Just Checking

[aguahombre]

I think we knew what Barmar meant; but what the heck, it was a free shot.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand Acol.

 

Some of you might be well served not to try to understand Walsh :P

 

You are right. Playing in 3♦ with a weak hand and no expectation of a fit when partner has bid 1♣ and then 2♣ defies understanding.

[pooltuna]

1] probably natural ...only probable because there may be some hands where you need a forcing call.

 

2] forcing

[P_Marlowe]

#2 2D is forcing.

 

And this is even true for Acol, ... at least the way I learned it, but I learned Acol

in the 90s.

 

#1 without any further discussions, this would show 4 diamonds and 5 spades, with 44 he

should bid something else.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

1C 1S

1N 2H

Playing standard, without NMF or something similar, I still would assume 2H to be

forcing.

 

But a better example may be

 

1C - 1D

1H - 1S

 

1S not being FSF.

 

I claimed here on the forum, that 1S is forcing, ... but was not able to find a reference

on the net, to demenonstrate, that this was not a esorteric treatment, but a standard

agreement (standard with regards to area).

So this special sequence may really be an exception to the general rule.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Playing standard, without NMF or something similar, I still would assume 2H to be

forcing.

You might assume that, but it is not true.

[gordontd]

3♦ shows a weak 4-6. With a weak 4-5 you probably have to pass.

I think you are confusing 1C - 1M - 2C - 3D with 1C - 1M - 1NT - 3D.

[MrAce]

Its forcing, shows 5+ spades, that is all.

 

This is a default bid for forcing hands with 5+ spades.

 

And what do you think he would bid with 15-16 hcp 4♠+ 3-4♣ over 2♣ ? He would start 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ later, since direct 3♣ would be invitational. Or what do you think he would bid with 13+ hcp and 6 card ♠ since direct 3♠ would be invitation ?

 

It is a forcing gate, a gate that strong hands has to go thru unless they can splinter or make a picture bid. And it is % 100 artificial by the way. It is coinsidentall if 2♦ bidder has 4 or more ♦s.

 

Same goes for

 

1♦--1M

2♦--2OM is 3rd suit forcing. You need it just like u need nmf or 4th suit forcing.

[ArtK78]

And what do you think he would bid with 15-16 hcp 4♠+ 3-4♣ over 2♣ ? He would start 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ later, since direct 3♣ would be invitational. Or what do you think he would bid with 13+ hcp and 6 card ♠ since direct 3♠ would be invitation ?

 

It is a forcing gate, a gate that strong hands has to go thru unless they can splinter or make a picture bid. And it is % 100 artificial by the way. It is coinsidentall if 2♦ bidder has 4 or more ♦s.

 

Same goes for

 

1♦--1M

2♦--2OM is 3rd suit forcing. You need it just like u need nmf or 4th suit forcing.

That is why some (including me) play Extended NMF when opener rebids a minor. In the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ I play 2♥ as natural and non-forcing; 3♣ is NMF.

As for 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠, that is natural and forcing to game.

[Phil]

I think you are confusing 1C - 1M - 2C - 3D with 1C - 1M - 1NT - 3D.

 

Both are 6-4 jumps.

[aguahombre]

That is why some (including me) play Extended NMF when opener rebids a minor. In the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ I play 2♥ as natural and non-forcing; 3♣ is NMF.

As for 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠, that is natural and forcing to game.

3C commits to game, right? And a hand with 5-4 in majors invitational must do something else or just decide to commit to game or downgrade?

 

Just asking, not arguing at all. That might be a way of handling a tough scenario.

 

We also use 2H as natural, but forcing (not to game), with 3C being game-forcing hands without hearts. Dunno what others might recommend, here; but would like to know.

[gnasher]

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

 

I found this thread about it in rec.games.bridge:

http://groups.google...ed8ce616b465e4b

but there seems to be no consensus there.

[aguahombre]

Both are 6-4 jumps.

there is a 3rd one of that ilk: 1♣- 1♥-1♠- 3♦ or the rounded 4-6 if 1D is started.

[cherdano]

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

 

I found this thread about it in rec.games.bridge:

http://groups.google...ed8ce616b465e4b

but there seems to be no consensus there.

 

It wouldn't have occurred to me to assume Phil's suggested meaning without discussion. But maybe my understanding of Walsh is only minimally better than that of Welsh...

[MrAce]

I been playing walsh since i don't know when (long time) and i never heard the treatment Phil suggests either.

[aguahombre]

Page 48 of Hardy's Orange book (1982) addressed the use of the bad 4-6 in this mannor. He did mention the dangers in using it when opener has bid two suits rather than rebid 1NT.

When opener has opened and rebid clubs, the pass is often chosen rather than 3D by practicioners of the style, but depends on the quality of the diamond suit.

[jmcw]

I been playing walsh since i don't know when (long time) and i never heard the treatment Phil suggests either.

 

Same here.

 

Nearest is 1♣>>1M>>1NT>>3♦ = Weakish 6/4

[kenberg]

Some mentioned auctions

 

1♣ 1♠

1NT 2♥

This was non-forcing even in Goren, and afaik it still is played that way by nearly everyone. I have seen folks play it as forcing but this makes no sense to me. 2♦ instead of 2♥ was also nf in Goren but this has almost universally been replaced by some sort of artificial meaning. Yeah, I know Goren is dead but I mention it just to show that playing 2♥ as nf is not some gimmick just invented.

 

1♣ 1♠

2♣ 2♥

I have played this as nf. I wouldn't exactly say it is standard, but pretty common in my neck of the woods (Washington D.C.)

 

 

1♣ 1♠

2♣ 2♦

I have never heard of this as nf. Which I guess means that I don't know acol. Or don't know something anyway. So it's forcing for me and anyone I know. If 2♥ is nf then 2♦ must be artificial. Whether artificial or not there are probably five spades but I don't see that as a guarantee. Partner may have game values and be hoping that I can bid the NT.

 

 

1♣ 1♠

2♣ 3♦.

I prefer that partner not do this unless we have discussed it.

 

And asking you to please start playing bridge is, like most rude comments, a clear indication of his real level. Hint: Grandmaster it's not.

[Phil]

I'll go to the source on this one and report back.

[gordontd]

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

Maybe, but I learned my Walsh from a North American.

[Phil]

Maybe, but I learned my Walsh from a North American.

 

The only true authorities on Walsh are acid-dropping hippies.

 

This explains a lot of the sequences.

[Vampyr]

The only true authorities on Walsh are acid-dropping hippies.

 

This explains a lot of the sequences.

 

LOL

[peachy]

There are 2 possible explanations for 2♦:

- because of walsh, 2♦ shows longer ♦ and is a signoff

- semi natural and forcing, strongly suggesting 5♠

 

Imo the first meaning is so rare (because you also don't want to play 2♣ apparently) that it just doesn't pay off to play that way. I would suspect the second meaning is standard, but I've seen club players use the first and inferior meaning.

 

 

No way.

 

In Walsh, with a weak hand that wants to signoff, Pass 2C. Or, with a weak hand of 4 spades and 6 diamonds, bid 3D which is a signoff (or pass 2C, if doubleton club).

In Walsh, 1C-1S-2C-2D neither promises nor denies 5-card spades but it is forcing and does not promise or deny diamond suit. An invitational hand might never even bid diamonds at all because at one level, bypass diamonds (even longer diamonds) to bid 1M, unless GF strength in which case bid suits in their natural order = longest first or up the line.