xyz auction

[the hog]

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.

 

snipped

OK, slight overbid.

[jillybean]

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

[gwnn]

XYZ is irrelevant, South is a game force no matter what. Sometimes you'll end up too high but inviting is a little too weak.

[straube]

yep. The 1NT rebid opposite a pard who is not an "up the line" person, is just right.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Rebidding 1NT has little to do with Walsh.

 

I understand your 1S rebid shows 4S/5C regardless of whether you have agreed to play Walsh and this is the basis (I think) for your later statement that your 1N rebid has nothing to do with Walsh. Fine, you have a treatment that has chances to win. Many other people would not play this treatment unless they were also playing Walsh for fear of missing spade fits.

[the hog]

Forget I posted Straube; it must be a language issue.

[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.

I think Free put this very well.

~snip~

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

~snip~

Hmmm apparently I didn't put it that well, or you misread something. :angry:

 

Without playing Walsh you can still agree to rebid 1NT with any balanced hand, to show the true nature of the hand as quickly as possible. In doing so, you might miss the optimal 2M part score. As we all know, in imps the best part score isn't important, a playable part score is good enough. Some people play 1NT 12-14, 1♣ nat/18-20 and 1♦ nat/15-17 (or something similar). They ignore the Majors completely and are able to show their balanced hands at the 1-level.

[hanp]

What does playable mean?

 

If I have a 4-4 fit spades and about a combined 20-count, then I generally prefer to play 2S instead of 1NT. If a playable 1NT goes down while 2S is cold, that's a decent number of IMPs. More generally, I don't think that IMP scoring is an excuse to bid badly at the partscore level.

[straube]

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.

 

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

[campboy]

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

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

I'm fairly sure it isn't, both because it is much more likely that we should be playing in clubs than diamonds and because it is much easier to get back to diamonds after bidding 3♣ than it is to get back to clubs after bidding 3♦.

[hanp]

By the way, if 1S promises an unbalanced hand then I'd prefer to play 2C natural and use 2H as fourth suit.

[bucky]

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

1N vs 1♠ is not a totally unrelated topic. Knowing whether partner tends to have 5+ clubs and/or an unbalanced hand, that will help you evaluate your hand and plan the auction accordingly.

 

In my treatment, the responder would bid 2♦ initially. This bid shows diamonds or D+C, and game-force value (but doesn't have to have slam aspiration). It may be a slight overbid, but I think the stretch is worthwhile with my shortage in the majors.

[jillybean]

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

1N vs 1♠ is not a totally unrelated topic. Knowing whether partner tends to have 5+ clubs and/or an unbalanced hand, that will help you evaluate your hand and plan the auction accordingly.

 

In my treatment, the responder would bid 2♦ initially. This bid shows diamonds or D+C, and game-force value (but doesn't have to have slam aspiration). It may be a slight overbid, but I think the stretch is worthwhile with my shortage in the majors.

I understand there is a lot to 1N vs 1♠ which would be interesting to go through. I fear we have bigger things to worry about at the moment :(

fwiw I play 2♦/1♣ as a limit raise in ♣'s.

[the hog]

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.

 

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

This makes no sense at all. Why can't you bypass 1S with a 4333 shape to show the essential nature of your hand. This has as much to do with Walsh as stayman has to do with Gerber - (They are both in the C suit).

Read Frederick's last post.

[straube]

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.

 

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

This makes no sense at all. Why can't you bypass 1S with a 4333 shape to show the essential nature of your hand. This has as much to do with Walsh as stayman has to do with Gerber - (They are both in the C suit).

Read Frederick's last post.

I didn't say I could never bypass spades. I said that I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs. "Whenever" means "every time that". I'm saying that I don't want to be restricted to rebidding 1N unless I have 4S and 5C when I'm playing with a partner who bids suits up the line.

 

Factors that might make me bypass spades are if I'm 4333, if I'm very minimum, and if my spades are poor.

[the hog]

I give up. You ARE 4333 on this hand!

[straube]

I give up. You ARE 4333 on this hand!

 

I didn't say that I'd rebid 1N on every 4333 hand. I said it was a factor. I wrote previously...

 

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.

 

I wrote that I preferred Walsh so this would for me be an automatic 1N rebid. But if I were playing suits up the line then I'd have to decide whether to bypass my spade suit or not. I could go either way but probably would rebid 1S here.

 

Bored of having to repeat myself. Last word's yours if you want it.

[peachy]

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.

Not related to the hand in question, but a comment in general. If responder has an invitational club raise, he should not bid 1D. The auction 1C-1D-one anything-3C is forcing if playing Walsh.