[Wainfleet]

---

We play weak 1NT. This hand came up today. Was the bidding up to 3C correct, and should South have taken North's 3H to be 4th Suit forcing, and if so what should South have bid next?

[KingCovert]

3♥ is a one round force, and it asks you to bid 3NT with at least a partial stop in hearts. Your partner would like to play 3NT, but, intends to run to clubs if not possible.

[FelicityR]

Both 3NT and 5♣ are hopeless (except if you can engineer a ruff and discard endplay by throwing an opponent in with the second ♠). It's one of those awkward hands to bid where game is probably unavoidable given the combined HCP count. Bidding 3♣ on the second round gives the impression that the ♣s are longer than the ♠s. I would have punted 3NT hoping that partner has a decent ♥ stopper rather than 3♣ myself.

As for 3♥ being fourth suit forcing well that normally occurs when all four suits are bid without a 1NT rebid inbetween. 3♥ is obviously forcing. I'm unsure if I'd interpret it "asking for a stopper/half-stopper" or possibly "an advance cue bid agreeing ♣s". Seeing the two hands lend itself to asking for a stopper of sorts (as KingCovert suggested.)

[Cyberyeti]

Tricky to get to 5♦ which actually has decent chances, they have to find a spade at trick 1 to beat it.

[Tramticket]

Wainfleet, on 2020-July-03, 09:32, said:

We play weak 1NT. This hand came up today. Was the bidding up to 3C correct...?

Apart from a weak NT, what is you basic system? I might respond 2C rather than 1S - but it depends on what a 2C response means for you?
1D-2C-2NT-3S-3NT (or 4S) is a possible sequence for us. I think that all roads lead to a failing game.

[helene_t]

What about 3♥ showing 3 spades with a heart stopper and 3♠ showing 3 spades without a spade stopper?

3♥ just asking for a heart stopper is too vague, I think. You can always bid 3♦ as a catch-all so 3♥ must show something specific.

It's intriguing, by the way, that 3♣ doesn't show five spades. It would in a strong-nt system, but your auction makes sense.

Do you have some kind of check-back after 1nt? If so, it's maybe best to use it sow that 3♣ gets a more specific meaning.

But of course it is also playable to play the check-back as showing five spades so that 3♣ here denies extra spade length.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2020-July-04, 02:42, said:

What about 3♥ showing 3 spades with a heart stopper and 3♠ showing 3 spades without a spade stopper?

3♥ just asking for a heart stopper is too vague, I think. You can always bid 3♦ as a catch-all so 3♥ must show something specific.

It's intriguing, by the way, that 3♣ doesn't show five spades. It would in a strong-nt system, but your auction makes sense.

Do you have some kind of check-back after 1nt? If so, it's maybe best to use it sow that 3♣ gets a more specific meaning.

But of course it is also playable to play the check-back as showing five spades so that 3♣ here denies extra spade length.

You also need to discuss the strength of 3♣ for us it's 4-6 to play

Using 3♦ is a catch all is not great, with the hand opposite here, if partner bid 3♦ showing 5, you'd feel confident in playing 5♦, less so if he bid something else only showing 4 and this I think is a better use.

[Zelandakh]

Most game-forcing auctions with a jump to the 3 level need some bid that shows a hand without clear direction, commonly known as a grope. It seems to me that this is a sensible way to play the 3♥ call, essentially it denying 3♠, 4♦ or a ♥ stopper. Whether it is really a good definition though depends on how the 3♣ bid is defined. Note also that there are different philosophies about gropes - some pairs use the least defined call while others want it always to be the first step to maximise bidding space. This you can see to some extent even in this thread from the suggested approaches of Helene and CY/KC.

Whether you bid it correctly similarly depends on the meaning of 3♣ but assuming that shows a hand like this one, it looks like a perfectly sensible auction to me. I think all scientific auctions here are leading to 5♣ while all bash auctions end in 3NT. Both contracts need a non-heart lead or a low card from ♥AKxx(x). I see this as much more likely in 5♣, which I assume is what you reached after 3♥. If the ♥AK are with West, bad luck, next board.

[nige1]

Wainfleet "We play weak 1NT. This hand came up today. Was the bidding up to 3C correct, and should West have taken East's 3H to be 4th Suit forcing, and if so what should West have bid next?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hands rotated to make West dealer.
Assuming Acol with a weak notrump, I prefer a 1♣ opener. After a 1♦ opener, I prefer a 2♣ reply. On the actual hands, neither of these suggestions are much help . Wainfleet's auction is reasonable; 3♥ (4SF) is sensible; and will probably result in 4♠ or 5♣.

---

[KingCovert]

I don't understand the commentary in this thread so far. I think the sequence, without better agreements, clearly showed the shape and invitational strength, and given the actual hand it's pretty hard to suggest that 3♥ was anything other than an ask for a partial stop in hearts. OP seems to think it's 4th suit forcing, which is clearly a misunderstanding, and this most likely resulted in a poor result, hence the thread.

This auction should have ended with a bid of 4♣.

[Cyberyeti]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-06, 10:05, said:

I don't understand the commentary in this thread so far. I think the sequence, without better agreements, clearly showed the shape and invitational strength, and given the actual hand it's pretty hard to suggest that 3♥ was anything other than an ask for a partial stop in hearts. OP seems to think it's 4th suit forcing, which is clearly a misunderstanding, and this most likely resulted in a poor result, hence the thread.

This auction should have ended with a bid of 4♣.

Do you typically invite with a pretty decent 11 opposite 15-16 ? We would have game forced long ago

Our auction would have started (Acol) - 1♦-2♣-2N and been GF from then on.

[KingCovert]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-06, 10:37, said:

Do you typically invite with a pretty decent 11 opposite 15-16 ? We would have game forced long ago

Our auction would have started (Acol) - 1♦-2♣-2N and been GF from then on.

Ahhhh, yes, I usually play a 10-12 1NT and so I wasn't processing this. It's showing 15+. Thanks.

Still, I don't really see any reason why with a beginner pair this changes anything. I suspect that, after 1NT, 2♣ is natural for them, and that they expected that 3♣ is stronger than 2♣. 3♥ still seems like it can only be an ask for a partial stopper? Perhaps this is too advanced a meaning for a beginner pair, but, given the actual hand, I struggle to assess a different meaning that seems believable. 4th Suit Forcing is a particularly useless agreement at this stage, as surely 3♥ is forcing and well, kind of hard not to reach at least 3NT at that point.

I want to be clear though, I'm not advocating for this sequence as being a great sequence or set of agreements, but, given their apparent agreements/understandings it's simply my assessment. I suspect that I'd have arrived at 3NT in 4 bids under the best set of agreements that I play. Interestingly, 4♠ looks like it has more play than we've given credit for so far. It makes on a 3-3 spade break and some 4-2 breaks.