[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

1♦ - 1♠;
2♣ - 2♥#;
3♦ - ?

---

# 4th suit forcing to game

What now?

[Dirk Kuijt]

4♦
I'm giving up on 3NT, but I'm still hoping for partner to bid 4♠ on a doubleton. If partner has ♥xxx, we're probably going down, but lots of hands make 4♠ or 5♦, even with two heart losers.

[matmat]

i'd try 3♠

[jdonn]

4♦, I support with support.

Btw we never have enough points.

[Siegmund]

Now we come to our senses and quit playing FSF(game), or this hand has no rebid.

Given where we're at, I'm going to try 3♠, in hopes that I have a heart ruff in the short hand and/or running diamonds if partner decides 4♠ is best.

[Apollo81]

If I'm going to bid 4♦ then I might as well bid 5♦. I'm not thrilled with my probably useless spade "tricks".

[jdonn]

But over 4♦ partner can bid 4♠ as an offer to play with Jx x AJxxxx KQJx or some such. Or maybe he can just bid keycard. Why kill his space?

[Siegmund]

Because for some of us, 4♠ after 4♦ would be a cuebid in support of diamonds? I would certainly take 4♦ as agreeing diamonds as trumps and leaving room to explore for slam.

[jdonn]

Sigh, I'm too tired, I can't handle one of these discussions today. Someone take it for me, anyone?

[Fluffy]

game before slam thing?

sorry josh I kind of agree, we are unlimitted and showing some kind of weakness doesn't seem wrong to me.

[Vilgan]

3♠ for me. 4♠ could still easily be the best spot opposite xx xx AQxxx AKxx. Can handle 4/2 spades in 4♠, not nearly as much fun in a 5♦ contract. With a 6th diamond they can punt again to diamonds and then we can raise to 5. I don't think partner has guaranteed 6 diamonds, so if we're going to play a 5/2... lets play a 5/2 at a lower level. They might take our bidding as showing 6, but 5 headed by AKQ is almost the same as 6

It also keeps 3NT in the picture. Even with no heart stopper, 3NT could be our only making game.

I think 4♦ is overly committal at this point and punishes partner for being in a tough spot with 2254 or 1354 shape and no heart stop and bidding 3♦. Sure partner will bounce back to spades with 5 diamonds and Jx of spades.. but with 2 small spades they'll probably be endplayed into bidding 5♦ even though it might go down with 4♠ and/or 3NT making.

[Codo]

We can bid 3 Spade if we still prefer to play spades over diamonds, so to me 4 spade over 4 diamond wouldn't be a offer to play too.

So I bid 3 Spades now.

[jdonn]

Here are my 'truths' about this auction:

If partner is in a 'tough spot' with 2254 (and doesn't like bidding 2♠ on a doubleton) or 1354, I'll argue strongly he should bid 3♣. If you're going to "lie" and it's in a minor either way then choose the lowest bid so partner has more room to bid 3♦ if he wants. In fact you can argue that 2NT is right on almost any 1354 too.

(Due to the above) 3♦ shows 6 diamonds.

3♠ by us over that shows 6 spades. Of course if you want to treat AKQxx as a 6 card suit there are times that can be right but you should know you're "lying" about your shape.

Due to the above two points, I raise our only fit. I could look for 3NT but personally I think if 3NT is right then 5♦ will often make the same or even make 6. Also Kx is very good support for a 6+ card suit. I earned (well helped earn) a slam swing the last time I played in the jr championships by supporting partner's 6 card diamond suit to the 4 level on Qx instead of bidding 3NT with a double club stopper on a minimum hand.

If partner is 1264 without a heart stopper he will raise 3♠ to 4♠ much of the time.

If partner is 2164 he has to be able to bid 4♠ natural over 4♦ in case we have a 5 card suit. It's not some weird thing I have made up for this auction. Normal treatment in many auctions is to be able to show delayed support for partner's major when he raises your minor to the 4 level. And for good reason IMO.

Cuebidding spades if we raise diamonds is not very important. We have a game force that start with 1♠ on which we have decided to bypass 3NT. We are very likely to have a spade control, and partner is very likely to be short in spades. Also, as they say, game before slam.

I didn't realize there was so little understanding about auctions like this. Some of what I've said is either opinion or preference (which I try to make clear when I say it), but much is definitely true...

[ArtK78]

I can't disagree with anything that Josh said.

And I can't disagree with the 4♦ call. It is probably what I would choose at the table.

That said, I also can't argue with a 3♠ call. One might treat the AKQxx as if it were a 6 card suit.

Tough hand.

One final thought - fourth suit forcing to "game" can be played forcing to the 4 level (or 3NT). So, if you play FSF this way, 4♦ can be nonforcing. It fits this hand well, but it might get in the way of slam exploration on some other hands.

[aguahombre]

About a year ago, didn't a lot of posters insist that a rebid of the FSF suit, in this case 3H, was still artificial and probing for the right strain in case opener's shape precluded showing a heart stopper on the previous rounds?

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, partner had:

♠JT
♥A
♦Q98542
♣AKJ5

You may have preferred partner to bid 2NT instead of 3♦.

Spades and diamonds (if you guess well) make 11 tricks, whereas NT makes 9 tricks.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Jan 20 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

About a year ago, didn't a lot of posters insist that a rebid of the FSF suit, in this case 3H, was still artificial and probing for the right strain in case opener's shape precluded showing a heart stopper on the previous rounds?

Yes, I would do that on this hand if I wanted to play 3NT opposite a heart stopper. It's close but I don't think I want to, if diamonds don't run we could have a big problem.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Jan 20 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

About a year ago, didn't a lot of posters insist that a rebid of the FSF suit, in this case 3H, was still artificial and probing for the right strain in case opener's shape precluded showing a heart stopper on the previous rounds?

I play 3♥ in this sequence the way that you describe it, but I don't think it's particularly standard. You can only do it if you have some other way to show 5-5 in the majors, or if you're willing to accept that 5-5 in the majors is unbiddable.

It does surprise me that everyday hands like this cause such problems for people. Having to bid 3♠ on both AKQxx and K109xxx is horrible.

The underlying problem is that people bid 2254s the same way as 1264s, and then can't untangle which it is. There are lots of ways to avoid this:
- Agree that opener bids 2♠ over 2♥ on 2254 (pretty standard where I come from)
- Agree that opener bids 3♣ over 2♥ on 2254 (Josh's preferred method)
- Agree that opener bids 3♥ over 2♥ on 2254
- Agree that 3♥ over 3♦ is artificial
but the majority seems to prefer not to do any of these.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Jan 20 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 20 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

About a year ago, didn't a lot of posters insist that a rebid of the FSF suit, in this case 3H, was still artificial and probing for the right strain in case opener's shape precluded showing a heart stopper on the previous rounds?

Yes, I would do that on this hand if I wanted to play 3NT opposite a heart stopper. It's close but I don't think I want to, if diamonds don't run we could have a big problem.

true. On the now-given hand, it would be a way to get to 4 spades, though. Opener would bid 3s/3h, I hope. On a different layout, either diamonds or spades might provide enough tricks for 3NT, while 5D might fail.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Jan 20 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jan 20 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

About a year ago, didn't a lot of posters insist that a rebid of the FSF suit, in this case 3H, was still artificial and probing for the right strain in case opener's shape precluded showing a heart stopper on the previous rounds?

I play 3♥ in this sequence the way that you describe it, but I don't think it's particularly standard. You can only do it if you have some other way to show 5-5 in the majors, or if you're willing to accept that 5-5 in the majors is unbiddable.

I seem to recall that the same advocates of this treatment thought that the 5-5M hand would jump to 3H on their second round --and gave up the less-necessary "splinter for clubs" meaning. Of course, we are only talking about responding hands which are strong enough to commit to game.