1C - 1D - 1H - 1S!

[tolvyrj]

Actually yes it had happened :rolleyes: . In those cases i have either bid my ♠ directly ( women, children and majors first principle) or if cards been very good (aka. distribution or something else indicates slam even against weak balanced prd) start with ♦ and via FSF wait for prds response and bid ♠ again; this time as a genuine suit.

[aguahombre]

Women already know, and children are taught...that they should not distort their distribution with G.F. response values.

 

Then they don't worry about showing 5-4 when they have 4-5, or showing 5-6, when then have 4-5.

 

This is similar to artificially creating a reverse with equal lengths in the two suits bid by opening the lower suit.

[tolvyrj]

Oh boy; ok in slow motions, by bidding 1♠ as 4th suit i categorically deny 5 card ♠ suit; remember jump into 2 ♠ advocates 5 carder + 6 card ♦ huh.

Ok i was making a bit of a joke there; with GF values we do bid up to the line and still, by using 1♠ as FSF instead 2♠ still have time to bring 4 card ♠ suit alive.

How do we act in non GF hands; ♠ comes first and it is rebid if it is longer than 4 cards. Minor in this case ♦ r canape and at least equally long as ♠.

I dont know what u taught to u children but here we tend to bring our majors alive in bidding sequenses and try to find NT contracts and the destiny of minors is stand in line and wait.

To use 2 ♠ as FSF in this sequence causes trouble if responder dont have any stopper in ♠ and no extra length in other suits. What does s/he bid; 3 ♠ response telling that is uncomfortably high i think.

[Phil]

I'd probably bid 3C and hope for the best. Partner will have 5 clubs unless he's 4414. 2H might be reasonable at matchpoints.

 

Edit: Sorry I didn't read the thread and see that people are saying 2H would be a GF heart raise. I don't agree with that, I think it should just be a 3 card raise. 2H seems like a sensible bid to me with xxx KQx Axxxx xx, we are too strong to pass and I'd rather partner play 2H than me playing 1N, and if partner is strong enough to bid again and we can get to 3N, it might be a disaster for me to have bid it first.

 

Surely there are enough other bids for a GF heart raise that 2H doesn't need to show that.

 

Agree with all of this.

 

@AWM - I think xyz works quite well after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠, since it gets us to play 2♦ when responder is the 4♥ - 6♦. Otherwise I agree with you that it works poorly in other Walsh sequences that start with 1♣ - 1♦, although these sequences are usually awkward anyway, and are dependent on what other calls mean, like 1♣ - 2♦.

 

@MrAce - Someone actually gave me a very similar hand a few months ago and asked what I would bid. 3♣ is easy in Walsh since most patterns for pattern's bidding contain five clubs. If you made the hearts a little stronger, but kept the hand the same strength or a little weaker, I would bid 2♥. This is not GF in Walsh, but shows a constructive / limit hand with 3 card support.

[awm]

Agree with all of this.

 

@AWM - I think xyz works quite well after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠, since it gets us to play 2♦ when responder is the 4♥ - 6♦. Otherwise I agree with you that it works poorly in other Walsh sequences that start with 1♣ - 1♦, although these sequences are usually awkward anyway, and are dependent on what other calls mean, like 1♣ - 2♦.

 

I will just say that I think being able to play in two of the suit where opener has already shown five or more cards should be higher priority than reaching the fourth suit (where it is conceivable that responder has length, but he has never shown anything of the sort). Note that this is not totally a "choice of partials" issue either, since signing off in clubs at the three-level removes opener's opportunities to make game tries when he has a hand in the 16-18 range.

[mike777]

keep in mind 1c=1h=1s does not promise an unbalanced hand with 5c Only 1c=1d=1M

 

 

Also very often the opp will bid or pard is a passed hand and responder can rebid 2c to play.

 

As I said I just dont see this is a big "cost" but if others do ok.

--

 

 

btw with 14+ and (24)=2=5 can often be bid as a nt type hand so this removes some of the "bigger" hands opener can have.

[MrAce]

 

 

@MrAce - Someone actually gave me a very similar hand a few months ago and asked what I would bid. 3♣ is easy in Walsh since most patterns for pattern's bidding contain five clubs. If you made the hearts a little stronger, but kept the hand the same strength or a little weaker, I would bid 2♥. This is not GF in Walsh, but shows a constructive / limit hand with 3 card support.

 

Of course i know what it means in walsh.

 

And i am telling you what i already told, it never came to anyone, it will never come to anyone. And when/if it comes your decision will STILL be dependent to what opponents hold so u can not even guranatee a success for a bid that u spared specifically for. Thats the funniest part of it.

 

If anyone believes xxx KQx Axxxx xx hand is too important and worths giving up playing 2♥ or 2♠ bid GF, i just have to wish them good luck :) Perhaps there is some merit to it, when the opponents who passed 1♣ and 1 ♦ and 1♥ maybe cashing s@#t loads of spades and 4-3 fit can be the expert fit. Who knows.

[JLOGIC]

lol mrace you come off as a complete joke in this thread fwiw

[MrAce]

lol mrace you come off as a complete joke in this thread fwiw

 

That was very immature reply, even for your standarts Justin ;) :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

That was very immature reply, even for your standarts Justin ;) :)

I don't understand Justin's remark either.

He must have had a bad night at the poker table.

[Phil]

I don't understand Justin's remark either.

He must have had a bad night at the poker table.

 

I get tired of comments like this with people questioning other people's state of mind.

 

Maybe he got laid or bowled well. Who knows what kind of day he had, or what his motivation was? Does anyone care?

 

Maybe, just maybe, its because he thinks MrAce's post is bad?

[Phil]

I will just say that I think being able to play in two of the suit where opener has already shown five or more cards should be higher priority than reaching the fourth suit (where it is conceivable that responder has length, but he has never shown anything of the sort). Note that this is not totally a "choice of partials" issue either, since signing off in clubs at the three-level removes opener's opportunities to make game tries when he has a hand in the 16-18 range.

 

Its more than that. What you are gaining is the ability to play at exactly the two level in clubs. This may not even be a loss because when opener has five clubs, and responder has three, we are frequently bidding 3 over 2 anyway, so we get a preemptive effect of getting there immediately. I assume you would have to bid 3♦ over 1♠ to get to diamonds at all, which seems dangerous to me in the face of a possible misfit.

 

From terms of frequency, the 16-18 hand doesn't seem that important. Some of the 4225 hands are opening 1N, and hands with more shape are safe beyond 3♣. In the end, its probably a small net loss for xyz.

 

All this being said, I am starting to look into some of the newer ideas about 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ being either a signoff in hearts or the start of other sequences. This seems superior, but I confess I don't know enough about the whole structure to speak intelligently, but it seems to cover a lot of hand types.

[lowerline]

I play Walsh like this: with 4M4♦ I always respond 1M, but with 4M5+♦ I only respond 1M with less than invitational values. I don't play XYZ, but I do play two-way checkback over the 1nt rebid. After 1♣-1♦-1♥,1♠ is 4SF and 2♠ is 4♠5+♦ with precisely invitational values. Because 4SF is at the one-level here, invitational values suffice. However, you will only be exactly invitational when looking for nt and lacking a spade stopper. And with a gf 4♠5+♦ you start with 1♠ as well...

 

This solves a lot of the problems posed in this thread. Some examples:

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1nt spade stopper & min

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2nt spade stopper & extra's (gf now)

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♠ 4crd ♠-suit any strength

 

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♠-2nt inv / 3♠ gf 4♠5+♦

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♥-3♣ gf with ♣-support

1♣-1♦-1♥-2♥ inv 4♥5+♦ / 3♥ gf 4♥5+♦

 

Steven