Author Topic: An issue with fourth suit forcing  (Read 5381 times)

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
An issue with fourth suit forcing
« on: September 07, 2017, 08:59:36 PM »
Often the way people play conventions differ in the details. I recently posted a play hand with the bidding omitted but maybe we should take a look. I'll just give you my hand, along with my thinking

 !S 4
 !H A763
 !D AQJ5
 !C AK94

The opponents are silent.

Partner opened 1 !C and I responded 1 !H, Then 1 !S by partner, 2 !D by me and 2NT by partner.

1 !C   1 !H
1 !S   2 !D
2NT

My thoughts? Partner does not have three hearts. So with at most  six cards in the majors partner has at least one four card minor, and therefore at least four clubs. I suppose with care we could explore for a grand, but to keep it simple I simply bid 6 !C. So

1 !C   1 !H
1 !S   2 !D
2NT    6 !C



Well, partner did have four clubs, the contract is a good one, but we were lucky as there had been a clash of understanding. The hands were

 !S AQT9
 !H JT4
 !D K2
 !C QJT2
 
and

 !S 4
 !H A763
 !D AQJ5
 !C AK94

As you can see, my reasoning that partner had at most six cards in the majors did not hold up.
After the FSF bid of 2 !D, opener can show three hearts by bidding 2 !H and can show a !D stop by bidding 2NT. But when holding both three hearts and a !D stop?

From The Bidding Box at http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Commonly_Used_Conventions/4thsuitforcing.pdf

 


"Partner’s  first  obligation  is  to  raise
hearts  with  three-card  support.  His
second  obligation  is  to  bid  2NT. " 2NT with a stopper in the fourth suit, of course.

This is the way I have always played it.

Mike Lawrence, on disc on conventions, also plays it that way.

And so does the Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_suit_forcing

But does everyone? I am not so sure. As near as I can see, The Bridge Guys only address this through one example:

1 !H   1 !S
2 !D   3 !C
3 !S

Here they say that 3 !S shows three spades and denies a club stopper. Well, ok but this is at the 3 level. moreover opener already seems to have five hearts and four diamonds, so if he has three spades he has at most one club. Even if it is the A he might not wish to play 3NT. I don't see that the Bridge Guys ever address the issue in a 2 level auction such as we had.

Somewhat to my surprise, I could not find this addressed by Larry Cohen at https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/550

My research has not been through, but it appears that the large majority view is that showing three card support for responder's major takes precedence over showing the stopper in the fourth suit. This makes sense to me.

Basic point: It is something that you might want to bring up  with your partner. In our case, we were lucky. My reasoning that partner cannot have three hearts and therefore must have four clubs did not hold up, partner had three hearts,  but partner had the four clubs anyway. It's good to be on the same page as partner.
As Socrates could have said had he played bridge, The unexamined convention is not worth playing.

Added: It is interestng to think of just how we get to 6 !C if opener bids 2 !H over 2 !D instead of 2NT.






« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 01:54:56 PM by kenberg »
Ken

BillHiggin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2017, 07:39:24 AM »
A mentor (teaching walsh responses) specified that after 1 !C 1 !H, opener should rebid 1 N when balanced even holding 4 spades. I do not find this to be a common treatment (BBO advanced FD card is ambiguous on this).  I liked it because I really like bidding no trump as often a possible (oink oink).  The implication then is that 1 !C 1 !H 1 !S denies a balanced hand and therefore promises at least 4 clubs (5 unless 4-1-4-4) and you know about the club fit before any 4th suit / new minor / xyz bids.
I would not expect a pickup partner to bid that way. I would expect partner's bids over the 4th suit auction to show 3 card  !H support before a diamond stopper.
 
In transfer walsh systems, this is even cleaner since opener "accepts" the transfer with minimum balanced hands so:
1 !C 1 !D; 1 !S always denies a balanced hand. But transfer walsh is just not seen very much.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2017, 08:35:49 PM »
I have encountered 1 !C - 1 !H - 1 !S as showing an unbalanced hand. Whether it is a good idea or a bad idea it's a lot different from having 1 !C - 1 !D - 1M show an unbalanced hand. Playing Walsh, after 1 !C -1 !D responder either doesn't have a major or he is strong enough so that he will bid it, or some checkback bid, over 1NT.  After 1 !C - 1 !H - 1NT responder, with a 4=4=2=3 shape and an 8 count, will surely pass. If opener is 4=2=3=4 this could well be a bad spot. I am assuming 4=2=3=4 qualifies as balanced.

I would be interested in hearing about this from you or from anyone with experience with this approach. Does my concern not cause trouble?  There can be, sometimes, an advantage in skipping over a major but unlike in what I think of as "original Walsh" where a 1NT rebid over 1 !C - 1 !D could be on 4-4 in the majors, I am cautious after 1 !C - 1 !H.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 10:04:34 PM by kenberg »
Ken

BillHiggin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2017, 09:03:52 PM »
Yes, you can miss a 4-4  !S fit on a part score hand. My feeling is that on a part score hand, I want to find and stop in a playable denomination and will not worry too much about the "best" denomination. The advantage of preferring to show the balanced nature of the hand over the  !S suit is both that the stopping issue becomes clearer (partner with 10 HCP will not keep pushing for that hopeless game) and that when opener is unbalanced that the ambiguous  !C suit gets cleared up quickly.

Many intermediate players have a bit of fear about playing no-trump contracts. They might be more comfortable emphasizing the !S suit over the balanced nature of the hand.

If my health (and memory) were better and I wanted to form a more serious partnership, I would be looking more at trnasfer walsh.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2017, 01:44:55 AM »
The weather has been a little tough so I have been thinking. I have played the Walsh style of 1 !C - 1 !D if pard wants. On simple hands it has its advantages but I have always felt there were some problems lurking.  I can see where skipping over the spades on balanced hands might solve one of them.

Imagine responder with an 8 count ( or a 9 count or a 7 count, I have no fixation on the number 8). Imagine he has six diamonds and four hearts, and his partner opens 1 !C. IN the Walsh style he respondes 1 !H.  A 1NT rebid by opener could be easier for him to handle than a 1 !S rebid. It seems to me that anyone who plays Walsh pretty much play 2 way new minor forcing or some variant of that.  After 1 !C - 1 !H - 1NT responder invokes 2 way with 2 !C, forcing a 2 !D rebid from opener, and then responder passes.  If opener, after 1 !C - 1 !H will only rebid 1 !S with an unbalanced hand this will first of all make the 1 !S response less frequent and secondly make it, perhaps, easier to deal with when responder has bid 1 !H holding a weakish 1=4=6=2 shape.

Not playing Walsh, the response to 1 !C would have been 1 !D and the problem does not arise.

Just something that occurred to me on a rainy day.

Added (or a few more words, not much new): I think that the biggest advantage of the Walsh style is that after 1 !C - 1 !D - 1NT opener can have 0, 1 or 2 four card majors. This is definitely an advantage in the play. I am not so sure that there is any advantage in the auction and I can see problems. In non-Walsh, after the auction begins 1 !C - 1 !H it is unlikely that the hand should be played in diamonds. Playing Walsh, we cannot be as confident of that.  And then, after the standard auction 1 !C - 1 !H -1NT it is unlikely that the hand would have played better in spades. If we take the souped up Walsh where we skip over spades to rebid 1NT then it may well be that spades would have played better. Maybe these problems can be handled, but as I think about them it reinforces my thinking that the biggest feature of Walsh is the advantage mentioned above for the play. I do see that advantage as substantial.

Another thought: Consider the opposite approach, that after 1 !C - 1 !H opener, with four spades, always rebids 1 !S even if he is 4=3=3=3. Ir's true that then responder cannot be sure if opener is unbalanced. But there is compensation. Suppose the auction goes 1 !C - 1 !H -1NT. Responder knows that opener has four clubs and probably five. He has to have four of something and clearly it is not a major. If he had four diamonds he would have opened  1 !D unless he had five clubs. So responder,with a balanced 10 count, passes the 1NT but if he has a bit of shape, four card club support is perfectly adequate to place the hand in clubs. If 3 !C over 1NT is to pay, and it is often played that way, this could be a good call if he has some decent shape. If opener might have four spades and three of everything else, t3 !C  will be less likely to work out.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 03:02:50 PM by kenberg »
Ken

infidel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2017, 11:51:11 PM »
I was converted to Walsh in one easy lesson: Chapter 1 of Bergen's first book, Better Bidding with Bergen, Vol. 1.. He makes the case far better than I would ever claim to. A cursory glance at Walsh always seems to raise the specter of missing a 4-4 Major fit; it simply can't happen. When responder has the 4441 hand you mentioned, he still bypasses the diamonds to bid Hearts; but opener no longer has the luxury of ignoring a 4-card Spade suit. Both partners need to keep that in mind, and that 1c-1d-1H-1S has some "interesting" problems attendant: Is 1S a real suit? is it 4sf? does it deny a balanced hand? etc., etc. It's a rare hand that finds the 4-4 S fit after 1c-1d, but the sequence MUST show a GF responder hand, since he did not bypass the diamonds in round one. Since we set up the GF at the ONE-level, there's room to fool around to determine if the suit is genuine or not...in my favorite partnership, responder simply rebids his 4-card suit to confirm it really had 4 cards; any other bid shows a GF hand without 4 spades...simple but workable. The huge problem that we avoid is the weak hand with a 4-card Major and a long, weak d suit. Bidding the Major first, then running to 2d from 1N pretty much promises that sort of hand.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2017, 04:35:21 AM »
"The huge problem that we avoid is the weak hand with a 4-card Major and a long, weak d suit. Bidding the Major first, then running to 2d from 1N pretty much promises that sort of hand."

I have never played this but yes, it would work. I am still in Oregon and my BBB is back in Maryland, but as I recall Bergen plays 1 !C -1 !H -1NT -2 !C as checkback. This matches well with using 1 !C -1 !H -1NT -2 !D as a weak hand with long diamonds and four hearts.  I mentioned that, playing Walsh,  you need "2 way nmf or some variant" and Checkback Stayman would be a good variant. Responder will want to have some tool available when, for example, after 1 !C -1 !H -1NT  he holds five or six hearts and an invitational hand.  If 2 !D is the weak 6-4 instead of nmf, then 2 !C is presumably the checkback. I don't have strong feelings here but I prefer 2 way new minor. Holding the weak long diamond and four heart hand it would go: 1 !C -1 !H -1NT -2 !C -2 !D (forced)- pass. With an invit hand of one form or another it goes 1 !C -1 !H -1NT -2 !C -2 !D (forced)- something other than pass, inviting,  and with a game forcing hand it would go 1 !C -1 !H -1NT -2 !D (artificial, gf).

At any rate, the weak  6 !D-4 !H  problem is indeed solvable after 1 !C -1 !H -1NT.  It gets a bit trickier I think after 1 !C -1 !H -1 !S since neither hand has yet limited its strength but I assume it can be managed.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 04:38:24 AM by kenberg »
Ken

infidel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 11:07:55 PM »
there was another solution suggested in a Max Hardy/Jerome Bruno: To keep nmf in place, they advocated "funny jumps" to 3m for the signoff hand. Like many conventional approaches, that solves the problem it was designed for, but causes some other problems. Not sure which cure has more side effects.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: An issue with fourth suit forcing
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2017, 12:48:35 AM »
The main thing is that something is needed, and that something will almost certainly require discussion. 1 !C - 1 !H - 1NT - 2 !D will be taken as nmf rather than as the weak long diamond hand with four hears in any pick-up game.  As long as it gets discussed, and remembered, it should go ok. I do think that 1 !C - 1 !H - 1 !S  is tougher. Now using 3 !D as a weak bid with six diamonds and four hearts risks playing in a 6-0 fit so that doesn't seem so great and giving up on 4SF so that 2 !D can show that hand seems drastic. Neither hand is limited yet, not very limited anyway, so it seems premature for either of them to take complete control.  If indeed opener would skip over four spades when balanced, then the 1 !S call says something about opener's shape and that could be useful

I don't play in the Walsh style often enough to have any well thought out suggestions on what responder should do after  1 !C - 1 !H - 1 !S when he holds long diamonds, four hearts, and a 9 count.
Ken