[gnasher]

There is another category of sequence where opener bids the fourth suit:
  1♦-1♠
  2♦-2♥
  3♣
For me that would be [similar to] FSF: not showing anything in clubs, asking for further information, and covering those hands that now want to drive to game but aren't suitable for 3♠, 3NT or 4♥.

Would it be naturalish in the Western Hemisphere, and if so how does it differ from bidding some number of notrumps?

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jun 24 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

There is another category of sequence where opener bids the fourth suit:
  1♦-1♠
  2♦-2♥
  3♣
For me that would be [similar to] FSF: not showing anything in clubs, asking for further information, and covering those hands that now want to drive to game but aren't suitable for 3♠, 3NT or 4♥.

Would it be naturalish in the Western Hemisphere, and if so how does it differ from bidding some number of notrumps?

This one I would take as artificial game force. The difference is, of course, that we cannot have a club fit on this auction.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Jun 23 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

BTW, I don't equate usage by the top 10% of any area's players as 'standard'.

But most players below the 90% percentile have very little knowledge about bidding theory. Most won't know in details when FSF applies, which hands it should be used with, and how the follow-ups are. Of those who claim to know, many would give incoherent answers and/or disagree with their regular p without realizing it.

This reminds me on the thread about negative doubles, when they "promise" both unbid suits and when they only promise one of them, or the unbid major. I think it works like this:

- A new convention evolves within the expert culture. Unless it is the work of a single expert who writes a canonical text about it, the details will remain unformalized, but experts understand each other by using common sense.
- Someone decides to write about the convention for a broader audience. Since that audience does not have the same level of common sense, the convention needs to be formalized. This involves some simplifications. One can approach it outside-in, starting by saying "the fourth suit always asks for a stop in that suit" and "a double always promises support for all unbid suits" and then introduce "exceptions" in an advanced course. Or one can approach it inside-out, by defining the conventions as something very specific and then introduce similar conventions in an advanced course.

[benlessard]

1- i pass instead of 1H, if you like to respond that light why not play a strong or forcing club ?

2- 2S instead of 1 S unless you frequently respond with 4 pts.

3- 2D is ugly even if partner is 100% sure to be at least 54. In my book with 4144 you open with 1D and rebid 1S so you might be in a 4-2 fit.

4- Passing 3C is gross. Responder 2D rebid show either a full D fit or club weakness. In both case 3C cannot be a better contract than 3D. Even without that its would never cross my mind to play it NF its natural for sure, but its forcing.

[AnJoe]

gnasher, on Jun 24 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

There is another category of sequence where opener bids the fourth suit:
  1♦-1♠
  2♦-2♥
  3♣
For me that would be [similar to] FSF: not showing anything in clubs, asking for further information, and covering those hands that now want to drive to game but aren't suitable for 3♠, 3NT or 4♥.

Would it be naturalish in the Western Hemisphere, and if so how does it differ from bidding some number of notrumps?

I am by no means an expert, but I do play a lot of bridge in the USA. With a lot of diffeent partners.
And I can tell you that in this sequence, the club bid would indicate a weakish hand with six diamonds and four clubs. period.

love
joan

[gwnn]

I think Helene made the crucial point when she said

her said:

canonical

. Standard and canonical is not the same (at least not lexically), so maybe we could agree that the canonical form of 3♣ is fsf but standard is natural. Or something along these lines.

[Apollo81]

I'd also force game on the North hand.

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on Jun 24 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

There is another category of sequence where opener bids the fourth suit:
  1♦-1♠
  2♦-2♥
  3♣
For me that would be [similar to] FSF: not showing anything in clubs, asking for further information, and covering those hands that now want to drive to game but aren't suitable for 3♠, 3NT or 4♥.

Maybe here is the main problem, I do not contemplate the option that opener asks anything except maybe using blackwood.

To me 3♣ SHOWS a hand without major fit with club values, but not good enough to bid 2NT (least of evils most of the time)

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Jun 23 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

I think we can just believe gnasher without him proving it lol, it's not like he's foo. Also Frances always thinks everything is fsf too so that is good evidence to support that that's how they roll in England.

I will join the people suggesting that 3C natural is a better treatment.

...only when it's the fourth suit....

I also seem to pursue a non-American furrow when I think that 1C - 1S - 2C -2D is (at least ostensibly) natural. And that responder can pass the 2S preference.

And that 1C - 1H- 2C - 2S is natural, and that responder can pass 2NT or the 3H preference.

Quote

It's like when I learned about the whole anticlockwise / counterclockwise thing. I normally blame Americans for being the ones to butcher the language, but in this case let's just call it a draw.

What the heck, I just went to look them up and there is also contraclockwise. Does anyone use that one?

Just stick with deasil / widdershins and be done with it.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jun 23 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

The OP was in the general bridge forum... my assumption is that in this forum 'standard' is either Standard American or something close to it. A method that I will refer to in this post as 'Standard'.

I find that assumption astonishing.

Surely if you want advice on Standard in its capitalised form, you post in the Standard American forum.

There are some treatments that really are close to being international standards in for any natural-based system, usually in competitive auctions.