Your Rebid

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Responder

S: AK

H: J982

D: QT75

C: Q42

 

Partner Opens 1C:

You Respond 1D ( "Walshish" ) rather than 1H ( because of your strength ) .

EDIT: Do you agree with the 1D ? .. or would you respond 1H ?

 

Partner rebids 1H ( showing 4h and longer Clubs ) " Walshish"

 

Part 1:

Your rebid:

1C - 1D

1H - ??

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Part 2:

 

See post # 9

Edited October 7, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[mike777]

given op i bid 2h. gf, but:

 

I object with bidding 1d first, this hand is not worth a game force and even if we assume it is I to start with 1h with 4-4 and gf.

 

 

nOw pard will think we have 5d and 4h and a stronger hand.

[kenrexford]

OK, so you respond with 1♦ with a hand that makes sense for a 1♦ response if up-the-line is the approach, but then you describe it as "Walsh-ish," the parameters of which I have no idea. But, the hand does not resemble a Walsh 1♦.

 

So, your rebid would be whatever-ish.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

But, the hand does not resemble a Walsh 1♦.

Ken, does the hand need more strength or another Diam , or both for a 1♦ response,

[aguahombre]

As for 1D: this responding hand has none of the requirements in "Walshish". It doesn't have longer diamonds than hearts, and is not a game force.

 

The report in the ACBL Bulletin on the Canadian Nationals described the "modern paradox". Opening bids are lighter, but responders do not step up their game-forcing responses to compensate. Routine 11-12's are invites for those who in-fact have considered the paradox.

[mike777]

Actually I have mentioned this many times if you play Barry Crane style you can open lite and just make your 2/1 bids 14+

 

Of course this means your nt bids become quite wide and full and your invitational hands become pretty sound say `12-`13 or so.

[jdeegan]

:P 4♥. In the old-fashioned style one bids 1♦ with any hand good enough to make a game try opp pard's declared minimum. We have plenty of strength for that. When pard rebids 1♥, our hand is good enough to bid game because of the doubleton spade. Chances for slam are very slim since pard didn't rebid 2♥.

[jmcw]

Playing Walsh over a 1♣ opening bid.

 

When holding less than GF strength you bypass longer ♦ suit to bid 1M. With GF values AND longer ♦ you respond 1♦ and make the natural reverse bid of 2M.

 

I would treat this hand as GF, unless you open rubbish 11 counts. 12 op 12 plays quite well in 3NT and if you have 4 ♥ we'll get to game there.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Playing Walsh over a 1♣ opening bid.

 

When holding less than GF strength you bypass longer ♦ suit to bid 1M. With GF values AND longer ♦ you respond 1♦ and make the natural reverse bid of 2M.

 

I would treat this hand as GF, unless you open rubbish 11 counts. 12 op 12 plays quite well in 3NT and if you have 4 ♥ we'll get to game there.

 

So, if Responder has "real" GF values ( say 14 hcp ) and 4-4 in the reds, he shouldn't bid 1D... he bids 1H .

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, let's say it goes:

 

1C - 1H

2H - ??

 

.......what do you rebid with Responder's 12 hcp hand here ?

[kenrexford]

Ken, does the hand need more strength or another Diam , or both for a 1♦ response,

Both

 

As to what to do after a heart response instead and raise, 3NT seems right.

[jmcw]

So, if Responder has "real" GF values ( say 14 hcp ) and 4-4 in the reds, he shouldn't bid 1D... he bids 1H .

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, let's say it goes:

 

1C - 1H

2H - ??

 

.......what do you rebid with Responder's 12 hcp hand here ?

 

I guess forums allow opportunity to "correct" my first post without the director being called.

 

I must admit the hand is not GF so a simple jump raise to 3♥

[aguahombre]

OK, let's say it goes:

 

1C - 1H

2H - ??

 

.......what do you rebid with Responder's 12 hcp hand here ?

Whtever you have agreed upon to invite game with this hand type, if partner will open what most posters would open as a minimum 1C; or 4H or 3NT if you have a partner who always has an old-fashioned solid opening bid.

 

This hand is not a systemic problem hand. It is an easy hand, which is totally a matter of partnership style. Even those who would bid up the line as a matter of agreement with 4-4 in the reds should be able to handle it. They just shouldn't call what they are doing "Walsh".

 

Distorting one's alleged distribution in order to artificially create a game force, however, is probably not a good idea.

Edited October 7, 2011 by aguahombre

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Whatever you have agreed upon to invite game with this hand type, if partner will open what most posters would open as a minimum 1C; or 4H or 3NT if you have a partner who always has an old-fashioned solid opening bid.

 

This hand is not a systemic problem hand. It is an easy hand, which is totally a matter of partnership style. Even those who would bid up the line as a matter of agreement with 4-4 in the reds should be able to handle it.

 

I agree with you and the posters.

Responder did not have a 1D Walsh response.

 

Here is Opener's hand.

The pathetic Hts resulted in 4H-1,

whereas 3NT made:

 

Opener

Q 6

6 5 4 3

A K

K J 9 5 3

 

EDIT: Perhaps the thread title should have been:

" Steer Clear of 4H " ... and show both hands .

Edited October 7, 2011 by TWO4BRIDGE

[xxhong]

1C 1D

1H 1S(relay to 1NT)

1N 2H(invitational in H)

2N(accept the invitation, natural) 3C(support)

3D(support) 3N(suggest a place)

pass.

I agree with you and the posters.

Responder did not have a 1D Walsh response.

 

Here is Opener's hand.

The pathetic Hts resulted in 4H-1,

whereas 3NT made:

 

Opener

Q 6

6 5 4 3

A K

K J 9 5 3

 

EDIT: Perhaps the thread title should have been:

" Steer Clear of 4H " ... and show both hands .

[sasioc]

If you don't bid 1D on responder's hand (I prefer 1H but do not feel strongly about it and play xfers over 1C anyway, making 1D* my systemic bid with 44 reds on any strength) the auction might look like this:

 

1C 1H

2H 3NT (suggestion to play opposite 4 card support and a bal hand - playing my own system I do not have an invite with 4H available here but if anyone plays 2nt as NAT..?)

 

With a balanced hand and the values distributed as they are I'd have thought 3NT a reasonable bid but may be saying that because I can see the other hand :)

[MrAce]

Ken, does the hand need more strength or another Diam , or both for a 1♦ response,

 

For me it just needs more strength but it is borderline hand. 1♦ response does not say u have longer ♦. 1♦ response allows u to bid much cheaper with more information exchange available. While 1♥ may cause unnecesarry ambigious bids by pd such as raising with 3, rebidding ♣ with 5 or rebidding NT with stiff ♥. I dont even understand why Ken suggests bidding 1♦ shows longer ♦ on a GF hand.

[han]

I'd force to game. 1D or 1H seems irrelevant.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Well, which is it in Walsh ?

Responder ( I'll make the hand with definite GF values, 14 hcp ):

A K

K 9 8 2

Q T 7 5

Q 4 2

 

1C - 1D or 1H ??

 

The following folks say you bid 1H first because you MUST have longer Diam for a 1D bid:

Ken

mike777

aquahombre

jmcw

Max Hardy

 

But the following say you can bid 1D first with 4-4 in the reds :

MrAce

sasioc

han

 

[ I may have missed some folks ] .

[sasioc]

 

But the following say you can bid 1D first with 4-4 in the reds :

MrAce

sasioc

han

 

[ I may have missed some folks ] .

 

I would like to clarify that the reason I don't mind which you do is that it is not a question I have to consider playing the system I do and I don't know enough about bidding theory to feel I can add anything to the discussion, not that I actively think it's ok to bid D first with 4 4, which I would not do at the table.

[MickyB]

1♦ leads to better constructive auctions. 1♥ leads to better tactical auctions when you can raise 1NT to 3NT directly. Simply playing transfers with 1C:1D, 1H showing C+D unbal gets you the best of both worlds.

[jmcw]

I think there is considerable advantage playing Walsh. As responder with less than GF values lets say 6 to 12 points.

 

Kx

Axxx

Qxxx(x)

xx(x)

 

Over 1♣ you bid a 4 card M (♥) regardless of your ♦ length, this immediately locates a Major suit fit if one exists. On my example consider what might happen if you respond 1♦. Lefty now sticks in a 1♠ overcall!, its not too difficult to see that your side may never discover your 8 card ♥ fit. Now, respond 1♥ and lefty makes the same 1♠ overcall, partner can show 4card support or X to show 3.

 

Kx

Ax

Qxxxx

xxxx

 

Another plus for walsh is when the auction starts:

1♣>>1♦

 

Opener assumes you have no 4 card M and will rebid 1NT with all balanced hands even with 1 or 2 4card M

 

QTxx

KJxx

Kx

AJT

 

However, with an unbalanced type

 

QTxx

KJx

x

AKxxx

 

1♣>>1♦

1♠

 

Opener knows you have less than 4 ♠, so this sequence will always announce the unbalanced nature of his hand.

 

No such assertion can be made if you bid up the line. Responder will not know whether you have 3,4,5,or more ♣ on an auction that starts

 

1♣>>1♦

1♠.

 

FWIW, I play Walsh with my most serious partner's and bid up the line with a couple of others. IMO Walsh is far more effective.

[MrAce]

Well, which is it in Walsh ?

Responder ( I'll make the hand with definite GF values, 14 hcp ):

A K

K 9 8 2

Q T 7 5

Q 4 2

 

1C - 1D or 1H ??

 

The following folks say you bid 1H first because you MUST have longer Diam for a 1D bid:

Ken

mike777

aquahombre

jmcw

Max Hardy

 

But the following say you can bid 1D first with 4-4 in the reds :

MrAce

sasioc

han

 

[ I may have missed some folks ] .

 

I don't think Han made such a claim.

 

But FYI, one thing i hate to do in bidding is both sides showing their hands when there is no need at all. When u play walsh 1♣-1♦-1M, why on earth is it important if reponder has 5♦ or not ? He has the space of the world to learn side cards of his pd since opener already showed the unbalanced hand.

 

Look what happens when u bid 1♥ first. Assume opener has 3145 and responder 4-4 reds big hand.

 

1♣-1♥

2♣-2♦ (this doesnt mean ♦ of course)

3♦-By the time u set ♦ as trump u are already at 4 level. Needs imagination to waste space and use all these levels just to confirm each other our trump is diamonds. Congrats.

 

Or opener has 4045 and responder 4-4 reds big hand

 

1♣-1♥

1♠-2♦ (xyz or 4th suit forc, whatever u play)

3♦-4♦ Again, we just confimed our trump at 4 level

 

Which could be as easy as

 

1♣-1♦

2♦

3♦

Splinter

 

or if our fit is ♥

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♥ We use this as GF due to lack of 1♥ bid initially. I actually got into deep debate about this in past in forums. (If my memory serves well u should remember ) One of them was Phil, it came when he was watching once, and it also came when he and i was practice bidding and we laughed calling "Timo convention" Here it is again, after this auction opener can bid 2 NT and other one can bid 3 NT or 4♥ if he wants to, since they both are able to show ♥s and desire to play 3NT. If you are into artificial bidding after i suggested in the past that after 1

 

1♣-1♦

1♥ You can use 1♠ as relay and scan entire shape and honors of your pd and use other bids as picture bids.

[Zelandakh]

Over 1♣ you bid a 4 card M (♥) regardless of your ♦ length, this immediately locates a Major suit fit if one exists. On my example consider what might happen if you respond 1♦. Lefty now sticks in a 1♠ overcall!, its not too difficult to see that your side may never discover your 8 card ♥ fit.

 

Sorry to just nit-pick a tiny part of your post but I do not really get the above. With 4 hearts Opener doubles and the 4-4 heart fit is immediately uncovered. I think it is probably fair to say that there are advantages to both (natural) approaches but that Transfer Walsh is better than either.

[jmcw]

Sorry to just nit-pick a tiny part of your post but I do not really get the above. With 4 hearts Opener doubles and the 4-4 heart fit is immediately uncovered. I think it is probably fair to say that there are advantages to both (natural) approaches but that Transfer Walsh is better than either.

 

So in your system, holding

 

KJ

Qxxx

x

AQJxxx

 

or

 

KJx

Qxxx

xxx

AQJ

 

1♣ P 1♦ 1♠

X>> showing 4 ♥

 

Walsh allows a rebid of 2♣ and 1NT since I know P has less than 4♥.

[MrAce]

deleted