[nickf]

I'm trying to get a grip on what contemporary expert opinion is on 4th suit forcing - should it be game forcing, or merely invitational+ ?

I've always played it as GF, but really this seems just a crutch for the lazy or the not completely competent bidders - I suspect FSF invitational+ is theoretically better.

What's the consensus?

nickf
sydney

[P_Marlowe]

#0 I prefer inv.+, because I learnt it that way
#1 my impression: the majority of experts plays it as gf, because
most say it is easier
#2 both ways work similar welll / bad
#3 most peoble believe that inv.+ requires a little bit more
discussion, and those who play it as inv.+ most likely invest the
time
The truth is that gf needs a similar amount, but some do not invest
because of #1, and because of this, it may seem that partnerships
plaiyng inv.+ seem to have an edge.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

KISS

gf

[shevek]

4SF is invitational.

Yes it's simple to play in GF but lazy too.
It takes effort to decide which sequences are non-forcing and there is no consensus.
It's a bit like opener's reverse, which is becoming GF simply because players are confused about how to stop.

[helene_t]

GF, not only because it's easier but also because if certain bids are non-forcing, you would have to jump just to show a couple of HCPs more than what you already promised.

[gnasher]

In the UK it used to be standard to play it as invitational, but over the past 20 years game-forcing has gradually became the norm amongst good players.

The advantage of playing it game-forcing is obvious: it gives you more forcing sequences for dealing with good hands.

If opener has promised 5-4 in his two suits, the benefits of invitational FSF are small. For example, after
  1♣-1♥
  1♠
with three clubs you can bid 3♣; with four diamonds you can usually bid 2NT; with six hearts you can usually bid 3♥ (or 2♥ if you're playing sensible weak jump shifts). Hence the only type on which you're really stuck for a bid is 3=5=3=2 without a diamond stop.

In some sequences even this type is not a problem. For example, playing Walsh
  1♣-1♦
  1♠-2♠
is redundant as a natural bid, so can be used for the awkward invitational hand.

If opener has promised only a 4-4 minimum, a jump preference with three-card support is less attractive, so there is a greater need for invitational FSF.

[marcD]

I play what seems almost standard in France : invitational becomes GF iif 6th bid (i.e. FSF bidder rebid) is 3C or above. Note however that standard practice here is to play things like 1C-1D-1S- 3C forcing so the overall framework for the discussion is slightly different.
Not sure it's optimal but at least it is easy to remember

[gnasher]

marcD, on Jul 18 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

I play what seems almost standard in France : invitational becomes GF iif 6th bid (i.e. FSF bidder rebid) is 3C or above. Note however that standard practice here is to play things like 1C-1D-1S- 3C forcing so the overall framework for the discussion is slightly different.
Not sure it's optimal but at least it is easy to remember

So responder has two ways to bid a forcing 3♣, but no ways to bid it invitationally?

[FrancesHinden]

I assume you are only referring to responder's bid of the 4th suit at the 2-level at his second turn?

I play in two regular partnerships.

In one of them we play 4SF as FG. In the other we play it as INV+.

"INV+" means that responder can pass opener's rebid, but if responder bids again the partnership is game forced.

We're certainly moving gnasher's way, as the INV+ partnership has added a bit of artificiality: if opener bids at the 3-level over 4SF that shows extra values and is FG; with a minimum hand opener has to bid at the 2-level which now becomes an artificial negative showing a minimum (with more than one 2-level bid available step 1 becomes the negative, other 2-level bids are also minimums but descriptive)


There are plenty of other sequences that I play as 4SF, and virtually all of them are game forcing, while FSF at the 1-level (if played) is not game forcing for anyone

[skjaeran]

I grew up with the GF variation, and prefer that.

These days FSF sequences are rarer for me than they used to be, opening 1♣ on almost all out-of-range balanced hands, using a T-Walsh variation, 2/1 (light) and the xyz-convention. FSF now only applies when opener rebids a new suit at the 2-level after 1/1, having opened 1 of a red suit.

[nickf]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

I assume you are only referring to responder's bid of the 4th suit at the 2-level at his second turn?

sorry, yes - let's assume FSF at the 3-level will always be GF.

nickf
sydney

[Cascade]

What do you see as the theoretical advantages of playing fourth suit as invitational.

I think playing it as invitational will cause you to lose bidding space on many hands as partner will have to jump consuming valuable bidding space just in case you were going to pass the next non-jump bid.

I play it as game forcing and as a frequent springboard to slam or slam invitational sequences.

I would be very reluctant to give up this bidding space for an infrequent (because of their narrow range) use - invitational hands that have no obvious natural call.

[Fluffy]

it always depends, with new partners I like it to be GF except at the 1 level (1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠), because it saves disasters.

[benlessard]

Quote

What do you see as the theoretical advantages of playing fourth suit as invitational.

Because you often play 1 level lower. Play 2M instead of 3M

[dburn]

You could, of course, play both.

After, say, 1D-1H-1S, 2C is a transfer to 2D, which opener bids if he would have passed simple preference. After opener does this, responder's continuations are invitational.

After 1D-1H-1S, 2D is artificial and forcing to game; continuations are more or less natural.

Peter Crouch, an English bidding theorist all of whose ideas are mad, is as far as I know the originator of this idea, his only sane contribution. It is a beautiful idea, and it works very well indeed.

[MickyB]

gnasher, on Jul 18 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

In some sequences even this type is not a problem. For example, playing Walsh
  1♣-1♦
  1♠-2♠
is redundant as a natural bid, so can be used for the awkward invitational hand.

Ah yes, good point - seems to only apply for this sequence though.

Will add a note to my system file - 2M INV with three and not wishing to declare no-trumps, 3M four card GF - or should 3M be better defined than this? Some kind of picture jump? Guess it might be useful to work out what the default response is with 4D4S GF first

[MickyB]

dburn, on Jul 18 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

You could, of course, play both.

After, say, 1D-1H-1S, 2C is a transfer to 2D, which opener bids if he would have passed simple preference. After opener does this, responder's continuations are invitational.

After 1D-1H-1S, 2D is artificial and forcing to game; continuations are more or less natural.

Peter Crouch, an English bidding theorist all of whose ideas are mad, is as far as I know the originator of this idea, his only sane contribution. It is a beautiful idea, and it works very well indeed.

Is this used on other sequences, or only when the "transfer" is to opener's first suit?

[Hanoi5]

It should be GF but pretty much depends on the situation (it shouldn't be GF by a passed hand, for example).

[benlessard]

What i suggest is to check between FSF (Gf) and FSI where the 4th suit is multi inv.
Lets look at sequence where the 4th suit is low in the bidding chain.

1H---1S----2C---??? (2D)
1D---1H----1S----??? (2C)
1C----1H----1S----??? (2D)
1D----1S----2C----??? (2H)

Lets take the first hand as an example since 2D is in the middle.

If we compare where 2H is Gf and where 2H is multi inv(all invitationnal hand and only invitationnal hands with pass or correct responses).

Legend is
+ tiny advantage to multi inv.
-- very small advantage to FSFi
+++ small advantage to multi
---- advantage to FSF etc...

1- Be able to signoff in 2H and in 2S.

1H---1S
2C---2H/2S signoff

In both methods these are signoff. However playing multi inv some hand you ll invite knowing youll stop at 2M while in you play 4th suit forcing with some borderline inv hand you will bid a heavy 2M because you are afraid to go down in 3M and some games might be missed.

score ++ to multi inv

2- I would like to GF and show my hands by setting trumps.

1H---1S
2C---2D (GF)
2H (waiting or im stuck bid)------2S,2Nt,3C,3D,3H,3S

VS

1H---1S
2C---2Nt, 3C,3D,3H,3S (all GF)

In regular FSF some of the opener hands are ruled out but for the rest its the same. Its great to be able to show a 6th spades at the 2level.

score ----

1H---1S
2C---2D
2S(showing 6H)---2Nt,3C,3D,3H,3S

vs

1H---1S
2C---2Nt, 3C,3D,3H,3S (all GF)

Score ---

1H---1S
2C---2D
2Nt-(at least half a stop)---3C,3D,3H,3S,

vs

1H---1S
2C---2Nt, 3C,3D,3H,3S (all GF)

In regular FSF we know that the opener hands has at least half a stop.

score -

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

vs

1H---1S
2C---2Nt, 3C,3D,3H,3S (all GF)

In FSF we know more about opener (he made 3 bids) but responder is lacking a bit of space (he only made 1 bids) and trump is still not set. If responder bid 3H for example we dont know if its a real fit or just a preference.

Score ++ (a + for 3C and a+ for 3D)

1H---1S
2C---2D
3M (both 3M bid should show a S fit and a non-minimum hand)

vs

1H----1S
2C----2Nt, 3C,3D,3H,3S (all GF)

Here continuation after 3M are not easy because we dont know if 4C or 4H is natural or a cue but still we have a perfect picture (3514) of opener because he manage to make what should be a very precise 3rd bid.

score -

So far the score is -5

The rest will be

I would like to GF and hear for partner further description.
I would like to inv in M or in clubs and stop as low as possible if partner is minimum.
I would like to rightside the contract as much as possible.
I would like to INV at 2Nt.

[kenrexford]

I play 4SGF. I don't agree at all, though, that the main reason for playing 4SGF is because it is "easier," or that it actually is easier.

Sure, if I have a true GF hand, then on those hand it is "easier."

However, 4SGF is more difficult, in a sense, for other reasons. The first, somewhat jokingly, is that you might tend to treat something as GF quite liberally and then end up in a very tight contract. That is a "difficulty" to this approach, in a manner of speaking.

More so than that, however, is that the constructive-invitational hands (without tools for otherwise bidding the constructive-invitational hands) are more difficult, as Opener and Responder must know when to make that courtesy bid and when to not make a courtesy bid, and how to interpret a courtesy bid, and the like. The predictive aspect of this problem precedes the non-election of the 4SGF call, such as initial decisions with tweener hands to facilitate a better groping auction and strategic calls by Opener to better facilitate this groping, as well.

For instance, one of the reasons why I like 1♣-P-1♥-P-1♠ to be bid with an occasional 3-card spade suit and five clubs (3145) is because of how it helps with when partner has the tweener problem, or at least how I view that it helps.