[helene_t]

The popular textbooks in NL teach fsf not GF but in this case it is. The rule is that if opener can support responder's first suit at the 2-level, it's not GF. Not sure which follow-ups are forcing, then.

[mikeh]

As is often the case, I strongly endorse Frances' post.

I do and (nearly) always have played 4SF as gf by an unpassed hand, altho certainly many play it as a 1-round force.. see BWS for example.

In any case, I cannot imagine using 3♠ on a weak hand... logic suggests that such a space-consuming bid show extra values.

I shudder at the idea of opening this hand (Bergen has a LOT to answer for with that silly rule of 20... ), but if this is an acceptable opening (with 70% of your hcp in a short suit and the minors rather than the majors), then 3♣ is not even close.

You opened because of shape, not strength. 2N would suggest a legitmate opening bid, almost certainly a minimum 3=1=5=4 or possibly 2=1=5=5 with weak clubs and good spades: AQ x KQxxx Qxxxx might well be 2N.

There is ample room to show the spade stopper if need be.

BTW. one useful way of looking at 4SF is that it is an announcement (when played as gf): 'partner, we are going to game or better, and I will tell you my suggestion for the denomination after you make the call that combines preservation of bidding space with description of hand'

In other words, opener's obligation is to describe his hand, but of he has two or more things to describe, he makes the cheapest call.

Consider that responder may be about to raise a minor.

2N would be the cheapest call, allowing responder to bid either minor in a forcing manner below 3N, but 2N is just too much a distortion, both of shape and of high card.

3♠ fails on all grounds.

So 3♣ is left. Partner can bid 3♦, over which we can bid 3♠... bidding 3N would be dangerous with a heart void and a partner who did not rebid the suit.

I personally rank the calls: 3♣100, 2N 70 3♠ 10 (but it deserves 0)

[ochinko]

mike777, on Jul 30 2007, 01:17 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jul 30 2007, 02:25 AM, said:

2NT. Partner asks if I stop the spades. I stop them twice. Why would it be more important to show my additional ♣x instead of ♠AK? I expect 3NT to be easier to make than 5♣.

Me thinks some are confused on what 2s and 3s means
2s does not, repeat does not, ask for spade stopper....it asks you to describe your hand more... that is not the same thing.


3s does not repeat does not deny a spade stopper...

The repetitions doesn't make your post any more clear, trust me.

Do you think that 2NT doesn't necessarily show a spade stopper? I can't tell.

As for 3♠ it wasn't in the answers, and pounding on it looks like trying to hijack the thread. Furthermore, at least in SAYC raising the fourth suit shows 4 cards, so I don't see how exactly that bid describes your hand better. Even if you think it couldn't show that here, it looks like it shows extras that you don't have.

It also isn't clear from your post whether _you_ think you know what 3♠ means. I believe it implies that you do, but I can't be sure. It just looks like trying to make your partner as confused as yourself, so that you can win the post mortem.

As Frances said, it is important whether FSF is game forcing or not. If it is not, then 3♣ is ok as saying "Sorry partner, I opened very light. Could we stop at 3♣, please?" If it is GF, I still think 2NT is the proper bid.

[keylime]

3♣ from my three cats, and I approve this message. Frances as usual is stating my feelings as well.

[jtfanclub]

ochinko, on Jul 30 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

As for 3♠ it wasn't in the answers, and pounding on it looks like trying to hijack the thread. Furthermore, at least in SAYC raising the fourth suit shows 4 cards, so I don't see how exactly that bid describes your hand better. Even if you think it couldn't show that here, it looks like it shows extras that you don't have.

1. The original poster said that she should have added it. Don't you think her opinion counts on whether the thread was 'hijacked'?

2. Of course 3 spades can't show 4. What source are you using that says that the raise of a 4th suit shows 4 cards in SAYC? On a routine auction, eg.

1♣ 1♥
1♠ 2♦
3♦

I certainly wouldn't expect the 3 diamond bidder to promise 4.

As far as this auction is concerned, I'm somewhat confused. Partner bid 4sf, which I think is GF at such a high level. I suppose he could just be checking to see if I have 3 hearts or anything special before bidding 3NT, in which case I don't see how it really matters if I bid 3 clubs, 3 diamonds, or 3 spades, and 2NT (or 3NT for that matter) just determines who's going to declare it.

The other possibility is that partner is going for a minor suit slam. For a hand that I wasn't excited about moment ago, I'm a lot happier with it now.

I have a void.
I have an AK in what is most likely the danger suit.
I may have extra length in the suit in question.

If partner had a hand like...

xx xxxxx x AKxxx....

slam is there. Of course, he doesn't have all of those little x's, he has lots of points that I don't care about. There's probably a more scientific way to bid this one, but if 3♠ makes partner think I have a good hand (limited by the nonforcing 2 club bid, of course), I'm not convinced that I'm lying.

[ochinko]

jtfanclub, on Jul 30 2007, 08:48 PM, said:

2.  Of course 3 spades can't show 4.  What source are you using that says that the raise of a 4th suit shows 4 cards in SAYC?  On a routine auction, eg. 

1♣ 1♥
1♠ 2♦
3♦

I certainly wouldn't expect the 3 diamond bidder to promise 4.

It is from Standard Bidding With SAYC. If there's any other book featuring SAYC that says otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong.

According to it:
"FSF can be used in a large variety of situations. The most common are:
- When looking for a stopper for a no trump contract.
- When lookin for delayed three-card trump support."

I will quote their summary about FSF:
"A bid of the fourth suit at the two-level or higher is forcing for one round and may be artificial. By partnership agreement this bid may be forcing to game.

In response to a fourth suit forcing bid opener will:
- Return responder's first suit with three card support (jump raise with extra values).
- Rebid his own second suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values.
- Rebid his own first suit at the cheapest level (weak hand). A jump rebid shows extra values.
- Bid NT to show a stopper in the fourth suit.
- Raise the fourth suit (with four cards)."

Example:
1♣ 1♦
1♠ 2♥
2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

[jtfanclub]

ochinko, on Jul 30 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Example:
1♣ 1♦
1♠ 2♥
2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

But they think that a 3♥ bid in this auction would show 4 cards?

Huh. Who was the author?

[ochinko]

jtfanclub, on Jul 30 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jul 30 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

Example:
1♣ 1♦
1♠ 2♥
2NT is explained as "showing a heart stopper and a minimum opening".

But they think that a 3♥ bid in this auction would show 4 cards?

Huh. Who was the author?

You can easily see the authors in amazon.com. What you won't see there is the list of the editors, so I'll mention some of them instead: Marty Bergen, Larry Cohen, Fred Gitelman, Mathew Granovetter, Ron Klinger, Alvin Roth.

What was your source again?

[han]

This is irrelevant to the discussion here, 1D-1H-2C denies 4 spades.

[ochinko]

Hannie, on Jul 30 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

This is irrelevant to the discussion here, 1D-1H-2C denies 4 spades.

Of course not in all cases it would make sense to expect four cards when the fourth suit is raised. But as Mikeh said as well, 3♠ here would show a hand better than the expected minimum, not worse.

[jtfanclub]

ochinko, on Jul 30 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

What was your source again?

I have no source, which is why I find that this source says this so interesting.

[mike777]

Could responder's hand be?

QJT8
AKQTx
Kx
xx

or

QJT8
AKQTx
Kxx
x

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jul 30 2007, 09:49 AM, said:

Whats the most relevant feature of this hand? The double spade stop or the ♣Jxxxx? Most of the time, we will be marching toward 3N on power, and the spade stops are key. 

I don't want pard to think I have a weak or even a single spade stop, and that what it sounds like to me if I try 3♣ (3♥) - 3N.

I agree with this post most of all. It's possible we belong in a 5-3 club fit but really not that likely compared to the concern of partner being worried we have just one spade stopper if we bid 3♣ then 3NT, as well as him playing us for better clubs.

I would tend to bid out my shape here, but this hand just seems like an exception to me. I do not like having 3 points in the two suits I'm going out of my way to show an extra card in.

I completely agree with Frances/Mike per what 3♠ shows. It is not an option on a hand this weak.

[cnszsun]

mikeh, on Jul 31 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

So 3♣ is left. Partner can bid 3♦, over which we can bid 3♠... bidding 3N would be dangerous with a heart void and a partner who did not rebid the suit.

1D-1H
2C-2S
3C-3D
3S
Hi, Mike,
My first impression of that 3S is stop-ask, rather than shape showing.
If 3S shows shape, how to bid if you have a 2-1-5-5 hand and no spade stop unless partner's 3D expressed no interest in 3NT?

[han]

1D-1H-2C-2S-3C-3H-3NT shows an honest stop. With doubt we could have bid 3S.

[ochinko]

Hannie, on Jul 31 2007, 07:06 AM, said:

1D-1H-2C-2S-3C-3H-3NT shows an honest stop. With doubt we could have bid 3S.

To me this reluctant NT from opener shows only half a stopper: Qx willing to play NT against Axx. Now if partner has ♠J10, she'll abandon the idea, even though with our AKx we stop spades 3 times on a spade lead, and opps can't harm us with their nine spades. And all that because we insisted to show our small club instead.

We can't bid 3♠ after 3♥ showing doubt as that would wrong side the contract when our spades are Qx:Axx.

[mink]

Jlall, on Jul 31 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

GL to the 2N bidders when partner forces you to play in hearts since you can't have a void.

If I have a responder hand like

---

I would bid 3nt over 2nt by opener. After all, the 2nt promises a ♠ stopper and not a balanced hand.

Karl

[ArtK78]

Karl:

If you play that hand in 3NT, you may wind up going down 7 tricks! - you may never take a heart trick.

However, if you play that hand in 4H, at least you will have a chance other than the CA onside, and you will score 8 heart tricks.

[mikeh]

cnszsun, on Jul 30 2007, 08:01 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 31 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

So 3♣ is left. Partner can bid 3♦, over which we can bid 3♠... bidding 3N would be dangerous with a heart void and a partner who did not rebid the suit.

1D-1H
2C-2S
3C-3D
3S
Hi, Mike,
My first impression of that 3S is stop-ask, rather than shape showing.
If 3S shows shape, how to bid if you have a 2-1-5-5 hand and no spade stop unless partner's 3D expressed no interest in 3NT?

If the auction were 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ 3♣ 3♥, then I'd play 3♠ as denying a stopper (altho if I then pulled 3N to 4♥, I'd be 1=2=5=5 or even 0=xxx=5=5 with slam interest).

As it is, responder's 3♦ over my 3♣, sets trump. I do not think it is merely a preference, altho there can be hands on which he is stuck: some 3=5=2=3 with no spade stopper and Hx diamonds.

Remember that opener is almost unlimited by 3♣: he has shown opening values (I happen to think that he doesn't have them on this hand, but that's irrelevent) and less than a strong gf jump shift over 1♥. He could still have as much as 17 (maybe even a bad 18) hcp. And responder is completely unlimited.

Thus, to my mind, we have to cater to slam bidding here, once responder uses 4th suit and then bids 3♦. If I have to bid 3N with all hands containing a spade stopper, then responder is going to be doing a lot of guessing over 3N: do I hold my actual garbage, or do I hold a decent 16? And so on.

Now, it is possible that we could play 3♠ as either stopper asking or big hand, but we are venturing into a morass, where one player or the other has to decide whether to pull (or bid) 3N with no real idea as to who holds what values.

So I prefer, once responder bids 3♦, to bid 3♠ as showing spade values and no immediate desire to bid 3N... either because, on this hand, my shape and lack of strength dissuades me from wanting to play 3N or because I have too much playing strength in diamonds to give up on slam.

I admit that this approach makes Jx x AQxxx KQJxx difficult to bid, but when partner bid 3♦ opposite this hand, I'd assume that he didn't have a strong desire to play 3N anyway, and I'd probably end up in 5♦, maybe failing when 3N is cold.

But, in the long run, I think that using 3♠ as I have suggested makes for more accurate bidding on more hands than the converse.

Incidentally, the problems inherent in responder evaluation (what does he need for 4SF... how does he handle misfits...?) are one powerful reason why I thoroughly detest the Rule of 20. Of course, make my hand a tiny bit stronger, and I have the same problem, so maybe I'm being unfair