In the course of five days I twice encountered difficulty in responding to a fourth-suit forcing (FSF) bid by my partner. This bid, at least in the way that we play it, says nothing about the suit being bid, but it forces the partnership to the game level.

Here was the first situation. I held:

♠ 6 5  ♥ 10 9 5  ♦ A K 9 4  ♣ A K 5 4The bidding went:
1♦  1♥
2♣  2♠ (FSF)
?

The second hand was also a 4-4-3-2 hand. This time my suits were diamonds and spades:

♠ A J 7 3  ♥ 7 2  ♦ A Q J 2  ♣ 10 6 4Here was the bidding:
1♦  1♥
1♠  2♣ (FSF)
?

The priorities in responding to an FSF bid are well-established:

1. With a stopper in the fourth suit, bid no-trump.
2. With three-card support for partner’s suit, bid it.
3. Bid a suit in which you have extra length.

So, on the first hand, with no stopper in spades, my bid is obviously 3♥. My partner bid 4♦, which left me in a quandary. However, in this case, his FSF bid was a mistake. Here was his hand:

♠ A Q 7 3  ♥ A K Q 2  ♦ J 8 3 2 4  ♣ 7He envisioned a slam in diamonds, but in fact we belonged in no-trump. He should not have bid 2♠; he should have bid 3NT. He thought that he was too strong for this, but if I had had extras, I would have bid on. Not only would we have achieved a better result, his partner (myself) would have been spared the agony of trying to respond to that 4♦ call.

In the second case I made the wrong bid, and we ended up in a mess. My problem was that my hand did not fit any of the three priorities. I have subsequently learned that in that case the right bid is to repeat the fourth suit. This is a denial bid. It denies a stopper, three-card support for partner’s suit, and extra length. If I had known this, our auction would have been:
1♦  1♥
1♠  2♣ (FSF)
3♣  3♥ (Partner had six)
4♥  ?

We still might have ended up in an unmakeable slam, but at least I would have enjoyed being the dummy a lot more than I enjoyed playing 6♦.