Fourth Suit Forcing

 

Here we look at some examples of the Fourth Suit Forcing convention, a useful temporizing maneuver when we are in an uncontested auction and have the values for game.  Fourth Suit Forcing is used by Responder, usually in one of these two situations:

   - Responder wants to agree the trump suit but has no way of doing that without making a non-forcing or sign-off bid.

   - Responder doesn't know what is the best strain, so uses Fourth Suit Forcing in order to establish the force and continue the investigation.

 

As well as the following Fourth Suit Forcing examples, please follow the link  to the Convention Library.

 

 

4th July, 2007                    Board 2      Dealer North       None Vul

 

 

How do you play Fourth Suit Forcing?  Forcing to game, or merely forcing for one round?  If it’s the latter, then you are in luck on this hand, you have an easy 2♦ bid.  However, most players use the game-forcing treatment, and they will be presented with an awkward problem here.  North wants to make to make an invitational bid with her 11-count, but nothing is suitable.  Here are the invitational bids that are available:

-         3♠, but this shows 4-card support

-         3♥, but this shows a 6-card suit

-         2NT, but this shows a Diamond stopper

 

None of these bids fits our hand, we’d say that 2NT is the least of evils … maybe Partner has a stop or a half-stop, or maybe neither opponent has five cards in the suit.  We don’t like 3♠ because, if Diamonds is our weakness and we end up in a Spade contract, we’ll be ruffing in the long hand.  And, as for 3♥, it’s a gross overstatement of the suit.

 

 

24th May, 2006                 Board 1       Dealer North        None Vul

 

 

South has the values for game, and there is a known 8-card Heart fit, so why not simply bid 4♥?  Two reasons … firstly, South is not sure that 4♥ is the best game contract, 3NT is still a possibility … secondly, South has a pretty good hand, and does not want to crowd the auction if it turns out that North has some extras.

 

A better bid here is 2♦, the Fourth Suit Forcing convention … it’s artificial and allows the partnership to explore the best game or slam.  How forcing is it?  The simple way is to play it as forcing to game, so much easier (and safer!) than having to memorize the non-game-forcing exceptions. 

 

After bidding 2♦ to establish the force, South will support Hearts at his next turn, and can then pretty much leave it up to Partner to decide where the hand is going.

 

 

23rd August, 2006            Board 10      Dealer East       Both Vul

 

 

That 2♠ bid was Fourth Suit Forcing … usually, this convention does not require a jump in the 4^th suit, but this particular sequence is the exception.  As played by most partnerships, over 1♥, a bid of 1♠ would be natural (and, as it’s a new suit by Responder, it’s forcing, though not necessarily to game) … and the featured 2♠ bid is artificial and forcing, typically to game.

 

Some partnerships further agree that the 2♠ bid categorically denies a 4-card Spade suit, but, either way, we see no purpose in bidding 3♠ over 2♠, such a bid runs the risk of sabotaging the auction (for example, Partner might have used Fourth Suit Forcing as her way of showing a slammish hand with Heart support).

 

Yes, we’d bid 2NT here, it’s both descriptive and economical.

 

 

15th November, 2006       Board 12      Dealer West       N-S Vul

 

 

East’s 2♣ was Fourth Suit Forcing, an artificial bid, played by this partnership as game-forcing.  After 2♣, West has a difficult choice between raising Hearts and bidding No Trump.  Neither is ideal, we’d prefer a Heart honor to bid 2♥, and a third Club to bid 2NT.  Notwithstanding our feeble Hearts, we’d bid 2♥.  Why?  Well, if we raise Hearts we should get a chance, later in the auction, to bid 3NT, offering a choice of contracts.  But, if we bid 2NT instead, and Partner raises to 3NT we won’t be able to show our Heart support.

 

3rd January, 2007             Board 3      Dealer South       E-W Vul

 

 

Our 2♥ was Fourth Suit Forcing to game.  Then Partner’s 3♣ showed at least 5-5 in the minors.  What next?  We’re certainly in a somewhat awkward spot here:

-         We have extra values here, which we have yet to show

-         Partner may be minimum or may have substantial extras, we have no idea which

-         We don’t know whether we belong in Clubs, Spades or No Trump

-         We don’t know whether we belong in game or slam

-         We are already at the 3-level

-         But, other than that, we are in excellent shape!

 

But enough of the hand-wringing, how do we move forward?

-         3NT?   This is unilateral in two different ways … it gives up on slam, and it insists on No Trump when we have a marginal holding in the unbid suit … surely we can do better than that!

-         3♠?      We don’t think that the Spades are good enough … after that bid we’d expect Partner to raise with a small doubleton or singleton Queen, for example … if that’s the case we won’t enjoy losing those trump trick in 4♠ when we could be rattling off umpteen minor suit tricks in No Trump.

-         4♣?     Heading off to a Club slam might well be the way to go, but we cannot be sure of that.  We have an 8-card Club fit and extras but not enough to insist on slam.  And if there is no Club slam we will probably have gone past our best spot of 3NT.

 

If none of the above, then what?  Our suggestion would be 3♥, which we would hope that Partner takes as a temporizing move rather than as an attempt to show a major two-suiter (have you discussed this sequence with your Partner?).  Now, if Partner bids 3NT we’ll pass, if she bids 3♠ we’ll play in 4♠, and if she bids 4 of a minor we’ll take our chances in 6♣.  Suppose that Partner misreads our 3♥ and raises to 4♥ … in that case we’ll just have to take a shot at 6♣ (no point in playing in 5♣ when the rest of the field is making 10 or 11 tricks in 3NT).

 

A very difficult hand, and we would be the first to admit that the above strategy could well lead to a missed Club slam.  So, let us suggest an alternative … bid 4♣ (forcing), but only if 4NT by Partner is now natural!  Yes, it’s nice to be able to use Redwood in these situations, and to keep 4NT as a potential place to play if the slam try fails.

 

 

13th June, 2007                 Board 12      Dealer West       N-S Vul

 

 

2♣ was Fourth Suit Forcing (to game).  What would your bid be here with the West hand?  Nothing is quite perfect, here are the options:

-         3NT:   This usually shows 15-17, and should be reserved for ideal hands.  “Ideal” here means poor slam values, presumably shortness in Hearts (no 1NT opening bid), and two stoppers in the 4^th suit.  But, this hand has good slam values (especially if Partner has Spade or Diamond support), and the Club holding is not the best for No Trump.

-         2NT:  Generally shows 12-14 and a Club stopper.  Not a bad choice.  True we have a bit extra, but at least we keep the auction low and give Partner the chance to make a descriptive bid at the 3-level.

-         3♣:   Natural, showing 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-5-4 shape, perhaps even 4-1-5-3.  The downside here is that the strength of the hand remains a complete mystery, Partner might be in an awkward position if he too has extras.

 

To be honest, we are not crazy about any of the above, we’ll leave it to you to make your own choice.  Having done that, let’s look at things from the East perspective:

 

            ♠ A74

            ♥ AKJT

            ♦ Q54

            ♣ KT8

 

            West    East

            1♦        1♥

            1♠        2♣

            2NT     ??

Opposite a 12-14 hand, with no apparent fit, our square 17 does not look like enough for slam, so we simply sign off in 3NT.

 

            West    East

            1♦        1♥

            1♠        2♣

            3NT     ??

Opposite a 15-17 hand, it’s a close call between 4NT and 6NT, we suppose we’d try the latter.

 

            West    East

            1♦        1♥

            1♠        2♣

            3♣       ??

This is the really difficult case, at least it is without good partnership agreements.  The problems here are that Partner’s strength is completely unknown and that we have substantial extras.  We would like to bid 4NT, but only if Partner can be relied upon to treat this as natural.  If not, then we confess that we have no satisfactory suggestion, we’d probably try 3♦, hoping that this does not further add to the confusion.

 

 

© BES, Inc

All Rights Reserved