[Kaitlyn S]

Hi - these problems should be very easy for experienced players but an I/N player needs to think about the right things in an auction. If you get them wrong, don't feel too bad as long as you understand the rationale for the answers. I'll provide the answers later but I'll put a hint as a spoiler. Try to solve the problem without the spoiler. Also, let me know if you would be interested in seeing more of these from time to time.

Assume you are playing Standard American (a natural system with 15-17 1NT openings and 5-card majors), IMPS, and nobody is vulnerable.

1.

---

Spoiler

Any spade bid is non-forcing. How do you feel about a spade contract if partner has a singleton?

2.

---

Spoiler

If notrump is right, which partner should play it?

3.

---

Spoiler

If your partner doesn't accept the invitation, what is your likely best contract?

4.

---

Spoiler

Can your partner have four spades?

5.

---

Spoiler

If you bid 3C, what will partner do with a heart stopper? Is that what you want?

6.

---

Spoiler

Your partner probably has five diamonds and four clubs. What is this hand worth?

[NickRW]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-01, 16:11, said:

Hi - these problems should be very easy for experienced players

I can see quite a few, er, wrong views being taken with this collection even by people who perhaps shouldn't.

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-01, 16:11, said:

Also, let me know if you would be interested in seeing more of these from time to time.

You're doing great.

[helene_t]

You probably assume 4th suit forcing to game. Is that universally taught to beginners in ACBL Land?

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2017-February-02, 07:07, said:

You probably assume 4th suit forcing to game. Is that universally taught to beginners in ACBL Land?

This was precisely what I thought upon reading Q1. Around these parts the correct answer would be different from the answer an American expert would give. SAYC does not assume a GF for 4th suit forcing, which might influence the answers here. Whether "Standard American" does will probably depend on who you are asking.

[Kaitlyn S]

 helene_t, on 2017-February-02, 07:07, said:

You probably assume 4th suit forcing to game. Is that universally taught to beginners in ACBL Land?

I can't say universally but I'm sure most of the respected teachers would say that fourth suit forcing is beyond the scope of a beginner course (I introduce takeout doubles and preempts in a beginner course and from what I see, even that is pushing it.)

Now, I'll try to answer the question I think you asked, which is "When the student is ready for fourth suit forcing, is it considered forcing to game?" In the context that most of the students I teach are not duplicate players, the actual concept of fourth-suit forcing and artificial is even beyond most of my intermediate classes, however, I will teach my intermediate students that they will sometimes have to make up a suit to make a forcing bid. I do teach it forcing to game because I think it's simpler, and it is what is done here. I won't argue the relative merits of it for die-hard duplicate players but if you saw the auctions that my (even advanced) students had before they have learned the material, you would agree with me that simplicity is best.

In fact, 4SF to game is so common here that I'm not even sure how you would follow up after bidding 2H on hand 1; what bids by opener are forcing? While it might be partnership agreement, I have to think that if part of the world plays 4SF not forcing to game, that the agreements on what follow up bids are forcing are pretty universal. I just don't happen to know them and am going to answer the problems as if either fourth suit forcing is game-forcing, or the reader is unaware that the fourth-suit forcing and artificial convention exists. Of course this means that fourth suit is not going to be the solution for any of these problems.

If someone in a part of the world where 4SF is not forcing to game would like to answer the problems in that context and give advice on the follow up bids, that would be appreciated.

[Kaitlyn S]

Answers: (More advanced material in blue.)

1.

---

Hint: Any spade bid is non-forcing. How do you feel about a spade contract if partner has a singleton?

Answer: You want to show invitational values but any spade bid is non-forcing and likely to be passed with any minimum, even with a singleton spade - a spade bid by you should show six spades here. You don't have a guaranteed fit in diamonds or clubs, and if the hand is to be played in notrump, you may have your side's only heart stopper. 2NT is a good description of this hand. If partner has three spades and is accepting the invitation, he may bid 3S on the way to game (3S would be forcing by opener after your 2NT - if partner had a hand with 3 spades, 1 heart, 5 diamonds and 4 clubs that wasn't going to accept your invitation, he might (probably should) have raised to 2S on his first rebid.)

I am assuming that you either do not know fourth suit forcing and artificial or play it forcing to game. When I saw some of the other posts suggesting that fourth-suit forcing might be an answer to this question in some parts of the world, I did some research.

Larry Cohen's Fourth Suit Forcing

He does recommend it forcing to game, but of course, he lives in the USA. If you live in a part of the world where fourth suit forcing can be made on invitational hands, then you might bid 2H, forcing and artificial, and if you do play that, you and your partner have some agreements on what follow up bids are forcing. Fourth suit forcing and artificial is beyond the scope of this thread.

2.

---

Hint: If notrump is right, which partner should play it?

Answer: You again want to show invitational values. 3H would do that, but partner might pass with a singleton heart and a minimum, and could raise to game with a singleton and no other good bid. (An old suit, one previously bid, at the three level shows an invitational hand when partner could be minimum.)

You could bid 2NT, but if notrump is the right place, partner should be playing it to protect his dubious stoppers like ♠Kx. It is highly unusual to bid notrump when you have neither of two unbid suit stopped.

You could bid a new suit to force (like 2D) but that will give partner the confidence to bid notrump with perhaps a singleton diamond. Worse, LHO with diamonds might double 2D and the opponents will make their best lead against any contract. (With three suits being bid, this double should be penalty-oriented; helping partner to defend correctly.)

Partner should have six clubs. You do have a club fit. While partner might expect three clubs for a raise to 3C, your ♣K is a good filler which could make clubs a running suit for your side. If partner is dead minimum and passes 3C, that is likely the best contract for your side. If partner has the top of his minimum range and stoppers in diamonds and spades, he can try 3NT. If partner is accepting the invitation, he can bid a 3-card heart suit on the way to game (he's already denied four by not raising, so you can't misunderstand.) I am recommending that you raise to 3C.

3.

---

Hint: If your partner doesn't accept the invitation, what is your likely best contract?

Answer: Again, you want to show invitational values. What does partner have? Opener rebidding a suit on the two-level should show an unbalanced hand. Partner shows at least four clubs. If partner is 4-4 in the minors, he either has a balanced hand that should rebid 1NT, or he has four hearts which shold raise hearts, or he has four spades which should rebid 1S. Partner should have at least as many diamonds as clubs so he should have five diamonds.

I am aware that some players bid 1D sometimes with four diamonds and five clubs and no good rebid over an expected 1 of a major response. However, with a good five-card club suit and a poor four-card diamond suit, partner should open 1C and rebid clubs anyway. Partner strongly suggests five diamonds in this auction.

You don't want to bid 2NT with the only unbid suit unstopped. You don't want to bid any number of non-forcing hearts and risk playing there with a singleton. You rate to have an eight-card diamond fit, and can show invitational values by bidding 3D, and that is what I recommend. If partner is accepting, he can bid 3H with three-card support. To more serious pairs: You want an agreement with partner whether 3S by opener after you bid 3D shows a stopper, asks for a full stopper, or asks for a partial stopper.

Pairs (probably not in the USA) who play fourth suit forcing and artificial and not forcing to game may bid 2S on this hand. I won't go any further into this because I've already told you more than I know.


4.

---

Hint: Can your partner have four spades?

Answer: Partner should have rebid 1S if he held four spades, so he doesn't have four spades and there is no reason for you to introduce your spade suit. You want to invite and your most likely game (if you have one) is notrump, so bid 2NT.

While you may very well want to play 3D if partner doesn't accept the invitation, this isn't the time to raise to 3D. Partner will think that there is something wrong with your hand for notrump if you raise diamonds, and you have both a stopper in both unbid suits. If partner accepts, playing 3NT from your side is a good thing. If partner declines, 2NT should be an okay contract, and some of the time that partner is more distributional, partner will sign off in 3D anyway.


5.

---

Hint: If you bid 3C, what will partner do with a heart stopper? Is that what you want?

Answer: You have an invitational hand. First, we don't want to rebid any number of spades (non-forcing) because we don't want to play in spades opposite a singleton. We don't want to bid notrump because of our heart weakness; if we play in notrump, partner should play it so that the lead comes up to his heart honor(s) instead of through them.

That brings us to 3C. If we bid 3C, partner with a heart stopper will probably bid 3NT (unless he has delayed 3-card support for spades - you probably shouldn't bid 3C if you're not ready for partner to show 3-card spade support.) He will bid 3NT with a dead minimum because your bid is forcing. You don't want to be in game with a dead minimum. In fact, most pairs play that a new suit at the three level in a non-competitive auction is forcing to game, because partner does frequently just bid 3NT. You can't afford to make a game-forcing bid with an invitational hand. So what can you bid?

We come back to that two-card support again. You can afford to bid an old suit at the three level as that describes your strength accurately. If partner passes, 3D will be a fine contract. If partner accepts the invitation, he might show 3-card spade support, or bid 3NT. If partner is worried about clubs, partner could bid 3H to show that hearts are stopped and you can bid 3NT. (Partner isn't showing a four-card heart suit here because you shouldn't have four hearts on this auction. With a invitational hand and four hearts, you could have rebid 2H. There is no sense in him looking for a fit if your side can't have it.)


6.

---

Hint: Your partner probably has five diamonds and four clubs. What is this hand worth?

Answer: When you first started the game, you probably learned to count your high-card points and perhaps points for length. You would have counted this hand as 12 points (11 HCP + 1 for the fifth spade) based on what you were told. And that's fine, you have to be told something in order to be able to function with very little knowledge.

If you've made it this far in this post, you should have learned something about how to evaluate your hand better than just counting HCP and length. First, your side has bid diamonds, spades, and clubs. What do you think the opponents are likely to lead? If partner does not have a heart honor, your ♥QJ might as well be the ♥32. Let's think about notrump for a minute. If your partner has two hearts, even if partner has the ace and they give you two hearts on the lead, you will likely have to give the lead up at least twice and the opponents will take three heart tricks as well as two others. It's much worse if partner's two hearts are the ♥Kx as you'll only get one heart trick with your combined six HCP and the opponents will take at least four.

Partner could have three hearts to an honor. If partner has the ♥A, the fact that your ♥QJ are doubleton will likely prevent him from any chance of getting three heart tricks, and even if partner has the best holding of ♥Kxx, the opponents still know to lead hearts and will establish at least one trick for themselves, and two tricks if the opponents' hearts aren't 4-4. Note that partner should have nine cards in the minors. If partner does have three hearts, partner has a singleton spade. While your ♠K and ♠J will provide stoppers, your spade suit won't produce many tricks and your spade length is probably worthless. Suffice it to say that your high cards are not in the right place opposite partner's minor suit oriented hand. While the HCP may say this hand is in the invitational hand, you should realize that this hand isn't good enough to invite. I would call this hand a minimum hand for responder and correct to 2D. If partner makes another move as opener (which should show about 17 points), I'll cooperate, but if partner can't invite game himself after my 2D rebid, we shouldn't have enough strength for game.

You might wonder about a possible 5-3 spade fit. If partner is 3-1-5-4, your ♥QJ aren't worth anything opposite partner's singleton, and if partner has a medium hand for opener, he can bid 2S himself and you won't miss your game.

[mycroft]

As usual, nice set.

All explanation here should be considered advanced.

Kaitlyn, I think, whether you play 4SF one round (or INV+) or game forcing (as in North America), the fact that you play it (as opposed to fourth suit NATURAL, forcing (because it's a new suit by responder) and likely showing extras) influences all of these hands simply by it being there.

For those of us who play 4SF to game, the fact that *any other bid short of game is NF* pulls a lot of the difficulty off these hands - they are more clearly invitational, but passable, for the failure to not start with 4SF.

I'll avoid the INV+ because I, too, don't have enough experience with that to determine the negative inferences.

For example, on 3, it's clear that 3♦ is invitational, not a strong, GF jump, because you didn't bid 2♠. It may be clear without it, too, but I don't know what you do do with a GF diamond raise then.

6 is a nightmare, and if they play 4SF invitational, this is clearly the time to pull it out. Partner will do the right thing, whatever the right thing is. Obviously, were I to be stronger - not that much stronger, in fact - I would do the same thing GF, and hope to tease out Txx from partner if I don't get Kxx. Of course, I'm biased, in that in my most common partnerships, 1=3=5=4 hands are *sound* if opened, and 2=2=5=4 hands are opened, or rebid, in NT, depending on range. Yes, that means that with that 2=2=5=4 15 count, it's going to go 1♦-1♠; 1NT-[note]-3NT (Note: IRL, we'd go through a side jaunt to attempt to find the 5-3 spade fit, but end up in the same place) and unless partner is 9-off-the-hoof with ♥Kx or ♥Ax, we're going down. But similarly, playing strong NT, it'll go 1NT-2♥; 2♠-3NT just as down (unless they double the transfer). With 26, I'll pay off to the games that don't make, though.

[Edit: sorry, got the name wrong. I really, really, shouldn't. I apologize.]

[Kaitlyn S]

 mycroft, on 2017-February-02, 16:16, said:

6 is a nightmare, and if they play 4SF invitational, this is clearly the time to pull it out. Partner will do the right thing, whatever the right thing is.

I think partner will overbid because you've overstated your hand. Kaplan-Rubens:

Value of Hand 6

shows that Hand 6 when dealt was worth 8.55 points (the Kleinmann evalutaion is 9) putting it squarely in the minimum category. This hand has only gotten worse when partner opened diamonds and rebid clubs. I would bid 2D unashamedly using any natural system thinking I had shown my full hand.

Your partners might have better opening bids than mine. I'd be afraid of going down in 3D, but at least it might be a good save against 2H.

[Cyberyeti]

4. I think partner can have 4 spades but it's unlikely, some people would rebid 2♦ with ♠Jxxx and 6 really good or any 7 diamonds, agree 2N.

5. I have an issue with, I'd really rather not play 3♦ opposite quite a few hands with 5 bad diamonds and 4 hearts, Ax, KQJx, Jxxxx, xx for example, there is no perfect solution, if you'd rebid 1N on that, you're going to end up in some silly spots when I don't have clubs

6. You need to know what partner opens if (31)45, something like Q, Kxx, Qxxx, AQxxx will often make 3N while 2♦ is very sub optimal, I'm not familiar with this style so don't know how you'd handle it (whether you just rebid 1N for example)

[Kaitlyn S]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-February-02, 17:20, said:

5. I have an issue with, I'd really rather not play 3♦ opposite quite a few hands with 5 bad diamonds and 4 hearts, Ax, KQJx, Jxxxx, xx for example, there is no perfect solution, if you'd rebid 1N on that, you're going to end up in some silly spots when I don't have clubs

I don't open this hand - even if I thought it was a borderline opener, I would pass because of the rebid issue. Since I think a 2D rebid shows six diamonds, if I had to fill in for someone else who opened the hand, I would rebid 1NT as 2D is quite likely to play in 2D on Jxxxx opposite a stiff or a small doubleton.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-February-02, 17:20, said:

6. You need to know what partner opens if (31)45, something like Q, Kxx, Qxxx, AQxxx will often make 3N while 2♦ is very sub optimal, I'm not familiar with this style so don't know how you'd handle it (whether you just rebid 1N for example)

Something like this? This seems like the perfect construction to make 2D look bad, and it assumes that partner opens 1D on four weakish diamonds and a decent five card club suit.

I'll gladly pay off to that one hand and that partner that opens 1D.

[mycroft]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-02, 17:15, said:

Your partners might have better opening bids than mine. I'd be afraid of going down in 3D, but at least it might be a good save against 2H.

Note that I said I might be biased by playing so much K/S (this bid is *SOUND* - K/S Updated says "Forcing. Strong rebid, like a reverse but does not promise long diamonds absolutely; guarantees a rebid." I don't play it that strong, but awful close :-). Also, partner doesn't have to bid 3♦ - she may bid 2♠ with 3=1=5=4, she may bid 3♣ with (21)5=5, she may bid 2NT with 1=3=5=4 a decent heart card and a minimum.

Yes, it's a bad 11. A really bad 11. As you said, closer to 9. But partner's 15 with ♥Kxx should have a great play for 3NT anyway, and really should respect your 2♦ call (which would would do with the same hand with no minor honours). Partner's 15 with ♥Txx has worse play, but hearts could break 4=4, it's happened before (especially with no heart overcall).

[Cyberyeti]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-02, 17:32, said:

I don't open this hand - even if I thought it was a borderline opener, I would pass because of the rebid issue. Since I think a 2D rebid shows six diamonds, if I had to fill in for someone else who opened the hand, I would rebid 1NT as 2D is quite likely to play in 2D on Jxxxx opposite a stiff or a small doubleton.

OK, make it Qxxxx, but in the UK with the weak no trump, most N/B will open 1♦ and rebid 2♦, it's just understood that this is 4♥/5+♦ or 6 diamonds

[Cyberyeti]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-02, 17:36, said:

Something like this? This seems like the perfect construction to make 2D look bad, and it assumes that partner opens 1D on four weakish diamonds and a decent five card club suit.

I'll gladly pay off to that one hand and that partner that opens 1D.

Partly depends pairs/teams, there are plenty of holdings where 3♣ is the spot at pairs if 1345 or 2♠ if 22(45). You're not going to find 2♠ unless you have a NFG 2♥ available.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-February-02, 18:11, said:

OK, make it Qxxxx, but in the UK with the weak no trump, most N/B will open 1♦ and rebid 2♦, it's just understood that this is 4♥/5+♦ or 6 diamonds

I am sure it is for Kaitlyn too. Compare

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-02, 13:51, said:

2.

---

Partner should have six clubs. You do have a club fit.

...with

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-February-02, 13:51, said:

3.

---

[color="#0000FF"]
However, with a good five-card club suit and a poor four-card diamond suit, partner should open 1C and rebid clubs anyway.

Some other points on these problems. It is certainly the case in many parts of the world and in some parts of America that Opener is either very reluctant to raise with 3 card support or even that it is absolutely taboo. This has knock-on effects to the rest of the bidding system. Part of this knock-on effect comes in the shape of 4th suit forcing. In SEF and Forum D, 4SF INV+ where this is below 2 of Responder's suit is absolutely part of the system and almost necessary because of the way the system works, in particular the choice never to allow a 3 card raise here.

That it is an essential part of the system in turn means that every beginner is taught it. Indeed, when I was teaching beginners Acol many moons ago, I taught them 4th suit forcing and did not meet the confusion that you see in your students. Perhaps that has something to do with teaching simple rules though - the fourth suit (from either player) is INV+ at the 2 level or GF at the 3 level. I would not claim that the beginners had such a complete understanding of the convention as to get the subtleties but certainly enough working knowledge to conduct a sensible auction. I think it is much more confusing to teach beginners one thing and then try to change it a little bit later on.

In any case, I think some of these hands are not easy and highly system-dependent. #1 is a textbook 2♥ in France or Germany but 2NT if that would be GF.

On #2 I think you are too quick to reject 2♦. Whether this is a good idea probably depends on how we play a third round 3♣. For many this will be a forcing club raise and therefore not possible. If it is only invitational though then this route seems preferable to a direct 3♣. Notice, as above, that your assertion of 6+ clubs is not right as xx45 is still in the picture. Again, exactly which hands can be held here depends on our agreements for Opener's 3 card raise. The more along the line towards SEF/Forum D we play the more appealing 2♦ becomes. Obviously, in the advanced (blue) section you might also mention the possibility of 2♦ artificial too, though that is fairly advanced.

2♠ on #3 is also interesting. This is actually GF in SEF and Forum D because it is higher than 2♥. In traditional Acol it is still INV+ though. In any case, 3♦ here seems clear enough. On the sub-topic of 3♠, by the simple rules I taught my beginners it is clearly an ask. Playing partial stop asks in some auctions is, for me, a more advanced method and the benefits of doing so are in any case more than questionable.

#4 is textbook, probably the only genuinely novice hand from the set.

I think #5 is very difficult. If I presented this hand to 100 B/I Acolites I would expect the top answer to be 2NT. This is one of those calls with the opposite effect to that of #2. Now the appeal becomes greater the further along the line we move away from SEF/Forum D. The point here is that if 4sF is GF, it is expected for 2NT to contian many hands without a stopper in the fourth suit and this needs to be taken into account by Opener. This is precisely the point that proponents of the methods conveniently forget to mention when explaining how much simpler it is for beginners than INV+. While this is not a 4SF situation (Opener rebid their suit) the same idea applies, making 2NT a good candidate. On this auction, if 3 card raises and a 1NT rebid with a singleton are frowned upon (as in SEF/Forum D) the increased possibility of 3451/1453/2452 should surely tip us in that direction over 3♦. If our style is to rebid 1NT with a singleton, raise with 3 card support and treat 2452 as balanced, the chances of partner holding 6 diamonds are greatly increased making 3♦ look more sensible. Truth be told, I suspect if we posted this hand in an international I/A/E forum we would see some disagreement on the correct auction and plenty of discussion so finding a perfect solution for N/B is asking a lot.

#6 is for me worth ~10 regardless of what KnR reports. If our opening bids are light, which is the more common style these days, then the invite range is typically 11-12 so going low (2♦) is more than reasonable. On the other hand if our opening bids are sound then 10s usually invite and treating this as 9 is just too large of a downgrade for me. If inviting, we come into the same discussion as for #1. In SEF and Forum D for example, where opening bids tend to be very conservative, I would expect an overwhelming vote for 2♥ here and I suspect the majority would consider it a WTP textbook call. The only other call to consider is 3♦, which is probably the best choice when playing both sounds openers and fourth suit forcing to game.

As I wrote earlier, to my mind these are fairly difficult hands. I would definitely re-classify this set as intermediate and if #4 were to be removed even I/A would be a reasonable label.

[Tramticket]

This is a good set of hands Kaitlyn, which has prompted some very good discussion (although possibly not helpful for novices). As others have noted, many of the answers will be system dependent.

In the UK very few players play the 4th suit as forcing to game (even players playing strong NT / 5-card majors, are still playing the 4SF as a one-round force). I'm a little unusual in that I prefer to play 4SF as forcing to game. Because this set of hands is focused on invitational strength hands, it is actually a good advert for the one round force method.

Many weaker players in the UK have a blind-spot that you won't find in the US. For these players, 2NT shows 11-12 AND a stop and the fourth suit shows 11-12 WITHOUT a stop (or sometimes they will describe it 11-12 and half a stop). They don't understand that 4SF can be used on so many other hands. I think that many players in the UK would handle Kaitlyn's hands pretty well - but fail to use 4SF (or mis-use it) in other situations.

[Tramticket]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-03, 04:35, said:

I think #5 is very difficult. If I presented this hand to 100 B/I Acolites I would expect the top answer to be 2NT. This is one of those calls with the opposite effect to that of #2. Now the appeal becomes greater the further along the line we move away from SEF/Forum D. The point here is that if 4sF is GF, it is expected for 2NT to contian many hands without a stopper in the fourth suit and this needs to be taken into account by Opener. This is precisely the point that proponents of the methods conveniently forget to mention when explaining how much simpler it is for beginners than INV+. While this is not a 4SF situation (Opener rebid their suit) the same idea applies, making 2NT a good candidate. On this auction, if 3 card raises and a 1NT rebid with a singleton are frowned upon (as in SEF/Forum D) the increased possibility of 3451/1453/2452 should surely tip us in that direction over 3♦. If our style is to rebid 1NT with a singleton, raise with 3 card support and treat 2452 as balanced, the chances of partner holding 6 diamonds are greatly increased making 3♦ look more sensible. Truth be told, I suspect if we posted this hand in an international I/A/E forum we would see some disagreement on the correct auction and plenty of discussion so finding a perfect solution for N/B is asking a lot.

I agree that #5 is very difficult for Acol. I would bid 2NT as a "least of all evils" bid and might even consider passing 2♦ at pairs.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-03, 04:35, said:

#4 is textbook, probably the only genuinely novice hand from the set.

That's funny, when I posted it, I expected people would think it was too easy compared to the other sets, and that it would be fairly non-controversial among the more experienced players.

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-03, 04:35, said:

Truth be told, I suspect if we posted this hand in an international I/A/E forum we would see some disagreement on the correct auction and plenty of discussion so finding a perfect solution for N/B is asking a lot.

I can see that now. However, I presume that players in the USA can see the benefits of 3D, and ACOL and SEF players can benefit from the discussion which pertains to them. I really would never have guessed that there was a natural system in which 2NT would be the correct bid with a small doubleton heart.

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-03, 04:35, said:

As I wrote earlier, to my mind these are fairly difficult hands. I would definitely re-classify this set as intermediate and if #4 were to be removed even I/A would be a reasonable label.

I thought that some of the other problem sets should be classified as intermediate or I/A, but when I asked, there seemed to be a slight preference to leaving the problems where they are. That being said, I believe that all these problems sets are difficult for my "intermediate" students.

 Tramticket, on 2017-February-03, 10:31, said:

This is a good set of hands Kaitlyn, which has prompted some very good discussion (although possibly not helpful for novices). As others have noted, many of the answers will be system dependent.

If the novices only pay attention to the discussion relevant to their system, it could be helpful.

[JLilly]

Does anyone (especially those outside of ACBLand) play FSF not forcing to game but forcing an invitation to game? This seems intermediate between a direct game-force and a simple one-round force. This is equivalent to the bidder of the fourth suit telling partner that the decision whether to go to game is the FSF bidder's. FSF already generally means, at a minimum, "tell me more about your hand, and I have the strength (broadly speaking) to force". Fourth-suit-forcing-to-invitation takes this a step further but short of FSF-to-game. So for Q1, 2H by responder would initiate a continuation of the auction that allowed responder to pass a close-to-"final boarding" non-artificial bid short of game.

[NickRW]

 JLilly, on 2017-April-13, 01:28, said:

Does anyone (especially those outside of ACBLand) play FSF not forcing to game but forcing an invitation to game?

A typical club player here in Acol land would think that FSF in a sequence such as 1D-1H-2C-2S (i.e. the fourth suit bid comes at the 2 level) if F1, not FG. You might think that is misguided, but it is common. (It certainly suits some invitational hands, but limits opener's options since a responding hand truly worth a game force is not guaranteed).

Nick