What does this bidding show

[DWM]

Had this sequance last night and wondered what sort of hand opener has shown.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

 

Our system is a fairly basic 2/1. However, we do use checkback staymen if that makes any difference.

[P_Marlowe]

Game try for spades, similar to

1S - 2S, keep it simple.

 

Checkback stayman has no relevance

to the given seq.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[DWM]

If it is a game try for spades what is the difference between

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

3S

 

and

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

what would be the difference between

 

1S - 2S

3S

 

and

 

1S - 2S

2NT

 

assuming you dont play the first as "blocking"?

One option is to play the first seq. as trial bid

asking about trump suit quality, the second seq.

as general trial.

 

If you play Romex Trial bids (?!), i.e. have the

option to make a short suit and a long suit trial

bid, 2NT would be the relais, and 3S what ever.

I dont play Romex Trial bids.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[firmit]

(basic 2/1) (..) what sort of hand opener has shown.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

If playing Walsh, opener has shown 5♣ + 4♠, and denied a balanced hand. Given the fact that you bid 2♠, you should have at least 4-4 in the majors and just below a GF hand.

 

2NT is a relay asking for furher information, and should be somewhere in the range of 14-17 hp. If no agreement, support partners clubs with 3 cards or rebid hearts with 5. If no other bids, bid 4♠ with max or sign-off in 3♠. ( that's what I would do... but I am not an expert )

 

Normally, I would think 2NT is a short game-trial for spades - asking you to bid a short suit.

[SoTired]

For B/I - 2N is a game-try. With a pickup partner, I would assume a balanced hand game-try. Unless responder raised on only 3♠, responder should bid 3S or 4S depending on min/max strength. 2S shows about 6-10, so with 6-8 responder bids 3S and with 8-10 responder bids 4S. I would also bid 4S if the hand had a singleton regardless of strength.

[jtfanclub]

Had this sequance last night and wondered what sort of hand opener has shown.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

I admit it, I play 2NT as "You really do have your bid, right? Just making sure".

 

My partners have a tendency to Raise on Air, which is more of a philosophy than a system. Partner could have 4-5 spades and a 6 count, or 3 spades and a singleton club (or he could even be scared to bid NT with wide open diamonds, fearing that he'll kill my stopper).

 

So the 2NT shows a balanced 18 count or so. Yeah, maybe that's a 3NT bid, but I'm not into punishing partner for a ROA. But I'm getting the feeling that this isn't standard.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

3S for me would show 5.

[pclayton]

(basic 2/1) (..) what sort of hand opener has shown.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

If playing Walsh, opener has shown 5♣ + 4♠, and denied a balanced hand. Given the fact that you bid 2♠, you should have at least 4-4 in the majors and just below a GF hand.

 

2NT is a relay asking for furher information, and should be somewhere in the range of 14-17 hp. If no agreement, support partners clubs with 3 cards or rebid hearts with 5. If no other bids, bid 4♠ with max or sign-off in 3♠. ( that's what I would do... but I am not an expert )

 

Normally, I would think 2NT is a short game-trial for spades - asking you to bid a short suit.

Walsh doesn't address this sequence; only 1♣ - 1♦ - 1 major.

 

You can choose to play 1♠ as unbalanced if you want, but most play that it doesn't deny a balanced hand.

[firmit]

If playing Walsh, opener has shown 5♣ + 4♠, and denied a balanced hand. Given the fact that you bid 2♠, you should have at least 4-4 in the majors and just below a GF hand.

Walsh doesn't address this sequence; only 1♣ - 1♦ - 1 major.

 

You can choose to play 1♠ as unbalanced if you want, but most play that it doesn't deny a balanced hand.

 

I play a 4+ base system, as many in Norway (and Denmark where I live) do. With xy-nt, using 1x-1y-1z shows 5x+4z, and 1x-1y-1NT is a balanced hand and denies a 5x-4z/y distribution ( may be singelton in y ). However, it is also easily adapted into 5c major...

 

Maybe it is wrong to label this as Walsh - but I don't know another name for it.

[Fluffy]

In France, Spain, Portugal... Walsh adresses only for 1♣-1♦-1M

1m-1♥-1♠ can still be minimum balanced.

 

Neverming, on the squence 1x-1♠-2♠ anything you bid but pass promises an unbalanced hand because you would open 1NT otherwise.

[whereagles]

I used to think that it was correct to bid

 

1m 1♥

1♠

 

with the balanced 12-14 hand. But not anymore. Now I prefer to bypass a 4-card spade suit and give priority to showing shape & strength with 1NT.

[Gerben42]

I used to think that it was correct to bid

 

1m 1♥

1♠

 

with the balanced 12-14 hand. But not anymore. Now I prefer to bypass a 4-card spade suit and give priority to showing shape & strength with 1NT.

 

Both schools have their advantages and disadvantages. None of these factors are large enough to lose sleep about.

[SoTired]

I have been told, quite emphatically, that playing Walsh, 1m 1H 1S should be 5-4 and that 1m 1H 1N could bypass a 4-card spade suit.

 

Personally, I think this is an extension to Walsh, but have been beaten around the head that it is part of Walsh and the best way to play it.

 

I will believe my expert. (But I will still open 1M with 5-card major instead of 1N... I don't care what the expert fad is :rolleyes:)

[pclayton]

I have been told, quite emphatically, that playing Walsh, 1m 1H 1S should be 5-4 and that 1m 1H 1N could bypass a 4-card spade suit.

 

Personally, I think this is an extension to Walsh, but have been beaten around the head that it is part of Walsh and the best way to play it.

 

I will believe my expert. (But I will still open 1M with 5-card major instead of 1N... I don't care what the expert fad is :rolleyes:)

Here's the rub:

 

After 1♣; responder has the 'option' of bypassing 1♦ to directly show a weaker hand with a 4 card major. After 1♣ - 1♦, opener can comfortably show the nature of his hand by bidding 1N, knowing that if responder has extra values and a 4 card major, that responder can reverse (or checkback, or whatever) to unearth the 4-4 fit.

 

After 1♦..responder doesn't have that option.

 

There are pairs that bypass 4 spades after 1♦ - 1♥ to show a balanced hand, but this is a poor treatment IMO, since its easy for a 4-4 spade to get buried unless responder has at least an invitational hand.

 

By the way, many of the people who I've discussed this sequence were some of the original contributors to Walsh, so I feel comfortable telling you in a nice, emphatic way that 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ is not Walsh :).

[Apollo81]

Had this sequance last night and wondered what sort of hand opener has shown.

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2S

2NT

 

Our system is a fairly basic 2/1.  However, we do use checkback staymen if that makes any difference.

I'd say 4135 ish with strong diamonds.

[peaceman]

If u hav made the (not uncommon) agreement that 1 sp is forcing in this sequence, then 2nt is likely 18-19 bal, with sp too good to bypass...

 

If not, 16-18 semi-balanced with good clubs 4-2-2-5, or 4-1-3(2)-4(5) having

at least one di stopper (sometimes, even with a 4-4 major fit it is worth while to play at the three level -- missing 4 top tricks & nothing else -- so I take this sequence as sniffing for the best of 3 sp, 3NT, or 4 sp contracts.)

 

2NT should not be passed here, because it is logically implausible that opener could be running away from his own bid suit when responder has supported it freely.

[mikeh]

If u hav made the (not uncommon) agreement that 1 sp is forcing in this sequence, then 2nt is likely 18-19 bal, with sp too good to bypass...

 

If not, 16-18 semi-balanced with good clubs 4-2-2-5, or 4-1-3(2)-4(5) having

at least one di stopper (sometimes, even with a 4-4 major fit it is worth while to play at the three level -- missing 4 top tricks & nothing else -- so I take this sequence as sniffing for the best of 3 sp, 3NT, or 4 sp contracts.)

 

2NT should not be passed here, because it is logically implausible that opener could be running away from his own bid suit when responder has supported it freely.

It may be 'not uncommon' to play that 1♠ was forcing, but that is not to say that it is the norm, nor that (most players) find it playable: I, for one, would refuse to play it as forcing: I tend to respond to 1minor with very light hands, expecting partner to jump shift with gf values or to bid a non-forcing 2N with the range between my (strong or strongish) 1N and a 2N opener.. 18-19 if playing 15-17.

 

As for the posted sequence, I hate to say 'it depends', but the answer is 'it depends'.

 

You can certainly have an agreement that this is a relay: akin to a 'not uncommon' treatment of 1 minor 1major 2major 2N: by responder, asking about trump length and quality of hand.

 

Or you could usefully play 2N as a natural game try: probably a 5431 with a stiff in responder's first suit or a 4=2=2=5 and approximately 17 hcp or so...

 

As another note: assume partner opened 1♣, you bid 1♥ and he bids 1♠, catching you with KQx Kxxxx xxx Qx: your bid?

 

You can hardly rebid 2♥ even if partner could have a balanced hand, and if he promises some shape, as is increasingly common (even BWS says that this sequence promises 8+ black cards, I believe), 2♥ is highly likely to be a 5-1 or worse fit. You can't bid 1N nor 2♣ and you hold too much to pass. My solution would be to raise to 2♠...

 

So we can see a need or a use for a natural 2N here, and that you be my choice.

[SoTired]

<...>

So we can see a need or a use for a natural 2N here, and that you be my choice.

and also game invitational.... About 16-17 (i am sure mike implied it, but i did not see that specifically mentioned in the post)

[pclayton]

I suppose you could use a specific game try here, but after 2 bids, I would think 2N is just patterning out and shows 4=2=2=5 15-17. With a more balanced hand, Opener opens 1N. With a fragment, Opener bids 3 red. With a stronger hand, opener either should have jump shifted on the prior round, or should bid 3N now.

[redbird97]

I would guess partner has a balanced hand with a NT opener that may have had some flaw to it 4-2-2-5 shape perhaps with good diamonds and poor spades?