discussion at my local club

[pclayton]

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

And what is the sound of one Mike posting?

[matmat]

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

Huh!?!?

confused...

 

what do you do with

 

Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx

 

when bidding "up the line" which is what sayc does?

[ArtK78]

If you bid "up-the-line," then you must bid 1♦.

 

I would bid 1♠. I don't bid "up-the-line" with a 6 count. I make my one bid - 1♠ - and then pass the first non-forcing call that my partner makes.

 

I would bid 1♠ with Kxxx xx Kxxxx xx.

 

I cannot tell you why the SAYC book says that bidding "up-the-line" is part of SAYC. It is certainly not part of Standard American.

[jdonn]

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.

Sorry I wasn't alive then. Feel free to show me a single text from any time period that claims that 1♠ bid shows anything over a bare minimum (other than any who play it as 4SF).

[han]

From Barry Shippert's constructive bidding in contract bridge:

 

The reader should take note that the constructive auction one of clubs, one of diamonds, one of hearts, one of spades shows more than the minimum number of Milton working points necessary to respond to one clubs. The responding player should be cautious to make two forcing calls without the values to do so.

 

I'd fax you the pages but I'm afraid my book would fall apart.

[jdonn]

From Barry Shippert's constructive bidding in contract bridge:

 

The reader should take note that the constructive auction one of clubs, one of diamonds, one of hearts, one of spades shows more than the minimum number of Milton working points necessary to respond to one clubs. The responding player should be cautious to make two forcing calls without the values to do so.

 

I'd fax you the pages but I'm afraid my book would fall apart.

lol

[Winstonm]

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.

Don't worry, Han. I know a good excorcist.

[blackshoe]

Truscott, in The Bidding Dictionary, says that in the uncontested sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, the last bid shows 4 (possibly 3) spades, 3 or fewer hearts, 4 or more diamonds (possibly 3), and no more than 4 clubs. It shows 6+ HCP, unlimited. This last suggests to me that the "unlimited" bit is what makes the bid forcing. :unsure:

[blackshoe]

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.

A Walsh player who hears his partner respond 1♥ to his 1♣ opener knows that responder may hold 4 or 5 (or maybe 6) diamonds if he is weak (6-9 HCP). Playing your method, opener hearing that response knows the same thing. While I grant you there are different inferences in the two systems on other auctions, we weren't talking about other auctions, we were talking about this one. Hence my earlier response. :unsure:

 

Of the auction 1♣-1♦, Truscott (The Bidding Dictionary) says

D4 together with H4 or S4 is common, but most experts bid the major if the suit is strong and the hand weak. (Most experts are willing to conceal a 5 card diamond suit to show a major when weak.)

 

It seems reasonable to say that bypassing a 4 or 5 card diamond suit to bid a 4 card major when weak does not imply that one is playing Walsh - but it doesn't deny it, either. B)

[the hog]

Art, I think you are wrong on this.

My understanding is that playing Walsh

You bid the Major bypassing Ds ONLY if the hand is not good enough to force to game by the natural 2m bid.

 

What you are describing sounds like MAFIA, not Walsh to me.

[peachy]

I am pretty sure walsh is part of sayc.

I'm sure it isn't.

 

While I am sure (and my experience confirms this, not that my experience is any yardstick to measure things but...) most 2/1 players include Walsh, without discussion.

[ArtK78]

Truscott, in The Bidding Dictionary, says that in the uncontested sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, the last bid shows 4 (possibly 3) spades, 3 or fewer hearts, 4 or more diamonds (possibly 3), and no more than 4 clubs. It shows 6+ HCP, unlimited. This last suggests to me that the "unlimited" bit is what makes the bid forcing. :)

The unlimited part of the definition is, indeed, what makes it forcing. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited.

 

I don't understand the significance of this comment. I can only say that in Standard, a new suit by responder is forcing and unlimited.

[ArtK78]

Art, I think you are wrong on this.

My understanding is that playing Walsh

You bid the Major bypassing Ds ONLY if the hand is not good enough to force to game by the natural 2m bid.

 

What you are describing sounds like MAFIA, not Walsh to me.

I don't see anything that you said that is different than what I said.

 

And I am not wrong on this.

 

In many auctions, a Standard bidder and a Walsh bidder will make the same first response. But the inferences are different. All the partner of the Standard responder knows is that his partner has a diamond suit of 4 or more cards and 6 or more HCP. The Standard responder may or may not have one or two 4-card majors. The partner of the Walsh responder knows that if responder has one or two 4-card majors he also has game forcing values.

 

The main difference between a Standard auction and a Walsh auction start with opener's rebid. Playing Walsh, opener with a balanced hand with one or both 4 card majors will bid 1NT over 1♣ - 1♦, as he knows that he cannot miss a 4-4 major suit fit since if there is one responder will bid again. A Standard bidder will bid 1♥, since there is no guarantee that responder will bid again even if he has one or both 4-card majors.

[blackshoe]

Truscott, in The Bidding Dictionary, says that in the uncontested sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, the last bid shows 4 (possibly 3) spades, 3 or fewer hearts, 4 or more diamonds (possibly 3), and no more than 4 clubs. It shows 6+ HCP, unlimited. This last suggests to me that the "unlimited" bit is what makes the bid forcing. :)

The unlimited part of the definition is, indeed, what makes it forcing. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited.

 

I don't understand the significance of this comment. I can only say that in Standard, a new suit by responder is forcing and unlimited.

"It is unlimited, therefore it is forcing."

"It is forcing, therefore it is unlimited."

 

Which is it?

 

If you play Walsh, the responder's second bid in 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ shows a mininum of 10 points, not six, because with 6-9, responder would have started with 1♠ over 1♣. Unless, perhaps, responder is 5=6, intending to rebid spades on the third round. At least, that's how I understand it. :unsure:

[helene_t]

I think there is no such thing as a pink elephant.

 

However, if there were pink elephants, I am pretty sure that they would

- Have 46 autosomes

- Be pregnant for 14 months

- Produce milk with 3.9% lactose, 0.2% other carbs, 2.6% protein and 2.2% lipids.

- Get upset by the sight of a purple mouse but ignore orange mice alltogether.

 

I feel strongly about this issue.

[the hog]

I think there is no such thing as a pink elephant.

 

However, if there were pink elephants, I am pretty sure that they would

- Have 46 autosomes

- Be pregnant for 14 months

- Produce milk with 3.9% lactose, 0.2% other carbs, 2.6% protein and 2.2% lipids.

- Get upset by the sight of a purple mouse but ignore orange mice alltogether.

 

I feel strongly about this issue.

?

 

Too much Old Theakstone, Helene?

 

Art, quite right. I re read your original posts. I was under the misapprehension that you said a Walsh player will always bypass Ds. Sorry.

[ArtK78]

Truscott, in The Bidding Dictionary, says that in the uncontested sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, the last bid shows 4 (possibly 3) spades, 3 or fewer hearts, 4 or more diamonds (possibly 3), and no more than 4 clubs. It shows 6+ HCP, unlimited. This last suggests to me that the "unlimited" bit is what makes the bid forcing. :D

The unlimited part of the definition is, indeed, what makes it forcing. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited.

 

I don't understand the significance of this comment. I can only say that in Standard, a new suit by responder is forcing and unlimited.

"It is unlimited, therefore it is forcing."

"It is forcing, therefore it is unlimited."

 

Which is it?

 

If you play Walsh, the responder's second bid in 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ shows a mininum of 10 points, not six, because with 6-9, responder would have started with 1♠ over 1♣. Unless, perhaps, responder is 5=6, intending to rebid spades on the third round. At least, that's how I understand it. :)

This is silly.

 

It is forcing and unlimited.

 

This is not a chicken and egg problem.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I've just reread Hardy's "Bidding for the 21st Century" books, and he suggests that a 1♠ rebid by responder is FSF. :D

 

Art, you want silly? You said, in effect, "it is forcing because it is unlimited. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited." That makes no sense. I believe it's called circular reasoning.

[han]

Strongly disagree Helene.

[ArtK78]

Heh. I've just reread Hardy's "Bidding for the 21st Century" books, and he suggests that a 1♠ rebid by responder is FSF. :blink:

 

Art, you want silly? You said, in effect, "it is forcing because it is unlimited. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited." That makes no sense. I believe it's called circular reasoning.

Let me try this again. Apparently, I am not being clear.

 

IT IS FORCING AND UNLIMITED.

 

All of my statements are true. It is just a question of whether you want to emphasize a rule (it is forcing) or the properties of the bid (it is unlimited).

 

Obviously, if it is unlimited, it must be forcing. The fact that it is forcing doesn't necessarily imply that it is unlimited, but who cares?

 

My statements were not circular. If you think they are, then you are not thinking clearly.

 

Is that clear enough for you?

[Winstonm]

Art, I think you are wrong on this.

My understanding is that playing Walsh

You bid the Major bypassing Ds ONLY if the hand is not good enough to force to game by the natural 2m bid.

 

What you are describing sounds like MAFIA, not Walsh to me.

Ron,

 

I think you are dead right but describing "original" Walsh - there have been many bastardizations of it since inception.

 

I would actually be interested in knowing if in the original version if this sequence was considered forcing or not: 1C-1D-1H-2H or (1S-2S), or can it be made on 3-card support and invitational strength. I was taught back in Santa Barbara in 19..achew...that this was forcing.

 

But then I've always believed a strength of Walsh was in removing that abomination called 4th suit forcing from the card for the most part - but I wouldn't be biased now, would I?

[blackshoe]

Apparently not, but then it's way past my bed time. Never mind, it's not worth arguing about. :P