Responder has majors

[mgoetze]

The agreement is "5 card majors, better minor." No Flannery, of course. Bidding goes 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♥. How many cards does responder show in the majors?

 

Yes, this thread does have a point, which I will reveal later.

[ONEferBRID]

1D - 1S

1NT - ??

 

      2H = weak 5/4,5

      3Hjump = 5/5 invite

      2C!( MNF), then Ht bid = 5/4+GF

 

[ I know this is not new ] .

[bluecalm]

Another attempt to make a poll in which one option get 100% ? :)

[aguahombre]

This sequence is very easy for those whose 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand. Opener passes with 4 hearts, and bids 2S otherwise. No other action is possible.

[pooltuna]

This sequence is very easy for those whose 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand. Opener passes with 4 hearts, and bids 2S otherwise. No other action is possible.

I prefer to play 2♥ as forcing on this auction.

[mgoetze]

Another attempt to make a poll in which one option get 100% ? :)

Yes, it seems to be working too. ;-)

 

So anyway, the other day I was playing with an otherwise sensible player who bid like this on ♠xxxx and ♥AQJx or thereabouts. Needless to say, 2♠-1 was not a great matchpoint success.

 

Anyway, his theory was, since we are playing "Walsh", I would rebid 1NT over 1♦-1♥ with any balanced hand, even one containing 4 spades.

 

This poses the following questions:

 

a) Has anyone heard of this treatment?

b ) Has anyone heard of this treatment referred to as "Walsh"?

c) Does it have any merit?

[Stephen Tu]

It's not "Walsh", which typically refers to bypassing majors after 1♣-1♦ to bid 1nt, in conjunction with responder bypassing 1♦ to bid majors except with GF (sometimes played inv+) hands.

 

Merit - it has some merit in a weak-notrump based system where the 1nt rebid is 15-17. Otherwise after 1♦-1♥-1♠, you get in awkward spots if opener can be frequently 15-17 bal. If responder has to bid 1nt with a widish range (esp. if 2c is gf), should opener raise? Getting to 2nt with 15 opposite 5-7 really isn't desirable. But missing games with 15 opposite 10 isn't great either. Rebidding 1nt instead of 1s relieves this problem, and with the extra strength responder doesn't need as much to bid again and find the spade fit as he would in a strong NT system.

 

As for bidding 1♠ on weak 4-4s in this context, it certainly can work reasonably well as long as partner is in on it and doesn't take false preference on doubletons. Of course it can backfire if 1nt bidder is 2-2-5-4, but I think at MP you come out ahead in the long run finding all your 4-4 major fits.

[babalu1997]

i have always hidden 4 sapdes that way

 

1nt in matchpoints scores better than partial in sapdes

 

plus partner can use checkback

 

i do prefer and play 12-14 nt

 

-- just about going feral these days and giving up 15-17 nt

[gnasher]

a) Has anyone heard of this treatment?

Yes, and I play it with some people (the part where opener skips spades to rebid 1NT, not the responding 1♠ on 4-4).

 

b ) Has anyone heard of this treatment referred to as "Walsh"?

I think so. When partner opens 1♣, one of the reasons for responding in a major instead of diamonds is to allow opener to bid 1♣-1♦;1NT when he has a four-card major. That allows 1♣-1♦;1M to promise an unbalanced hand.

 

That is the same rationale for bypassing spades after 1m-1♥, and I think some people (incorrectly) use "Walsh" to describe both methods.

 

c) Does it have any merit?

Yes. It allows opener to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced hands. That's a definite advantage when responder has game-going values. If the auction starts

   1m-1♥

   1♠-2♣

it's helpful to already know that opener is unbalanced.

 

Also, you can have less revealing auctions to 3NT:

   1m-1♥

   1NT-3NT

instead of

   1m-1♥

   1♠-3NT

or

   1m-1♥

   1♠-2♦

   2NT-3NT

 

Obviously, it loses when responder passes the 1NT rebid and you miss a 4-4 spade fit.

 

Regarding your partner's actions, I think it's a lesser evil to respond 1♥ and lose the spade fit than to bid 1♠ followed by 2♥ on 4-4, which will get you to too many silly fits.

[benlessard]

Read the first chapter of uncontested auction from Bergen its used to be a very popular book so someone inn your entourage probably own it.

[peachy]

At least 5-4. Interested to now the reason why this was a poll.

[Free]

I don't know why the F-word was used, it seems completely irrelevant since opener started with 1♦.

 

Btw, 5-4 seems pretty obvious, unless you're living in the middle ages and looking for some way to show your 5 card ♠ suit without bidding 2♣.

[Finch]

(i) Rebidding 1NT with a 4-card spade suit after 1m - 1H - is very common

(ii) 1m - 1S - 1NT - 2H, in standard bidding, shows a weak hand with 5 spades and 4 (or more hearts)

(iii) This means you will mis a 4-4 spade fit sometimes.

 

Solutions:

(i) live with it, because it's so useful for opener to define his hand type and strength

(ii) open 1C on all minimum balanced hands and play transfer responses (1C - 1D - 1H = weak NT - 1S = NF 4-4 majors etc)

(iii) Rebid 1S as opener every time you have four spades

 

These are all fairly commonly adopted solutions (ii somewhat less so but becoming better known)

 

There are simpler conventional solutions to finding the spade fit when responder has a weak hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades, because you can play in 2H more comfortably.

 

The fourth solution - suggested here - is for responder to bid 1S with 4-4 in the majors then bid 2H over 1NT. That isn't going to work very well, because when opener has an unbalanced hand he isn't going to bid 1NT, he's going to rebid 2C and you miss your 4-4 heart fit, for little gain.

 

However, it's not as bad as some people are making out, if opener will rebid 1NT on most minimum openings with a 2=4=5=2 or 1=4=3=5 or 1=4=3=5, or if responder has 3 clubs so is happy to play in 2C rather than 1NT.

 

After all, I thin it's a popular US treatment to play "crawling" or "Garbage" Stayman, and respond 2C to a 1NT opening on a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors. This is much the same treatment, and this time it's opposite a weaker opening - so yes I think it has some merit.

 

p.s. not that I play it,mind you