discussion at my local club

[mike777]

I got into a discussion at my local club and semi pickup partner at the local club over what is in "standard 2/1"

 

 

1) I stated I can live with there being no such thing as "standard 2/1" but if there is such a thing then:

2) Some version of Walsh(bidding a 4 card major before a 4 card or longer D) must be in standard 2/1, Walsh is the father of 2/1.

3) You cannot claim to play "standard 2/1" and that includes no Walsh.

 

 

Everyone we brought this up to at the club disagreed with me and agreed with my partner. :)

[han]

Shouldn't this be in the watercooler?

[jdonn]

Shouldn't this be in the watercooler?

I think this is the appropriate forum, despite how uninteresting and pointless I find the issue.

[matmat]

Shouldn't this be in the watercooler?

I think this is the appropriate forum, despite how uninteresting and pointless I find the issue.

i thought walsh was a football coach. what does that have to do with bridge?

[mike777]

I thought this was a real bridge question, sigh.

 

When I sit down at my local bridge club or online and we just say 2/1 and nothing else I assume Walsh. I stated what Walsh is if you read my OP.

 

If I should assume no Walsh ok that is my question. What should I assume is in 2/1 with little or no discussion?

 

I do not need sarcasm when I ask a honest bridge question here please. We are not all experts and think this is a nonissue. ty in advance for your replies.

[matmat]

I am pretty sure walsh is part of sayc.

[Guest Jlall]

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear or see it, does it make a sound?

[awm]

I don't think there is a such thing as "standard 2/1" per se. However, most detailed treatments of 2/1 bidding do seem to include walsh responses to 1♣. In particular, BBO Advanced includes walsh.

 

If I were to agree "2/1" with a good player without further discussion, I would assume walsh responses to 1♣ (i.e. bypass diamonds in order to bid a major unless holding GF values, after 1♣-1♦ opener bypasses major(s) to bid 1NT with any balanced shape).

 

Walsh responses to 1♣ are definitely not part of SAYC, which is up the line bidding. This is more clear cut, because SAYC is a specific system (admittedly not all sequences are specified, but there is a set of rules that does answer this specific question). On the other hand, "2/1" is a style, a general group of systems which includes methods such as BBO Advanced and the Hardy and Lawrence 2/1 styles, as well as other methods.

[jdonn]

When I sit down at my local bridge club or online and we just say 2/1 and nothing else I assume Walsh. I stated what Walsh is if you read my OP.

 

If I should assume no Walsh ok that is my question. What should I assume is in 2/1 with little or no discussion?

If online, I don't know but doubt it really matters. If in person, take the 5 minutes to figure out the basics of your system! If you had 30 seconds to devote to minor suit openings, I would assume this issue is important enough to be covered in that time.

 

I mean if people on the forums reach a 70-30 consensus you will still have no idea what your next random partner will assume. This is clearly no way to agree a system.

[Winstonm]

Mike, as with anything in bridge tracing the history of a modification to standard bidding is difficut if not impossible. The concept of 2/1 is in the use of 1NT forcing in order to create forcing 2/1 situations - Max Hardy popularized the Walsh methods in his book Western Scientific, while on the other coast they played Eastern Scientific, and in Dallas they play Aces Scientific.

 

So it appears to me that Walsh style depends on which "Weird Science" you believe in and whether or not you can create a real woman with your computer.

[han]

Edited.

[the hog]

I think that is a fair question. As far as I know, Walsh is not part of 2/1. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. I also think you don't need to play Walsh to play 2/1 effectively. (It is a nice add-on though).

[blackshoe]

I suppose it all depends what "is" means. :P

 

I don't think there is a single "2/1" system. 2/1 is a variant of Standard American (some call it "Modern American") wherein a 2 level response to a 1 level suit opening requires game going strength instead of the older standard of invitational strength. That is the significant difference between 2/1 and its predecessor Standard American. The forcing NT is simply a necessary adjunct to the change in meaning of the 2 level response.

 

I agree that you don't need to play Walsh to play 2/1 effectively. Still, I like Walsh, even though I'm not certain I fully understand all its ramifications.

 

IMO Romex is a 2/1 variant. It just has more strong openings. B)

[blackshoe]

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear or see it, does it make a sound?

I heard a variant:

If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still lying?

:P

[blackshoe]

I am pretty sure walsh is part of sayc.

From the ACBL's SAYC booklet:

Bidding at the one level is up-the-line in principle.

Here the booklet is speaking of responses to 1♣ or 1♦.

[Winstonm]

From the ACBL's SAYC booklet:

QUOTE 

Bidding at the one level is up-the-line in principle.

 

Here the booklet is speaking of responses to 1♣ or 1♦.

 

The ACBL booklet also says Dewey defeated Truman.

[han]

Winston I've written several times already that Hilary will completely destroy Iran if they nuke Israel but nobody seems to care. If you want to go ahead and vote for her then don't complain later if she decides to kill 70 million Iranians.

 

I also warned that this thread should be in the watercooler.

[zasanya]

The question asked was what should one assume when a pickup P announces 2/1.

I would assume 2/1 GF and forcing NT if unpassed hand and nothing else.

[ArtK78]

I was playing "Standard 2/1 " for years before I ever heard of Walsh.

 

Walsh is definitiely not part of Standard 2/1 and I would never assume that a pick-up partner was playing Walsh.

 

That is not to say that if you are 4-2-5-2 with a 6 count and partner opens 1♣ that you should not respond 1♠, as you can only take one call with those cards. Unless you have specified that you bid "up-the-line" regardless of strength, the "standard" call on those cards would be 1♠. But that has nothing to do with Walsh.

[blackshoe]

But that has nothing to do with Walsh.

Oh? :(

[ArtK78]

But that has nothing to do with Walsh.

Oh? :blink:

Yes. Oh.

 

It is standard practice among those who do not play Walsh that when a hand is worth only one bid one by-passes a 5 card diamond suit to bid a 4-card major.

[blackshoe]

Okay. How does this differ from Walsh?

[ArtK78]

Okay. How does this differ from Walsh?

It differs from Walsh in that opener will not routinely conceal a 4-card major over a 1♦ response with a balanced hand. Responder can bid 1♦ with less than game forcing values and a four card major.

 

However, with marginal responding values (typically 5-7 HCP) responder will by-pass a longer diamond suit to bid a major suit, as he intends to take one bid and one bid only.

 

For example, assume responder has 4-2-5-2 shape. Partner opens 1♣. If responder bids 1♦ and opener rebids 1♥, a 1♠ bid in standard bidding would show more than a bare minimum. So, responder, with a minimal responding hand, has a choice to make at his first call - by-pass the diamond suit to make his one call - 1♠ - or bid up-the-line, bidding both of his suits, and promise more values than he has.

[jdonn]

If responder bids 1♦ and opener rebids 1♥, a 1♠ bid in standard bidding would show more than a bare minimum.

Huh!?!?

[ArtK78]

If responder bids 1♦ and opener rebids 1♥, a 1♠ bid in standard bidding would show more than a bare minimum.

Huh!?!?

Doesn't anyone know old-fashioned Standard American anymore?

 

Taking two forcing calls shows more than taking one call. Check any basic Goren text from the 50s.