[cencio]

1♣-pass-1♦-pass-1♥-pass-1♠

Fourth forcing color or 5 diamond and 4 spade ?

[DavidKok]

I recommend playing this as a generic game force, may or may not have four spades. We want opener to describe the hand in more detail.

[P_Marlowe]

cencio, on 2025-September-15, 14:34, said:

1♣-pass-1♦-pass-1♥-pass-1♠

Fourth forcing color or 5 diamond and 4 spade ?

If you play a short 1C opening it is sensible to play 1S as nat., and due to this 2S becomes FSF.
The advantage is, if you have a 44 in spade it gets discovered fast.

But I also played 1S as FSF, ..., but this req. the agreement, that a 2S response to the FSF inquiry
showes a 4 carder, and even after the raise the fit is not known to both sides.
Having played FSF as inv.+, raising the 4th suit was always murky.

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-September-16, 00:53, said:

If you play a short 1C opening it is sensible to play 1S as nat., and due to this 2S becomes FSF.
The advantage is, if you have a 44 in spade it gets discovered fast.

But I also played 1S as FSF, ..., but this req. the agreement, that a 2S response to the FSF inquiry
showes a 4 carder, and even after the raise the fit is not known to both sides.
Having played FSF as inv.+, raising the 4th suit was always murky.

We play a 4 card club and a weak NT, so would only have 4 spades with 4414/4405 ie rarely. We play 1♠ inv+ and our agreement is to bid 1N with 4414 minimum, otherwise raise spades.

[DavidKok]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-September-16, 00:53, said:

If you play a short 1C opening it is sensible to play 1S as nat., and due to this 2S becomes FSF.
The advantage is, if you have a 44 in spade it gets discovered fast.

But I also played 1S as FSF, ..., but this req. the agreement, that a 2S response to the FSF inquiry
showes a 4 carder, and even after the raise the fit is not known to both sides.
Having played FSF as inv.+, raising the 4th suit was always murky.

Neither of these implications follow. You can simply leave 2♠ idle.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-16, 04:51, said:

Neither of these implications follow. You can simply leave 2♠ idle.

Splinter agreeing hearts

[DavidKok]

A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. I would leave it idle, and when you have the splinter make do with 'only' 1♠-into-2♥.

[awm]

For Elianna and me, 1♠ is natural (4+♠, forcing one round). We typically respond 1♦ with 5♦-4♠ (sometimes even with 4♦-4♠) and would expect opener to bid like this with 4423 (or 4414) so we want to find our spade fit even if we have less than GF values. Obviously for people who would respond 1♠ with 5♦-4♠ and/or rebid 1NT after 1♣-P-1♦-P with 4423, priorities may differ.

For us, 2♠ would be an artificial game force ("4th suit forcing") and 3♠ would be a splinter for hearts.

I think what we play is pretty much "old-fashioned standard american" in this auction (of course standards in other parts of the world will vary).

[mikeh]

Approach matters.

For example, when not playing T-Walsh, I play ‘strong Walsh’, where in response to 1C we bypass diamonds to bid a 4 card major unless strong enough to force to game. The approach has many advantages especially at imps where slam and game bidding are far more important than finding the right low level partscore. It also has a huge benefit for playing 1N, since opener conceals his major holdings with a balanced minimum over 1D.

Playing strong Walsh, the auction 1C 1D 1H 1S says:

Opener has an unbalanced hand since all balanced hands rebid 1N (or 2N with appropriate strength).

But also responder has a gf hand, regardless of his spade holding. If he has 4 spades, then by first bidding 1D he shows 4+ spades, longer diamonds and game force values. But he doesn’t have to have spades….opener will only raise with 4.

I’ve often asked proponents of using 1S and 2S here, one showing and the other denying spades, what gain they get. Nobody…literally nobody….has ever provided a plausible explanation.

I have no idea why anyone wants to blow off an entire level of bidding in a purely constructive auction.

[blackshoe]

I'll have to check Rosenkranz's books on Romex, which is where I learned to play 1♣-1♦;1♥-1♠ as natural and at least invitational with 4+ diamonds, 4+ spades, and if 5+ spades, longer diamonds. In Romex 2♠ instead of 1♠ would be an artificial game force. I don't think Rosenkranz went into why he chose that way round, but like I said I'll have to check.

BTW, with less than invitational values responder would bypass up to six diamonds to bid a four card spade suit (sort of modified Walsh, though Rosenkranz didn't call it that).

[Huibertus]

cencio, on 2025-September-15, 14:34, said:

1♣-pass-1♦-pass-1♥-pass-1♠

Fourth forcing color or 5 diamond and 4 spades ?

Yes.


(both is an option. I've played both, it depends on partnership agreement based on system particularities.)

[cencio]

cencio, on 2025-September-15, 14:34, said:

1♣-pass-1♦-pass-1♥-pass-1♠

Fourth forcing color or 5 diamond and 4 spade ?

The hand:how to continue

---

Do you play 3 nt or 5 d without a diamond.
North is a robot

[blackshoe]

The auction is forcing. I would bid 2♠ and see what partner does next. I don't know how the robots bid, but I would expect 3♦. If that's forcing (because 1♠ was forcing to game) then I'm kind of stuck with 3NT. I don't like it, but I don't have another bid. If 3♦ is not forcing, I would pass, smelling a misfit.