saying that after 1C-1H-1S-2D the first priority is to show three hearts, I found none that said the first priority is to show a diamond stopper. I am prepared to say it could be played either way, or even that it could be situational where maybe AQ in diamonds takes precedence over xxx in hearts while KJx in hearts takes precedence over Kx in diamonds. But if the traditional way is to play the diamond stop as the top priority I could not find this in print. I also have never played it that way;.

But that is part of why I decided to post this. I think the hand provides a lot of opportunity to explore just what the follow-ups are to FSF.

Now why the jump to 6C? Well, a conversation is useful only if you each understand what the other is saying. In support of this view, I offer the fact that already, after 1C-1H-1S-2D-2NT, we have had a misunderstanding. I certainly didn't want to bid 3C and hear a pass. I would risk that if I could see a reward, but I couldn't. Had I bid 4C over 2NT my guess is that it would be taken as Gerber. With most people I like to play that 4C is Gerber if and only if it is a jump to 4C directly over a natural 1NT or 2NT. With some I have some refinements.

Let's say that I was confident that 3C over 2NT would not be passed. Certainly it should be forcing, even if FSF is not, by itself, a game force. . What reason could I have for bidding the fourth suit and then pulling 2NT to 3C unless I have clubs and values? But still, what then? I often see players make a lot of extra bids, neither one having any clear idea of what the other is getting at, and then they take their best guess. I decided to go directly to the best guess.

And then, later, discuss it. That's important. I have sent the hand to regular partner, and we will discuss it. and I am very interested in ow you and others think the auction should go.

I have never played XYZ. I have played 2-way new minor where after 1m-1M-1NT the bid of 2D is an artificial gf, the bid of 2C is either the start of a sign-off in 2D or, far more often, the start of an invitation. Here it seems to come to the same thing, as long as we are on the same page at least. I just checked, here Larry Cohen says:"Over 1NT, responder can also bid 2 (artificial) to set up a Game Force. After this, opener bids naturally--he would raise the major with 3-card support" although he does not mention priorities explicitly. See https://www.larryco....nter/detail/396

It seems to me that a lot of conventions go fine in simple cases but as soon as it gets at all complicated you find that different people have different ideas about what means what. And that can land a person in a silly contract. At least when I jumped to 6C, partner could be pretty confident that I was suggesting that we play the hand in clubs!.

In case there is any doubt with anyone, I am not claiming 6C is a great bid. Hardly. I found it hard to see what was best, and I hope to hear thoughts. But we can definitely agree 6C lacks grace, at the least.

[The_Badger]

kenberg, on 2017-September-12, 16:13, said:

I checked a few references. Mike Lawrence, on his conventions disk, asserts that 2NT denies three hearts.

You're right, Ken. Yes, that is the modern treatment. I checked a few references myself. Even Wikipedia agree that the priority now is to show 3 card support over bidding NT with a stop.

Once upon a time, the FSF bidder was looking for a no-trump contract with a partial stop in the 4th suit, typically something like Qxx. How times change.

[gwnn]

It 100% is crazy to bypass hearts in favour of "showing" a diamond stop.

[JanisW]

kenberg, on 2017-September-12, 14:21, said:

I a not sure but I think most Walshies would bid 1NT over my 1D. The hand is more or less flat. But of course you are not describing strict Walshism.

I couldn't blame Partner too much on rebidding 1NT as 1♠ is usually 4-5, but he does have 6 honours in the black-suits and only thin red-suit-stoppers.

kenberg, on 2017-September-12, 14:21, said:

Still a tricky situation, I think. But with your agreements it would settle the club fit issue.

Yeah, the problem is most agreements are designed to find the right game opposite a minimum opener, such montsers by responder are very hard to describe and I'd probably have to guess at some point

I hope I would be able to produce something like that with my partner
1C-1D
1S-2H
3C (no stop in ♥) - 3H (half-stopper)
3NT - 4C (now my 3H should be reinterpreted as ♥A and trying for a ♣-slam
4D - 4H
4S - 4NT (Blackwood, 1430)
5C - 5D
5NT - 6C

know I know about the ♠A, the ♦K and the ♣Q and no major-suit King
7♣ might still be missed though and up to 4NT bidding would not have changed if the ♠A were the ♠K, so might not be much more scientific then blasting 6C instead of 2H....


regards
JW

[Winstonm]

The first thing I think is mandatory when quickly agreeing to play 4th suit forcing is to agree that it is 100% game forcing.

Second, I like to think of these 4th suit sequences as partner asking me for a further description of my hand, so, with secondary heart support I would bid 2H - almost all the time. KQJ, xxx, Qxx. AQxx, makes more sense to me to bid 2NT than 3H, though.

[kenberg]

JanisW, on 2017-September-13, 04:04, said:

I couldn't blame Partner too much on rebidding 1NT as 1♠ is usually 4-5, but he does have 6 honours in the black-suits and only thin red-suit-stoppers.



Yeah, the problem is most agreements are designed to find the right game opposite a minimum opener, such montsers by responder are very hard to describe and I'd probably have to guess at some point

I hope I would be able to produce something like that with my partner
1C-1D
1S-2H
3C (no stop in ♥) - 3H (half-stopper)
3NT - 4C (now my 3H should be reinterpreted as ♥A and trying for a ♣-slam
4D - 4H
4S - 4NT (Blackwood, 1430)
5C - 5D
5NT - 6C

know I know about the ♠A, the ♦K and the ♣Q and no major-suit King
7♣ might still be missed though and up to 4NT bidding would not have changed if the ♠A were the ♠K, so might not be much more scientific then blasting 6C instead of 2H....


regards
JW

It's plausible. More than I wanted to try with a partner I have not discussed much with.However I note the following. Over 4NT it is possible that, playing 1430, partner's response will be 5D. showing 0, in which case you are in 6C anyway. Not that that's bad since surely 6C will have a play. So I guess the way to think about 4NT is that you are committed to 6C whether the response is 5C or 5D, but when it is 5C you get to ask about more stuff to help decided on 6 or 7. I see this as reasonable, given that we get the 4-4 club fit settled early on.

[Vampyr]

JanisW, on 2017-September-12, 13:52, said:

I'm not sure whether this is standard treatment, but we would've bit 1♦ over 1♣ showing either a weak response w/o a 4 card major, or at least invitational strength with a major.

What do you bid with a good hand with diamonds?

[JanisW]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-13, 11:42, said:

What do you bid with a good hand with diamonds?

you start with 1♦,too.
Every time you act again after 1NT from opener you promise at least prime 10, 11+ forcing to at least 2NT

regards
JW

[Zelandakh]

I will start with a disclaimer - I have only ever played systems in which a balanced hand always opens or rebids to show their hand type, so I can hardly speak for up-the-line methods. That said, it seems clear to me that an 18 point 1444 hand should start with 1♦ in this system. Not that it helps here - after 1♠ - 2♥, we are possibly worse off than in the original auction. Presumably we would go on with 2NT - 3♣ and now we come to Ken's questions.

First of all, the minimum 4333 hand must surely bid 3NT now. This seems really easy. The hands with real clubs instead should probably make some sort of curtesy cue bid instead to distinguish themselves. An auction such as 3♦ - 3♥; 3♠ - 4♦; 5♣ - 6♣ for the original hand seems reasonable enough in a simple-methods system. Change the ♠Q to the king and (assuming we are not upgrading to 1NT) there would presumably be a 4♠ cue bid over 4♦. Maybe just keycarding is enough now to bid the grand.

In any case, it seems to me that it is fairly fundamental to know if a 4333 hand will rebid 1♠ or 1NT after a red suit response. It is pretty much impossible to define follow-ups without first understanding this point, so I think any discussion has to start right there. It has to be possible at some stage in the auction to show your hand type precisely. If that is not done by the second bid then the follow-ups to 4SF have to cater to this. I think my second paragraph is the most logical way of doing this but it is certainly possible that the US-Standard is something different. I remember that Adam likes the up-the-line approach quite a lot so perhaps he has an alternative method here that is also not too complicated...

[kenberg]

Yes, after 1C-1D-1S-2H opener is faced with having to rebid 2NT on JTx. Not horrible, and what else can s/he do?

My thinking with bidding 1H instead of 1D was something like this: With my stiff spade I anticipate a 1S rebid by partner. And then I will do FSF. I thought using 2D as the 4th suit after first bidding hearts might be better than the other way around, Not that I planned it out in great detail. I was no really worried about using the diamond suit. If partner has four diamonds then s/he will have at least four clubs and probably five. I was thinking along tose lines, not with great detail.

After 1C- 1red-1S, opener is known to be either 4=3=3=3 or else s/he has 4+ clubs. It would be useful to know which. Many of us play online, and f2f for that matter, without having discussed this very thoroughly. So I thought it would be a useful hand to put up for people to say "well, I do this" and others could say "no, I do something else". I have no idea what the best approach is.

But at least I think we have established that current practice, after 1C-1H-1S-2D, is to bid 2H when holding three hearts and this takes precedence over 2NT to show a D stop.

[Vampyr]

JanisW, on 2017-September-13, 12:17, said:

you start with 1♦,too.
Every time you act again after 1NT from opener you promise at least prime 10, 11+ forcing to at least 2NT

regards
JW

I think it is much more common that if responder does not reverse or check back, her bid is nonforcing.

[GrahamJson]

Vampyr, on 2017-September-13, 22:15, said:

I think it is much more common that if responder does not reverse or check back, her bid is nonforcing.

I'd agree with that. I normally play that all good hands go through 2C checkback or a two level reverse. So jumps to 3C or 3D are invitational only.

[nekthen]

The_Badger, on 2017-September-12, 14:46, said:

This is why the XYZ convention is used these days, so that hands like this have the space to bid and find slams as on these two hands.

In an XYZ context, does the bidding go
1♣ 1♥
1N 2♦ (ART GF)
2♥ 3♣
3♠ 6♣?

North bypasses 1♠ to show a weak balanced opener and when south bypasses 2♠ North's 3♠ bid must now show 4324 as he would bid 3N with 4333

[kenberg]

Several people have noted in one form or another that it is useful to know what opener does after 1C-1D/H when holding 4=3=3=3. I agree, of course. It mihght well matter whether the ed suit bid is Ds or Hs.

Consider 1C-1D-?

In the Walsh style opener can and should freely rebid 1N even holding two four card majors. Responder either does not have a major or will make a game forcing reverse into one of them over 1NT. In this style, 1C-1D-1M shows either 5+ clubs or a strong concentration of values in clubs and M. Walsh has its plusses and minuses, but you are unlikely to miss the major suit fit using it.


JanisW describes a similar but not quite the same style

Quote

I'm not sure whether this is standard treatment, but we would've bit 1♦ over 1♣ showing either a weak response w/o a 4 card major, or at least invitational strength with a major. After 1♦ opener knows there either is no ♠-Fit or it will get discovered later, meaning he does not have to bid 1♠ on just 4 spades (which would often lead to a wrongsided 1NT if 1♦ was xxx,Kxx,QJxx,Jxx ). So my partners 1 ♠-rebid shows 2 decent black suits, because if he was 4-3-3-3 he would've bid 1NT.

The crucial difference, I think, is that after 1C-1D-1NT it is possible that the partnership has a 4-4 spade fit and belongs in a part score. It is also possible that they belong in a diamond parts scpre. Or a diamond game, or a spade game, or a NT game. That's a lot to sort out. I imagine 2-way new minor forcing (basically XYZ with Z=1NT, as I understand it) would help here. Actually I think 2 way NMF is useful for Walsh players also, but it really seems essential in this setting.

The problems after 1C -1H are a little different. Everyone bids 1H over 1C whether or not they have four spades to go with their hearts (ok, not everyone, some play 1D over 1C shows hearts. Forget that for now.). There is nothing to help you guess whether you do or do not have a 4-4 spade fit. I think of the following as standard: Opener bids 1S if and only if he has four. If he wants ot make an exception because he has a hand that os very suitable for NT and therefore bids 1NT, that's his/her choice and his/her responsibility/ It sometimes happens at the table that after 1C-1H-1NT the opponent on lead against some number of NT will ask if 1NT denies four spades. My answer is always that i"I does not strictly speaking deny four spades but we have no agreements at all as to how to find a spade fit after the 1NT rebid". For example if I, as responder, now were to bid 2S over 1NT prtner would expect a game forcing hand with five hearts and probably the ort of shape and spade holding that would suggest a Moysian 4S contract might be better than 3NT. So after 1C-1H-1NT, of we have a 4-4 spade fit we are highly unlikely to find it. Again 2-way NMF might alleviate tis. I have played that, but not with many.

[nekthen]

Slightly off topic, but as a weak nt fan how would people bid after
1N?

presumably you start with stayman
2♣
2♠ 3♣?

Hopefully p will bid 4♣ and we find the slam
but he may well bid 3N though 3♣ is a slam try so 4♣ seems right

[sfi]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned a possible start of:

1C - 1H
1S - 2D
2H - 3C

South should be showing the club fit rather than the diamond stopper. Even if the hand were weaker it would be right to do so much of the time - South can show a club fit and suggest 3NT if they start with 3C but not if they start with 2NT.