Walsh-style rebids after 1m opening

[sathyab]

Bypassing ♦s in favor of a major when partner opens 1♣ is quite popular. The opener can suppress his major or majors when balanced and rebid 1nt. This is perfectly safe as responder can rebid ♦s, go back to ♣s or bid a major when interested in game.

 

But can you afford to suppress ♠s in a 1m-1♥ auction ? Now the responder can easily pass and you will miss a ♠ fit whenever responder was 4-4 or 4-5 with a moderate hand.

[655321]

Yes, in this style balanced hands open or rebid notrumps.

So a 1NT rebid can include a 4 card spade suit, and yes, when responder does not have enough to move over 1NT, you will miss a 4-4 spade fit.

 

But, although finding the spade fit might well be better, in practice 1NT is often a reasonable contract too. So the downside of this method is small - there needs to be a 4-4 spade fit, responder has to be limited, and spades has to make 2 more tricks than 1NT.

 

The gain of this style is that when opener does rebid 1♠, his hand is known to be unbalanced.

 

I have played both ways (1NT denies holding 4 card ♠, and balanced hands must rebid 1NT not 1♠), and both methods are perfectly playable.

[han]

Both methods have their weak points. I prefer to bid 1S unless I'm 4333 so that I have the disadvantages of both.

[kenrexford]

the downside of this method is small - there needs to be a 4-4 spade fit, responder has to be limited, and spades has to make 2 more tricks than 1NT.

I would add an "also." Missing that spade contract on the rare occasion where it exists and scores much better than 1NT and Responder is limited usually also occurs when the opponents do not compete over 1NT in a diamond fit that would often justify entering the 3-level. Thus, when 1NT passes out for +90 and we could have been +140 we might have had a tough decision whether to bid that 3♠ contract, with only eight trumps, after a likely 3♦ bid by the opponents.

[pclayton]

Both methods have their weak points. I prefer to bid 1S unless I'm 4333 so that I have the disadvantages of both.

I would consider this approach 'expert standard' in the States.

[gnasher]

The risk of missing a spade fit worries me a lot more at matchpoints than at IMPs, because at matchpoints a one-trick difference between the contracts makes a big difference, whereas at IMPs it doesn't.

 

Everyone I play with thinks it important that 1♣-1♥-1♠ should promise an unbalanced hand, but I'm not sure why it's a big deal. With the opponents silent and the bidding still very low, if responder needs to know how many clubs his partner has it should be possible to find out. There are several other auctions - eg 1♣-1♥-2♥ or 1♣-1♠-1NT - where it's uncertain whether opener has real clubs, and we live with those.

[gnasher]

I did a simulation (code below) with the conditions:

  Opener is 12-14 balanced without four hearts

  Responder is 5-10 with exactly 4-4 in the majors

 

A 4-4 spade fit existed about 1/3 of the time. On about 85% of these hands, the opponents had a minor-suit fit. Obviously, this doesn't tell us anything about how many tricks are makable in any of these contracts, but it suggests to me that Ken's "rare occasion where it exists and scores much better than 1NT" is an overbid, but the point about the opponents competing in a minor is a good one.

 

Edit: See my later post for some more meaningful results. Tricky things, simulations.

 

source format/none

# Counters
set Has_4S 0
set And_EW_Have_Fit 0

main {
[space]if {[hearts north] != 4 || [spades north] != 4 || [hcp north] < 5 || [hcp north] > 10 || 
[space] [space] [space]! [balanced south] || [hcp south] < 12 || [hcp south] > 14 || [hearts south] > 3} {
[space] [space]reject
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]if {[spades south] == 4} {
[space] [space]incr Has_4S

[space] [space]if { [clubs west] + [clubs east] > 7 || [diamonds west] + [diamonds east] > 7} {
[space] [space] [space]incr And_EW_Have_Fit
[space] [space] [space]}
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]accept
}

deal_finished {
[space]puts " Opener has 4 spades [space] [space] [space] [space]$Has_4S"
[space]puts " And EW have a fit [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$And_EW_Have_Fit"
}

Edited July 17, 2008 by gnasher

[655321]

This analysis is from responder's point of view - i.e. when responder has the 4 card spade suit and not enough strength, partner's 1NT rebid will lose a spade fit around 1/3 of the time.

 

What are the odds from opener's point of view? i.e. Opener holds a 4 card spade suit in a hand otherwise suitable for rebidding 1NT, how often does partner have 5-10 points with 44 (or 45) in the majors?

[gnasher]

What are the odds from opener's point of view? i.e. Opener holds a 4 card spade suit in a hand otherwise suitable for rebidding 1NT, how often does partner have 5-10 points with 44 (or 45) in the majors?

Responder is 4-4: 14%

Responder is 4-5: 6%

Either of the above, and EW have a C/D fit : 18%

 

I excluded hands where responder has 6+ hearts, because 1NT will get us to 2♥, which may be better than spades anyway.

 

source format/none

# Counters
set Has_44 0
set Has_45 0
set And_EW_Have_Fit 0

main {
[space]if {[hearts north] < 4 || [hearts north] > 5 || [spades north] > 4 || [hcp north] < 5 || [hcp north] > 10 || 
[space] [space] [space]! [balanced south] || [hcp south] < 12 || [hcp south] > 14 || [hearts south] > 3 || [spades south] != 4} {
[space] [space]reject
[space] [space]}
[space] [space]
[space]if {[spades north] == 4} {
[space] [space]if {[hearts north] == 4} {
[space] [space] [space]incr Has_44
[space] [space] [space]}

[space] [space]if {[hearts north] == 5} {
[space] [space] [space]incr Has_45
[space] [space] [space]}

[space] [space]if { [clubs west] + [clubs east] > 7 || [diamonds west] + [diamonds east] > 7} {
[space] [space] [space]incr And_EW_Have_Fit
[space] [space] [space]}
[space] [space]}
[space]
[space]accept
}

deal_finished {
[space]puts " Responder is 4-4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] $Has_44"
[space]puts " Responder is 4-5 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] $Has_45"
[space]puts " And EW have a fit [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]$And_EW_Have_Fit"
}

[Finch]

What are the odds from opener's point of view? i.e. Opener holds a 4 card spade suit in a hand otherwise suitable for rebidding 1NT, how often does partner have 5-10 points with 44 (or 45) in the majors?

Responder is 4-4: 14%

Responder is 4-5: 6%

Either of the above, and EW have a C/D fit : 18%

Any decent method after a 1NT rebid should get you to the spade fit when responder is 4-5 in the majors.

[655321]

Any decent method after a 1NT rebid should get you to the spade fit when responder is 4-5 in the majors.

My favorite method doesn't find the spade fit.

 

I can sign off in 2♦, 2♥ or 3♣, but other bids are either invitational (after 2♣ puppet to 2♦), or game forcing. So with less than an invitational hand I have to play 1NT instead of 2♠.

[gnasher]

My favorite method doesn't find the spade fit.

Me too. Frances, what's your secret?

 

I can sign off in 2♦, 2♥ or 3♣, but other bids are either invitational (after 2♣ puppet to 2♦), or game forcing. So with less than an invitational hand I have to play 1NT instead of 2♠.

I'd play in 2♥. If opener has three hearts I want to be in 2♥; if he has two, either 1NT or 2♥ could be better; if he has only one, he is specifically 3145 with moderate clubs. Besides, if you pass 1NT with this shape you risk missing two eight-card major suit fits.

[kenrexford]

I also cannot get to spades if Responder has 4♠/5♥, unless perhaps the opponents intervene. I'd bid 2♥ to play.

 

That said, I would often bid 1♠ with gnasher's 3145.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago, when I first played Walsh style responses, I was told that it was "Standard Walsh" to rebid 1♠ with 4 spades if the auction started 1m-1♥.

 

Since then, I have not seen anyone advocate otherwise.

[Finch]

There are loads and loads of different possible methods after a 1NT rebid. In fact you usually find that there are so many sequences that you have more sequences than hand types, so all you need to do is assign one of them to 4/5 in the majors.

 

The main point is that you do need to play slightly different methods after 1m - 1H - 1NT and 1m - 1S - 1NT as responder's possible major suit holdings are different.

 

In one partnership, playing 2-way checkback, we play

1m - 1H - 1NT - 2C - 2D (forced) - 2H as 4 spades and 5 hearts. This does mean that invites with 5 hearts have to bid ...2C - 2D - 2NT... but that's not exactly a disaster.

 

In the other partnership, we play

1m - 1H - 1NT - 2H as weak with 4 spades and 5 hearts

(responder bids 2D xfer to play in 2H). This allows us to keep ...2C - 2D - 2H as a light invite with 5 hearts, and ...2D - 2H - 2NT as a strong invite.

 

Personally I would not ever rebid 1NT on a 3145, so it's not a problem for me. But if I did I would be happy with the aboev method.

 

None of this solves the problem when responder is 4-4 in the majors, of course.

[MickyB]

Any decent method after a 1NT rebid should get you to the spade fit when responder is 4-5 in the majors.

 

In the other partnership, we play

1m - 1H - 1NT - 2H as weak with 4 spades and 5 hearts

(responder bids 2D xfer to play in 2H). This allows us to keep ...2C - 2D - 2H as a light invite with 5 hearts, and ...2D - 2H - 2NT as a strong invite.

 

Personally I would not ever rebid 1NT on a 3145, so it's not a problem for me. But if I did I would be happy with the aboev method.

 

None of this solves the problem when responder is 4-4 in the majors, of course.

1m - 1H - 1NT - 2H as weak with 4 spades and 5 hearts

(responder bids 2D xfer to play in 2H).  This allows us to keep ...2C - 2D - 2H as a light invite with 5 hearts, and ...2D - 2H - 2NT as a strong invite.

 

Precisely. Except I prefer transfer extensions, so ...2D - 2H - 2NT shows clubs.

 

I'm much more comfortable playing 1S promises an unbal hand, never really given much thought to which is superior until now though.

 

It's best to have unbalanced hands describe themselves to a balanced partner. If 1S can be either balanced or unbalanced, it's difficult to get this to happen. If you bid 1S on unbalanced hands and 1NT on balanced hands, it's very easy to get this to happen.

 

Of course, for the best of both worlds -

 

1C:1D!, 1H! where 1D shows 4+H and 1H shows a weak no-trump, 1S is now a puppet to 1NT and 1NT shows 4-4 majors NF.

[fromageGB]

Of course, for the best of both worlds -

 

1C:1D!, 1H! where 1D shows 4+H and 1H shows a weak no-trump, 1S is now a puppet to 1NT and 1NT shows 4-4 majors NF.

This sounds interesting, but what if opener has 3 hearts and responder has 5, and you play in 1NT missing the heart fit? Or if you always convert to 2H do you really want to play there in a 5-2 heart fit?

 

Simpler to play opener rebid of 1H shows 3 hearts, rebid 1NT with 2. The spade fit is not missed if the other responses are 1H=4+spades, 1S=transfer to NT with invitational hands (including 4 or 5 majors) bidding further, and 1NT=weak with 4/4 both majors.