Is this Fourth Suit Forcing?

Post by dfm
1D 1H
1S 1NT
2C
Should this be a Fourth Suit Forcing sequence? Responder thought it was. Opener thought he was just showing his shape with 4=0=5=4 and a minimum.
More generally, what agreements do you have about when the fourth suit is or isn't Fourth Suit Forcing?

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .

I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.

Carl

Co Wiersma

2017-07-27 21:50:01 UTC

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .
I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.
Carl

hmm
lets try

1C-1H
3C-3D
3S looks like 4th suit forcing to me

Co Wiersma

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2017-07-27 22:09:49 UTC

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .
I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.
Carl

hmm
lets try
1C-1H
3C-3D
3S looks like 4th suit forcing to me
Co Wiersma

It is 4th suit and it is forcing. But it is not "4th suit forcing."

Carl

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2017-07-28 01:48:26 UTC

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .
I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.
Carl

hmm
lets try
1C-1H
3C-3D
3S looks like 4th suit forcing to me
Co Wiersma

Really, the problem is the misleading terminology. What distinguishes "4th suit forcing" is the artificiality of the bid, not its forcing quality. ACBL, decades ago, suggested that "4th suit artificial" would be a better description, but everyone ignored it.

Carl

p***@infi.net

2017-07-28 17:40:30 UTC

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .
I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.
Carl

hmm
lets try
1C-1H
3C-3D
3S looks like 4th suit forcing to me
Co Wiersma

Right. Get in the habit of calling it Fourth Suit Artificial and you solve a lot of problems.

Steve Willner

2017-07-28 21:57:48 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net
the problem is the misleading terminology. What distinguishes "4th
suit forcing" is the artificiality of the bid, not its forcing
quality.

In original Acol, where this terminology came from, fourth suit was
generally not forcing. In that environment, the name makes sense.

Post by ***@verizon.net
ACBL, decades ago, suggested that "4th suit artificial" would be a
better description, but everyone ignored it.

I don't remember "the ACBL" suggesting it, nor do I think it's likely
the organization would care. Could it have been a specific author in
the ACBL Bulletin?

I've made the suggestion myself, including here on r.g.b, but it's no
surprise the original name has stuck even though inappropriate.

judyorcarl@verizon.net

2017-07-29 00:05:40 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net
the problem is the misleading terminology. What distinguishes "4th
suit forcing" is the artificiality of the bid, not its forcing
quality.

In original Acol, where this terminology came from, fourth suit was
generally not forcing. In that environment, the name makes sense.

But Reese-Dormer, in advocating the change, were explicit that it referred only the the 4th suit as 4th call by the partnership.

Post by ***@verizon.net
ACBL, decades ago, suggested that "4th suit artificial" would be a
better description, but everyone ignored it.

I don't remember "the ACBL" suggesting it, nor do I think it's likely
the organization would care. Could it have been a specific author in
the ACBL Bulletin?
I've made the suggestion myself, including here on r.g.b, but it's no
surprise the original name has stuck even though inappropriate.

It was in the Bull, but not by a specific author.

It was an editor or an official.

(But the silly nomenclature stayed on the cc.)

Barry Margolin

2017-07-29 04:12:13 UTC

Post by ***@verizon.net
the problem is the misleading terminology. What distinguishes "4th
suit forcing" is the artificiality of the bid, not its forcing
quality.

In original Acol, where this terminology came from, fourth suit was
generally not forcing. In that environment, the name makes sense.

But Reese-Dormer, in advocating the change, were explicit that it referred
only the the 4th suit as 4th call by the partnership.

Post by ***@verizon.net
ACBL, decades ago, suggested that "4th suit artificial" would be a
better description, but everyone ignored it.

I don't remember "the ACBL" suggesting it, nor do I think it's likely
the organization would care. Could it have been a specific author in
the ACBL Bulletin?
I've made the suggestion myself, including here on r.g.b, but it's no
surprise the original name has stuck even though inappropriate.

It was in the Bull, but not by a specific author.
It was an editor or an official.
(But the silly nomenclature stayed on the cc.)

As is 2-way New Minor Forcing, even though one of the minors usually
isn't "new" (unless the auction started 1H-1S-1NT, then both minors are
new).

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

p***@infi.net

2017-08-01 17:49:34 UTC

"4th suit forcing" applies only when it is the 4th call of the partnership. Many other 4th suit bids are forcing by the logic of the auction. Eg 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2NT ; 3C .
I don't believe the 2C bid in your auction is forcing at all. Minimum 4=0=5=4. With 18 hcp, same shape, you could have bid 3C.
Carl

hmm
lets try
1C-1H
3C-3D
3S looks like 4th suit forcing to me
Co Wiersma

My 1980's edition of the Bridge Encyclopedia, which is basically an ACBL publication, defines "Fourth Suit Forcing" as a popular misdescription of "Fourth Suit Artificial."

Will in New Haven

2017-07-27 22:06:14 UTC

Not 4SF in my opinion. Responder has limited his/her hand and implied a Club stopper, not guaranteed one. I think opener's bid here is natural and NF.

--
Will in New Haven, now in Pompano Beach
"Doc loved the cool, relentless logic of the cards. They had no pity or fear or doubt; they fell as they fell, and anyone who regretted or begged them or raged at them was a fool" from _Territory_ by Emma Bull, a novel greatly in need of a sequel

Eddie Grove

2017-07-28 00:22:24 UTC

Post by dfm
1D 1H
1S 1NT
2C
Should this be a Fourth Suit Forcing sequence? Responder thought it was. Opener thought he was just showing his shape with 4=0=5=4 and a minimum.

I thought the most common usage was 4-1-5-3 non-minimum, non-forcing.
Perhaps a 15-17 hcp range with that distribution.

Judging by the responses so far, I guess I am out of touch again.

Eddie

Lorne

2017-07-28 00:38:12 UTC