how now?

[Guest Jlall]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

[jdonn]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

Well one reason it it's completely intuitive that for a reverse by either player the first suit is longer. Even regardless of that, you're saying responder bids up the line and opener doesn't? That seems really weird to me although I can't say I have a good reaosn why. So I guess I have two reasons, and neither one is a real reason :)

[Guest Jlall]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

Well one reason it it's completely intuitive that for a reverse by either player the first suit is longer. Even regardless of that, you're saying responder bids up the line and opener doesn't? That seems really weird to me although I can't say I have a good reaosn why. So I guess I have two reasons, and neither one is a real reason :)

I thought Walsh style is to bypass diamonds unless you have either an inv+ or gf+ hand (seems like some diverging views on which). Does this only apply for 4-5+, and walsh people ALWAYS bypass diamonds when they have only 4?

 

I thought the point of opener bypassing his majors over 1D is that partner only has a 4 card major if he has a strong hand, so you can still find the fit, and if he has a weaker hand you get to conceal your major suit holdings (and find better partials when opener is unbalanced since 1M guarantees an unbalanced hand). It doesn't seem inconsistent to me to bid 1D with 4-4 GF hands, and for opener to bypass his majors.

[mike777]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

I was taught no. You always start with one heart with 4-4 so for me this is 5-4 100%. But interesting question. On the flip side with 4-4 in the minors I open one diamond, not one club.

[rogerclee]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

Well one reason it it's completely intuitive that for a reverse by either player the first suit is longer. Even regardless of that, you're saying responder bids up the line and opener doesn't? That seems really weird to me although I can't say I have a good reaosn why. So I guess I have two reasons, and neither one is a real reason :)

I thought Walsh style is to bypass diamonds unless you have either an inv+ or gf+ hand (seems like some diverging views on which). Does this only apply for 4-5+, and walsh people ALWAYS bypass diamonds when they have only 4?

When I reverse I promise 5-4.

[Guest Jlall]

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

I was taught no. You always start with one heart with 4-4 so for me this is 5-4 100%. But interesting question.

Ty. I do not know walsh style very well heh.

[Halo]

3S looks sensible with an honour. Doesn't stop you playing 5D.

[jdonn]

Would 3♠ bidders also make that bid with KQx of spades and small singleton club? If the answer is no then fine, but if it's yes then you are really making a pointless bid.

[Halo]

Would 3♠ bidders also make that bid with KQx of spades and small singleton club? If the answer is no then fine, but if it's yes then you are really making a pointless bid.

The answer is no.

[mike777]

hmm what do I know so far on this hand?

1) partner has 4 or 5 clubs

2) partner has exactly 3d(no 1 d opener)

3) partner has 2-3 h

4) partner has 2-3 spades

5) partner is balanced

6) partner has 12-14 hcp.

 

time to try and come up with some hand examples where partner would rebid 3d but not 2nt:

[han]

I was playing with Roger and we have made no agreements. I suspect that he would have assumed 2-way checkback but 2H seemed practical.

 

I didn't know if he would bid 1NT with a 4-card major, I would. I definitely thought that he could have 4 spades when he bid 3D. I also thought 2H showed 5+ diamonds, interesting that Justin wonders if it could be 4 and Frances thinks it should be 6+.

 

I bid 3S over 3D, I don't know whether Roger thought this showed a fragment or worries about spades, obviously I intended it as worries.

 

Roger bid 3NT with something like Axx Axx Qxx Qxxx, maybe some spots. They lead a low spade but unfortunately opening leader didn't have the king. 3NT went down 2 I think.

 

At the other table Justin bid 5D with my hand which he made.

[kenrexford]

I thought Walsh was fairly standard in its interpretation.

 

Partner opens 1♣.

 

You bid 4-card majors in response. You bypass diamonds unless you have GF values, in which case you can bid diamonds if the diamonds are longer than the major. Thus, 1♦ denies a 4-card major unless Responder is GF. 1M does not deny four diamonds. With 4-4 in diamonds and a major, you bid the major first.

 

Opener, hearing 1♦, does not bid a major unless he is unbalanced.

 

Responder's second call, after first bidding 1♦, might be in a major. In that event, the diamonds are 5+. The major might be 3-card on rare occasion, as a convenience/tactical bid, but 4 is expected.

 

(If this is not Walsh, completely different.)

 

I don't get two-way checkback in this Walsh sequence. You are giving up the ability to declare 2♣, and maybe 2♦, to check on something that you cannot be interested in unless you have a reverse. So, why assume 2-way checkback here?

[mike777]

"I don't get two-way checkback in this Walsh sequence. You are giving up the ability to declare 2♣, and maybe 2♦, to check on something that you cannot be interested in unless you have a reverse. So, why assume 2-way checkback here?"

 

See my previous post for one possible answer to your question.

[the hog]

Pass is difficule to understand. I play a raise to 4♦ here as essentially forcing. But I am not good enough for 4♦, I am not going to bid 3NT if partner could only raise ♦, either hearts are singled stopped or more likley, spades are a problem.

 

So, I am simply going to bid 5♦. At  MPs I might try for 3NT,

I agree with this, pass in unphantomable. Just one note, that 4♦ would be interpreted as RKCB for diamonds in a lot of circles, so I would just bid 5D. It should have a play, unless there is too much spade wastage

"Unphantomable"? You have been reading too many Marvel comic books. (Ghost who walks.)

Pass is not unfathomable at all. Given the constrainst of the system you are apparently playing - no checkback and no blackout, partner has made the weakest bid possible with her 3D bid. Your Q of S is of indeterminate value. Given that you open on lightish based hands, 3D may well be your last + score.

With anything better pd would have bid 2S, maybe 2NT as blackout is not an option.

[benlessard]

With 4-4 in diamonds and a major, you bid the major first.

Not for me and the reason is simple.

 

If we compare the 2 possible way to show 44 GF in the red.

 

1C----1H

1Nt---2D

 

&

 

1C---1D

1Nt--2H

 

Option 1 is one step lower but GF isnt established and there are plenty of invitationnal hands that will follow this road, partner will often respond 2H or jump to 3H/3Nt to show a maximum hand giving me little room to reach the best game. Option 2 with GF already established is slightly more economical in the long road. Partner can bid 2Nt/3D knowing we wont pass.

 

The difference is minimal and its sure that both ways are both playable. So discussion is important.

[kenrexford]

Mike(777): I understand that theory. I still don't think you gain all that much. My own preference, perhaps, is to handle some of these hands through a 2♥ rebid, to allow for playing 2♣ in an auction where 2♣ is often a good contract, more so than usual, I think. But, I see some merits in what you suggest.

 

As to the general issues. I remain firmly convinced that an artificial GF (or a GF unless invitational with a club fit) 2♣ response to a 1♣ opening, showing many patterns with no five-card major, solves a lot of problems. With 5+♦/4major, still Walsh. But, these 4-4 jobs and such end up better handled through Golady, IMO.

 

But, that's another issue.

[mike777]

With 4-4 in diamonds and a major, you bid the major first.

Not for me and the reason is simple.

 

If we compare the 2 possible way to show 44 GF in the red.

 

1C----1H

1Nt---2D

 

&

 

1C---1D

1Nt--2H

 

Option 1 is one step lower but GF isnt established and there are plenty of invitationnal hands that will follow this road, partner will often respond 2H or jump to 3H/3Nt to show a maximum hand giving me little room to reach the best game. Option 2 with GF already established is slightly more economical in the long road. Partner can bid 2Nt/3D knowing we wont pass.

 

The difference is minimal and its sure that both ways are both playable. So discussion is important.

I am not sure I got what point you are making. With 4-4 I always bid hearts first, well lets say 99.99% with any hand type.

Playing 2 way checkback both of your example auctions are game forcing.

1) 2d is game force checkback

2) 2h is this thread.

 

I always understood that playing Walsh makes bidding major suit or nt auctions easier at the cost of a few in theory diamond fits.

[mike777]

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through 2 way checkback.

 

 

1c=1h

1nt=2c=(invite checkback)

2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)

?

[matmat]

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through 2 way checkback.

 

 

1c=1h

1nt=2c=(invite checkback)

2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)

?

if you're putting together an invitational sequence, i think opener rebids 2d not 2h. but whatever.

[mike777]

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through  2 way checkback.

 

 

1c=1h

1nt=2c=(invite checkback)

2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)

?

if you're putting together an invitational sequence, i think opener rebids 2d not 2h. but whatever.

opener has 3 hearts so they must rebid hearts over 2c in checkback not 2d.

 

 

even if playing xyz this is a debate.......is 2d forced over 2c or is 2h forced. I have seen both. In fact I play 2h is forced not 2d..... But here i assume checkback not xyz.

 

My main point was this is a really tough hand very hard. I offer not one but two checkback auctions where you may reach 5D but I think this is hard.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure about the terminology, but I usually play that you bypass diamonds only with a hand that isn't worth an invitation. With an invitational or better hand you bid your suits in a natural order, including bidding a four-card diamond suit if it seems sensible.

 

In this style, which is fairly common in England, responder might have either an invitational or a game-forcing hand with a four-card major. It therefore makes sense to distinguish between the two.

 

I don't understand Ken's (kenrexford's) comment abut not being able to play in 2♦. Doesn't "two-way checkback" include a 2♣ bid that forces 2♦?

[whereagles]

Seems like a simple 3NT now. 3♠ if you're the sort of person worried of stoppers.

[Fluffy]

On my partnership I would bid 3♥, 3♠ would say I need some help in this suit, 3♥ means I have spades wide open.

 

With no agreements it seems like 3♠ looks like a good choice, whatever partner thinks it means you almost have it.

 

BTW 2♥ is 100% GF except for a passed hand.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand Ken's (kenrexford's) comment abut not being able to play in 2♦. Doesn't "two-way checkback" include a 2♣ bid that forces 2♦?

Well, sure. If you play that version. But, then you still lose the ability to play 2♣.