[ahydra]

I've been trying to convince partner of the merits of 4SF always GF, while he prefers to play 4th suit forcing for 1-round only at the 2-level. Recently we agreed to switch to "GF unless the default rebid is 2 of opener's suit" as a compromise. (e.g. 1S-2C; 2D-2H)

Partner sent me this hand of death (when not playing the one-round force method):

---

(system 5cM weak NT, 2/1 not GF)

What's the correct bid here? (3D maybe, but what if partner is a minimum 1444?)

I did a forum search and found a reference to Pavlicek's article (http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm) on 4SF strictly INV with jumps being GF, which was interesting but seems to go against the useful-space principle (save space when you have strength). Given that I find 4SF extremely useful for slam auctions I'd prefer to stick on the 4SF = GF side, so what's the general expert approach with these middling hands? (Punt at teams and go low at pairs?)

Thanks,

ahydra

[manudude03]

Well, this hand seems like an easy 3D bid, 1444 hands are rare enough to ignore. The real hand of death is when you are 5323 with xxx in hearts. In those situations, I tend just to make a heavy false preference.

[ggwhiz]

The other ugly choice is 2nt which we do often and eat our infrequent losses for the frequent gains.

If you reversed the black suits we would have bid 2nt over 1♦ so despite the bids flaws, it's not necessarily fatal as partner can still steer you into 3m while knowing your strength range. Once in a while partner opened on 4 good diamonds with 5 iffy clubs and we win.

[masse24]

I would not consider this to be a GF.

[Zelandakh]

This hand is an easy 3♦ but it is the case that you often have to rebid 2NT with a nebulous stopper in the 4th suit using the method. You can mitigate that to some extent by using a repeat of the fourth suit as checking on the stopper quality rather than natural but obviously you give something up with that. Note that in some parts of the world it is absolutely standard for 4SF to be invitational if below 2 of Opener's suit and GF if above and that is perfectly playable. If I were playing with a less experienced partner I would go along with that if they were more comfortable with it and concentrate improvement efforts in more critical areas.

Finally, to masse24, that is precisely the point. If it were a GF there would be an easy 2♥ rebid. The question arises from removing this (invitational) hand type from the 2♥ rebid and therefore needing to find a suitable alternative.

[gordontd]

masse24, on 2015-September-16, 17:08, said:

I would not consider this to be a GF.

I don't thing anyone has suggested it to be one.

[jogs]

Just more evidence that WNT is a poor strategy. Many precision players have raised their NT from 13-15 to 14-16.
Yes, I would rebid 3♦. The super conservative 2♦ may work.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2015-September-17, 13:26, said:

Just more evidence that WNT is a poor strategy. Many precision players have raised their NT from 13-15 to 14-16.
Yes, I would rebid 3♦. The super conservative 2♦ may work.

Just what evidence relating to NT range do you think you have uncovered from this thread? Some strong club players have also introduced a 10-12 NT range into their systems; 14-16 is becoming increasingly popular amongst 2/1 pairs - what of it?

[Kungsgeten]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-17, 13:35, said:

Just what evidence relating to NT range do you think you have uncovered from this thread?

The only thing I could think about is that playing strong NT responder more often will be able to rebid 1NT with a 1-4-4-4 pattern in this auction, instead of rebidding 2C. Thus there is "no risk" of bidding 3D INV when playing a strong NT since opener will either have 5 diamonds or 1-4-4-4 with extras. Playing a weak NT opener may be 1-4-4-4 with minimum values, which OP has mentioned.

[mike777]

ahydra, on 2015-September-16, 15:55, said:

I've been trying to convince partner of the merits of 4SF always GF, while he prefers to play 4th suit forcing for 1-round only at the 2-level. Recently we agreed to switch to "GF unless the default rebid is 2 of opener's suit" as a compromise. (e.g. 1S-2C; 2D-2H)

Partner sent me this hand of death (when not playing the one-round force method):

---

(system 5cM weak NT, 2/1 not GF)

What's the correct bid here? (3D maybe, but what if partner is a minimum 1444?)

I did a forum search and found a reference to Pavlicek's article (http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm) on 4SF strictly INV with jumps being GF, which was interesting but seems to go against the useful-space principle (save space when you have strength). Given that I find 4SF extremely useful for slam auctions I'd prefer to stick on the 4SF = GF side, so what's the general expert approach with these middling hands? (Punt at teams and go low at pairs?)

Thanks,

ahydra

It seems your options are 2d or 3d depending on how light you open.

[gwnn]

I agree with the consensus of 3♦. If your partner isn't convinced though, maybe you can try "cheap transfers" in which the fourth suit is usually a transfer to the next step to play something on the 2-level or to force to game. In this case, it would work like:

1♦-1♠
2♣-

2♦=regular preference
2♥=to play 2♠ or GF any. opener normally accepts 2♠ and then you can go on (with a nondescript GF hand, you can bid 2♥ then 2NT which is also GF).
2♠=invite (you can use it on this hand)
2NT=invite
3♣=invite
3♦=invite (see where this is going?)
3♥=i don't know
3♠=invite

It also works after a bunch of other sequences, whenever there is something to transfer to on the 2 level. For example:

1♣-1♥
1♠-

2♦=transfer to 2♥ to play 2♥/2♠ or a GF hand.
2♥=invite (5?)
2♠=invite (mild/balanced, 3♠ would be serious/unbalanced)
2NT=invite
3♣=invite
3♦=i don't know
3♥=invite (6?)

I don't know. For some reason I like this a lot because I open on crap. I learned it from Jassem's polish club book but I'm pretty sure most of it has been around.

All the auctions are:
1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦
1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♣
1♦-1♠; 2♣-2♥
1♦-1♠; 2♦-2♥ (third suit forcing here but it still works)
1♥-1♠; 2♣-2♦ (2♥ would be a constructive preference)

Sorry for the threadjack but I guess the mainstream has been stated already!

[awm]

I'm not sure how one round force helps here. Sure you can bid 2h but what is your follow-up? If partner has a weak 1444 what does he bid? If 3h you are way too high. If 2nt, are you really passing? Isn't he more likely to have a 1354 where 3d is way better?

[rmnka447]

Since your playing weak NTs, minor opening are normally stronger than minor openings with strong NTs.

Kaplan-Sheinwold, a similar (weak NT, 5CM, no 2/1 over minor openings) system, has used 4SF for 1 round force since its inception. However, there is one big change. Instead of using it with game force hands, it is used with invitational hands (roughly 8-10). Then, all jump rebids by responder are GF.

By using 1 round 4SF as invitational, it often keeps part score hands at a lower level than invitational jump rebids by responder would.

My experience is that it is a workable system and something to consider.

[Vampyr]

rmnka447, on 2015-September-17, 19:03, said:

Kaplan-Sheinwold, a similar (weak NT, 5CM, no 2/1 over minor openings)

What does this last mean?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-18, 04:36, said:

What does this last mean?

It means that 1♦ - 2♣ is not a game force but 1M - 2X is (where X is a lower-ranking suit than M).

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-18, 05:40, said:

It means that 1♦ - 2♣ is not a game force but 1M - 2X is (where X is a lower-ranking suit than M).

Ah, right. It is confusing to me when some people use 2/1 to mean 2/1 game forcing (except when they use it to describe a system).

It makes sense to me for 1♠-2♥ to also not be game forcing so you don't get too high on an invitational misfit. I know that some people play this way but I gather that it is not very popular .

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-18, 05:47, said:

It makes sense to me for 1♠-2♥ to also not be game forcing so you don't get too high on an invitational misfit. I know that some people play this way but I gather that it is not very popular .

Not at all popular really, the vast majority play any 2 over 1 response to a 1M opening as a GF. You will know by now that I like 1♠ - 2♥ to be natural and weak; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ (min, <4♥) - 2♥ to be natural and invitational; and 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣ - 2♦ to be any game forcing hand. That has a similar effect to what you want to achieve with the invitational 2♥ response but I think the surrounding structure ends up being a little more harmonious.

[Winstonm]

Never expect perfection in a bridge treatment or convention. I wrote an article for the Bridge World some years ago about a better idea of responses to inverted minors, basically using opener's rebid of 2nt the same way we do in a 1 over 1 response, as a balanced minimum, regardless of "stoppers". This frees the suit bids to a more precise and meaningful usage, such as shortage.

I think the same basic idea should apply to 4th suit - what is more useful, a GF usage or non-forcing usage? I believe most good players would agree that GF makes life much easier - and if that is so, then you simply have to accept imperfection in some other hands - and partner has to realize that a 2NT bid may not truly have a suit stopped.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2015-September-18, 07:10, said:

Never expect perfection in a bridge treatment or convention. I wrote an article for the Bridge World some years ago about a better idea of responses to inverted minors, basically using opener's rebid of 2nt the same way we do in a 1 over 1 response, as a balanced minimum, regardless of "stoppers". This frees the suit bids to a more precise and meaningful usage, such as shortage.

It might be even better to use the first step (2♦ or 2♥) to show a balanced hand and all higher rebids then show an unbalanced hand.