Fourth Suit Forcing to a Minus Number A little problem...
#1
Posted 2009-April-19, 22:20
♠xxx
♥AKxx
♦Kx
♣Kxxx
You deal:
1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 2♠*
?
*Fourth Suit Forcing to Game
#2
Posted 2009-April-19, 22:27
#3
Posted 2009-April-19, 23:44
I don't have much experience with this style, but I guess I'd go 3♦.
#4
Posted 2009-April-19, 23:52
#5
Posted 2009-April-20, 01:08
Why does it show that? Well, 2NT would show spades stopped. Since 2♠ by responder denies holding four spades (else 1♠, which is a one-round force) there is no reason to "show my four-card spades" if I have them, and I would bid 2NT with 4414 hands routinely. Of course, 3♣ shows five clubs, 3♦ shows three diamonds, and 3♥ shows a 5-6 hand. So what's left? Some hand without a spade stopper, but with only four clubs and without three diamonds. Which is... tada... 3-4-2-4 with a weak spade holding.
There are certainly good and bad things about bidding up the line with balanced hands. This is not one of the problems. In fact the method looks good here, since 3NT (if it's right) will be played by partner, protecting the weak spade holding from the lead.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#6
Posted 2009-April-20, 01:11
Pass is not an option.
If 2S already forced to game, you could go with 3S, but for
me this would promise add. strength, because at one point
in time opener someone has to beginn with limiting his hand.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#7
Posted 2009-April-20, 01:51
awm, on Apr 20 2009, 02:08 AM, said:
But partner sitting opposite may, sadly, not be privy to this wonderful chain of reasoning. He may believe that a raise of the 4th suit still shows 4 cards, and (perhaps using kenrexfordian logic of his own) elect to play in the Moysian. Only to be brought back to earth when dummy appears and reveals the 3-3 fit.
If you want to play NT from the other side, the solution is to play transfer responses.
#8
Posted 2009-April-20, 05:26
655321, on Apr 20 2009, 06:51 PM, said:
awm, on Apr 20 2009, 02:08 AM, said:
But partner sitting opposite may, sadly, not be privy to this wonderful chain of reasoning. He may believe that a raise of the 4th suit still shows 4 cards, and (perhaps using kenrexfordian logic of his own) elect to play in the Moysian. Only to be brought back to earth when dummy appears and reveals the 3-3 fit.
If you want to play NT from the other side, the solution is to play transfer responses.
To add to that, not only has 2♠ taken a whole bidding level 3♠ makes it two levels worse.
As for the posted hand, I would bid 3♦. Thanks for Kx. 2NT would be my 2nd choice.
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#9
Posted 2009-April-20, 05:40
Btw, this 3♦ bid shows 11-18 HCPs which may be a problem as well. OTOH Adam's 3♠ bid shows 12-14.
#10
Posted 2009-April-20, 05:45
655321, on Apr 20 2009, 02:51 AM, said:
awm, on Apr 20 2009, 02:08 AM, said:
But partner sitting opposite may, sadly, not be privy to this wonderful chain of reasoning. He may believe that a raise of the 4th suit still shows 4 cards, and (perhaps using kenrexfordian logic of his own) elect to play in the Moysian. Only to be brought back to earth when dummy appears and reveals the 3-3 fit.
If you want to play NT from the other side, the solution is to play transfer responses.
Kind of unfair there, seeing as I was one of the first to point out on the other thread how .........2♠-P-3♠........5♦ was just "to play" because neither 2♠ nor 3♠ showed a four-card spade suit (at least for many of us).
Now, the election to play in the Moysian (if there is one), well.....
-P.J. Painter.
#11
Posted 2009-April-20, 05:48
#12
Posted 2009-April-20, 06:56
You cannot make any positive bid here, so the best you can do is deny a spade stop, deny 5 hearts and deny 3 card diamond support. The 3♣ bid shows more than 3 Clubs, which is the only positive aspect of this hand
3♠ should show 4 cards or at least a partial stopper
I vote for 3♣ as the lesser of all evils. I think partner has a strong hand with 5/4 in the minors and a possible Spade singleton
Edit: If partner rebids 3♦ then 5♦ might play ok, If he rebids 3NT then I get a new partner, after a 3♥ rebid then 4♥ playing in 4-3 should be reasonable
Tony
#13
Posted 2009-April-20, 07:10
#14
Posted 2009-April-20, 07:31
whereagles, on Apr 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:
Does it not also show a high card in the suit? I do not think this bid is limited to 12-14 as it is forcing
Tony
#15
Posted 2009-April-20, 07:48
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#16
Posted 2009-April-20, 08:10
"gwnn" said:
hanp does not always mean literally what he writes.
#17
Posted 2009-April-20, 08:38
#18
Posted 2009-April-20, 09:22
Old York, on Apr 20 2009, 08:31 AM, said:
whereagles, on Apr 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:
Does it not also show a high card in the suit? I do not think this bid is limited to 12-14 as it is forcing
You have not met whereagles. Partner has denied length in a suit, we have xxx in it, the opponents are almost certain to lead it, therefore let's bid notrump.
#19
Posted 2009-April-20, 10:02
Old York, on Apr 20 2009, 07:56 AM, said:
<snip>
2S does not deny a spade stopper, it just denies 4 spades.
It is the only forcing bid responder has, so if we wants
to set a certain suit as truumps, because he wants to
go looking for slam, 2S is the bid, he has to choose.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#20
Posted 2009-April-20, 10:52
Old York, on Apr 20 2009, 01:31 PM, said:
whereagles, on Apr 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:
Does it not also show a high card in the suit? I do not think this bid is limited to 12-14 as it is forcing
Tony
I believe it's more important to give priority to showing shape/strength than to worry about things like stoppers. By bidding 2NT you complete the description of your hand. That way pard has an easy time deciding suit and level. After 2NT pard has ways of asking for the spade stop if that worries him.
Some people disagree with me about priorities. Those people are terrified about opponents cashing a suit they haven't even bid, and in which pard can well have AKQ. This is a fear I will never understand.
The consequence of this fear is to distort shape and strength with strange bids that may well put you in bad contracts in the long run.

Help
