xyz auction

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj85hk84dkq7cj54&s=s42h9dajt542caq86]133|200|Scoring: MP

uncontested auction

1♣:1♦

1♠:2♣*

2♦*:3♦

3N[/hv]

 

Comments?

[straube]

It looks like a good auction to me. I feel like I'm missing something.

[rbouskila]

Looks more like a game force to me, and has even slam potential after a 1♣ opening. bidding it does look hard though, there's no easy way to get both your diamond length and clubs into the picture.

 

playing XYZ, I'd probably bid it 1♦,2♦,3♦; not playing it, guess 2♥ then 3♦?

 

It's almost strong enough to do a Marshall Miles style Soloway jump shift, at that. Not quite strong enough I guess.

 

Edit: Would have rebid 1NT with your p's hand, but that's a matter of style.

[mike777]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj85hk84dkq7cj54&s=s42h9dajt542caq86]133|200|Scoring: MP

uncontested auction

1♣:1♦

1♠:2♣*

2♦*:3♦

3N[/hv]

 

Comments?

hate 1s

 

hate 2c

 

'other than that -----------------

 

 

 

------------

 

 

if i must bid 1s ok then:

 

 

 

----------------

 

 

If i must bid 2c ok then....

 

 

------------

 

 

but hate

[Cascade]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj85hk84dkq7cj54&s=s42h9dajt542caq86]133|200|Scoring: MP

uncontested auction

1♣:1♦

1♠:2♣*

2♦*:3♦

3N[/hv]

 

Comments?

hate 1s

 

hate 2c

 

'other than that -----------------

 

 

 

------------

 

 

if i must bid 1s ok then:

 

 

 

----------------

 

 

If i must bid 2c ok then....

 

 

------------

 

 

but hate

What is wrong with 1♦?

[the hog]

Strongly dislike the 1S bid. You are showing 9 cards in 2 suits when in fact you have 7 in a balanced hand.

Prefer

1C 1D

1N 3C

3N

[kayin801]

Strongly dislike the 1S bid. You are showing 9 cards in 2 suits when in fact you have 7 in a balanced hand.

Prefer

1C 1D

1N 3C

3N

3♣ in xyz (or 2-way NMF, which sometimes accompanies it) is typically a signoff.

 

I have no problem with the auction and that's exactly how I'd bid it. Alternatively you could try 3♣ instead of 3♦ by responder since we've shown longer diamonds already, but I'd expect a 3NT rebid just the same.

[aguahombre]

Strongly dislike the 1S bid. You are showing 9 cards in 2 suits when in fact you have 7 in a balanced hand.

Prefer

1C 1D

1N  3C

3N

yep. The 1NT rebid opposite a pard who is not an "up the line" person, is just right. Then, 3C (NF, Invite) is just about right opposite the typical minimum for an opening bid these days (including mine). Responder must have longer diamonds, or she would have started with an inverted raise (or raised the NT rebid if balanced.

 

Tangling things up with XYZ on a 1C-1D-1NT start seems burdensome when responder already knows the size and balanced nature of opener's hand. Forget New Minor Force, there isn't a new minor. Slammish responders could consider 1C-2D (strong). If that isn't part of their repertoir, maybe it should be.

[straube]

What is the partnership agreement about a 1S rebid? I prefer the Walsh style so I'd rebid 1N, but standard is still 1S and then there's some who play that 1S may only confirm a 4th club...not a 5th.

[the hog]

What is the partnership agreement about a 1S rebid? I prefer the Walsh style so I'd rebid 1N, but standard is still 1S and then there's some who play that 1S may only confirm a 4th club...not a 5th.

Rebidding 1NT has little to do with Walsh. It is whether you want to show what you have or whether you want to obfuscate your hand type.

[mike777]

fwiw

1) I dont think walsh has anything do withxyz

2) walsh bidding ten years before xyz is discussed in depth.

 

--------------

 

 

fwiw i SEE NO ISSUE WITH WALSH AND XYZ

[Free]

Nobody said Jill was playing Walsh, so nothing wrong with the 1♠ bid. Then you can invite in ♣ or ♦ using 2♣. It all seems just fine to me.

[Fluffy]

If you don't play walsh the bidding is just fine.

[the hog]

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

[Free]

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

 

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

[jillybean]

Strongly dislike the 1S bid. You are showing 9 cards in 2 suits when in fact you have 7 in a balanced hand.

Prefer

1C 1D

1N  3C

3N

3♣ in xyz (or 2-way NMF, which sometimes accompanies it) is typically a signoff.

 

I have no problem with the auction and that's exactly how I'd bid it. Alternatively you could try 3♣ instead of 3♦ by responder since we've shown longer diamonds already, but I'd expect a 3NT rebid just the same.

We are using 2N as a relay to 3♣, so to play in 3♣ the auction would be

1♣:1♦

1N:2N

3♣

 

A direct 3♣/1N is gf for us.

 

We are not paying Walsh!

[billw55]

On the table auction, bidding three suits then 3NT locks in the 9th trick on the "marked" heart lead. Nice touch :)

[Fluffy]

We are not paying Walsh!

Great idea not to pay him, he charges you for insane things he didn't work for :)

 

 

But about playing walsh, its a neat convention, most people play it nowadays. It is not something you desperatelly need though.

[campboy]

I don't understand why responder didn't show club support at any point.

[jillybean]

I don't understand why responder didn't show club support at any point.

Isn't it more important to show the 6th ♦?

[straube]

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

 

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

I think Free put this very well.

 

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

 

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

 

Playing standard (suits up the line), I might occasionally decide to bypass spades...but only when I had sufficient reasons to judge that it was best to do so.

 

This hand is 4333 but it has decent spades (AJxx) that can help to pull trump. Even though I'm 4333, partner may have a ruffing value. Also, my hand has KQx of partner's suit and I don't have a stopper in the suit I opened. Suit play is probably best if partner has Kxxx xx AJxxx xx.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj85hk84dkq7cj54&s=s42h9dajt542caq86]133|200|Scoring: MP

uncontested auction

1♣:1♦

1♠:2♣*

2♦*:3♦

3N[/hv]

 

Comments?

Is this an advertisement for better minor? :)

[the hog]

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

 

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

I think Free put this very well.

 

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

 

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

 

Playing standard (suits up the line), I might occasionally decide to bypass spades...but only when I had sufficient reasons to judge that it was best to do so.

 

This hand is 4333 but it has decent spades (AJxx) that can help to pull trump. Even though I'm 4333, partner may have a ruffing value. Also, my hand has KQx of partner's suit and I don't have a stopper in the suit I opened. Suit play is probably best if partner has Kxxx xx AJxxx xx.

Straube, you have totally missed the point are are confusing two different concepts. Walsh is bidding a M before a m, with less than a gf hand. Rebidding 1NT on this hand has nothing to do with that concept at all. Many prefer to show the nature of the hand, ie balanced, rather than make numerous bids that say:

well I may have an unbalanced hand with C and S, or maybe I am 4-4 in the blacks, or maybe I am 4333. Take a punt! If responder has hopes of game, she can use some form of checkback to find a S fit, if it exists.

 

Free, yes I agree with you. Perhaps I should have said that the aforementioned bidding is very poor in my opinion. I know some people play this way, and I hate the guessing games that result there from. There have been numerous posts on this and opinions vary, however there are many posters on this site who agree.

[cherdanno]

South should force to game over 1C 1D 1S. This is much more important than the silly argument about the 1S rebid.

[jdonn]

I strongly dislike 1♠ and never bid it on 4333 hands, although I'll consistently bid it on 4(23)4 hands. But in fairness I think it's quite unfair to say the issue comes down to either describing your hand or putzing around. Showing you are balanced is a description and showing you hold four spades is a description, both are important descriptions, and even that is only part of the issue. Also it's clear walsh has something to do with it, as the main (almost only?) advantage to 1♠ is when partner is a minimum response with four spades which is a hand that 1♦ denies when playing walsh. That said I'll reiterate that I much prefer 1NT here, as 4333 hands are much more about notrump than suits, and often partner has to preference back to your original minor on three cards himself over 1♠.

 

South should both force to game and show club support.

 

All that said, no disaster occured and the choices made would all have some supporters.