Finish bidding this

[kenrexford]

Actually, I didn't feel singled out, for the reason you said. However, two things set me off.

 

1. I thought the conversation was a good one, but you seemed to throw everyone who posted before you into a group while doing the same thing you called out. So, as the poster who was probably on the most solid ground but clearly included in the discussion (Walsh was a major point) I was defending the crowd.

 

2. The tone was so frigging arrogant. And you doubled down on that approach.

[kenrexford]

I laughed at cyberyeti, btw. So we had a lot of agreement on that issue. LOL

[Cyberyeti]

I laughed at cyberyeti, btw. So we had a lot of agreement on that issue. LOL

 

Most of these are only truly weird to you because we have a lot more freedom in that we know partner has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener. It radically simplifies getting to the right place when both partners have clubs. Given the definition I read when I joined BBO, you virtually have to be an international to call yourself an expert, so I only qualify as advanced, hence I post this sort of thing in I/A as it should be for players of my own standard.

 

Certainly on my posts, unless I post that a problem is to be done using my system, I'm always happy to see other peoples' weird and wonderful treatments, maybe I learn something.

[kenrexford]

Most of these are only truly weird to you because we have a lot more freedom in that we know partner has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener. It radically simplifies getting to the right place when both partners have clubs. Given the definition I read when I joined BBO, you virtually have to be an international to call yourself an expert, so I only qualify as advanced, hence I post this sort of thing in I/A as it should be for players of my own standard.

 

Certainly on my posts, unless I post that a problem is to be done using my system, I'm always happy to see other peoples' weird and wonderful treatments, maybe I learn something.

I was joking, of course.

[mr1303]

We've seen a number of potentially interesting threads locked down because of two or three posters who can't be polite.

 

I don't want this one to be another one. So if mikeh, kenrexford and csgibson can't be civil on here, can you go and be uncivil elsewhere?

[the hog]

it seems that K. Rexford is at it again - arguing about things he knows very little about. Can you provide evidence about your assertions regarding strong Walsh being a part of 2/1?. I think not. Can you even provide evidence to show that any form of Walsh is part of 2/1? I think not.

 

How about changing your comments to "gibberish out and even more gibberish out".

[CSGibson]

We've seen a number of potentially interesting threads locked down because of two or three posters who can't be polite.

 

I don't want this one to be another one. So if mikeh, kenrexford and csgibson can't be civil on here, can you go and be uncivil elsewhere?

 

Show me a single breach of civility of mine in this thread, or apologize for giving the impression that I have been uncivil.

[lycier]

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be:

 

1♣-1♦,

1♥-2♦*, Transfer to hearts, either game forcing or drop dead

2♥-2♠, Accept transfer (not just shy of a jump shift), patterning out & showing GF 5+♦, 4+♥

3♣-3♦, Values or advanced cues

3♥-3♠, Values or advanced cues

4♠-5♣, Kickback, showing 0 or 3

5♥-5♠, (systemic, with 0 pass, with 3 clarify the Q situation, 1st step denies the Q but shows 3 keycards)

6♥

 

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be:

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1dp1hp3h(slam%20try)p4np5d(1430)p6hppp]133|100[/hv]

 

So actually this is simple bidding sequences.it is not a hard problem.

[Cyberyeti]

deleted, wrong thread

[kenrexford]

it seems that K. Rexford is at it again - arguing about things he knows very little about. Can you provide evidence about your assertions regarding strong Walsh being a part of 2/1?. I think not. Can you even provide evidence to show that any form of Walsh is part of 2/1? I think not.

 

How about changing your comments to "gibberish out and even more gibberish out".

I would imagine that Max Hardy ' 2/1 Game Force book, which is probably the most authoritative text for standard 2/1 gF, works? His version includes strong Walsh. P. 44.

 

This is funny. I answered the question correctly for the poster. He thanked me. Mike wants me to discuss nuances of strong walsh, weak walsh, standard American, t-walsh, Montreal relay, and other unknowns to be accepted. Hog doesn't believe me and wants citation of authority, without which I am presumed by him to be spouting gibberish.

[MrAce]

Ken, i don't think even those who plays Strong Walsh will agree with you on 2♥ being GF. I agree with you and i have been using it as GF for over 2 decades. But i also agree with Mike that it is not what you think it is for everyone else, including those who plays strong walsh.

 

If you look at the past walsh topics, i suggested that very long time ago. (1♣-1♦-1M-2M being GF and 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ being a relay forcing bid instead of 4th suit or natural without 4 card hearts) Phil Clayton was one of the first against it but later admitted that it comes a lot. I was even LOL ed for it by some BBF members http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif Me and him started calling it "Timo convention" because i provided some relay bids and some other auctions how to get out of relays when needed, beside the fact that i was the only one who defended this idea, surprisingly to me not only in BBF but also in other forums. I have never seen anyone who said "yes, it is GF" At best i was told that it is an interesting idea, and that they never thought of it.

 

Imo it is an overlooked area if you are playing a walsh style where you respond diamonds only with GF hands, when there is a major suit next to it. And not been discussed by a lot of pdships.

 

I was told, if i remember correctly, by Justin, that 2♥ shows exactly 3 card hearts, and some invitation hand or something similar to this (i am not good at finding past topics) and that this is the std. After that i asked "when was the last time anyone encountered this " And i also mentioned that, if we ever gonna spare a bid for a specific hand type, it better makes a huge difference when it comes. I did not and still do not believe the suggested 3 card ♥ usage of 2♥ bringing too much on the table, if any. And the debate died at some point.

 

So, i understand your logic on this specific auction, and i like it. But i don't think it is std and after seeing people's reaction, i would not even do it w/o agreement. I would not be sure if pd would take it as forcing, and even if he does, he would not be sure if i meant it as forcing. Because it is unusual situation where you make a GF bid by raising openers 2nd suit at 1 level, to 2 level.

[monikrazy]

Perhaps this has changed in Max Hardy's most recent works but I have two books of his (2/1 revised expanded and Standard Bidding in the 21st Century) and his only mention of Walsh bidding is for Walsh Relays after 1NT opens.

[eagles123]

bit pathetic arguing on an internet forum but fwiw in general i agree with Mike. Nothing more annoying than some smart git giving u the run down on how HIS/HER system would've got to a certain contract when it is clearly not applicable to the level of the OP. I couldn't care less if you have a gadget and if you insist on posting it please at least explain it fully not simply how it would work in the given example!!

[kenrexford]

Perhaps this has changed in Max Hardy's most recent works but I have two books of his (2/1 revised expanded and Standard Bidding in the 21st Century) and his only mention of Walsh bidding is for Walsh Relays after 1NT opens.

He doesn't call it Walsh in my book, but the method is Walsh. Bypass diamonds unless opening strength as a prepared two bid auction. Opener only re bids a major himself if real diamond length (unbalanced).

 

In my book, page 44.

 

I am surprised that anyone who plays Walsh would three steps the strength hands (1D then 4th suit force then raise Opener's major) but directly bid the fragment fit with the invite hands, as that seems unnecessarily counterintuitive. I mean, a raise sounds like a raise, raising with actual fits helps those auctions tremendously, and 4th suit sounds like a problem, the problem usually being a 3-fit. There must be a good reason, but I am often simple, believe it or not. Intuitive seems best to me when counterintuitive seems like an arbitrary modification.

[monikrazy]

Ok. I reviewed my text and I am with you so far. My reading of the text shows a responder who bids 1D ( 4+ D, GF) has 3 options going to game in the major. Splinter, Jump to Game, and Asking Bids.

 

An example of an asking bid would be something like :1C - 1D - 1H - 4S (Requests slam bid with spade control, mandates a 2452 shape)

or 1C - 1D - 1H - 5C (requests slam bid with club control)

 

I am now very confused as to what the 1C-1D-1H-2H auction should show according to Hardy since he doesn't seem to reference it explicitly in the text.Similarly, what would 1C-1D-1H-3H show?

 

 

Edit: Upon doing a little research I discovered he discusses Walsh bidding in greater depth in Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st century, so if anyone has that text they may be able to clarify how a 'standard walsh' auction can proceed.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps this has changed in Max Hardy's most recent works but I have two books of his (2/1 revised expanded and Standard Bidding in the 21st Century) and his only mention of Walsh bidding is for Walsh Relays after 1NT opens.

Max Hardy passed away in late 2002. His last book, published in the year of his death, was Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century, the sequel to his penultimate book Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century. Actually, the two volumes are one book, each chapter having been split and treated in the second volume as a continuation of the corresponding chapter in the first. Walsh responses are mentioned briefly on pp. 88-89 of the first volume, and in much greater detail on pp. 66 ff. of the second. 2/1 Revised and Expanded, if memory serves, was published in 1985 or thereabouts.

[kenrexford]

So what did he say in ABB 21ST about the 2H raise?

[JLOGIC]

I think a hand type like xxx KQx Axxxx xx is a legit enough hand type to worry about that bidding 2H with that is a good idea. It is not a huge deal, but arguably neither is playing 1S denies 4 hearts, you have so much room over 1S (opener is fairly well defined, and responder has shown diamonds and a GF, and you're still at 1S). And opener gets to make a third bid to describe his hand at the 1N or 2 level which seems efficient for slam bidding.

 

Ken, I'm sure you could even use your cuebidding methods in an auction like 1C 1D 1H 1S* anything, 2H. Openers shape is well defined, you're in a game force, and you have established a fit. Seems very similar to something like 1H 2C 2D 2H. Of course, you can do the same thing over 1C 1D 1H 2H in your methods too, even with opener being less defined, but I think you lose a hand type that would otherwise like to bid 2H (my initial example hand).

 

As for the actual hand of course 2C is a bad bid, Joel Wooldridge tried to convince me that weak 7-4s should rebid 2C (I was unconvinced but it seemed to have merit if you allowed it systemically), but this hand is far from a weak 7-4, it's a very strong hand.

[blackshoe]

So what did he say in ABB 21ST about the 2H raise?

Nothing specific. He concentrates on opener's rebid with a balanced hand - which should bypass a four card major, since unless responder is planning to keep bidding, he won't have one. On the auction 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♥, I feel confident that Hardy would say that opener has shown an unbalanced hand and that responder's raise is GF.

 

On the question of "standard" 2/1 let me say first that I think the word "standard" should be stricken from the language. I'll go on: historically, two different approaches to 2/1 developed in North America: one on the East Coast, and the other on the West Coast. One significant difference between the two is the use of Walsh, which is a West Coast thing. Another is the meaning of a minimum rebid of responder's 2/1 in a minor, e.g., 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♣. In the West Coast style, this is still GF. In the East Coast style, it shows an invitational hand with long clubs (six or more). So what's "standard" 2/1 depends, at least in part, on where you're from.

[mikestar13]

Her's a sequence that works in ultra-vanilla 2/1 where neither partner has ever heard of Walsh and the partnership bids 4 card suits up the line:

 

1♣-1♦;

1♥-4♥;

4NT-5♠;

6♥

 

I'm assuming the partnership doesn't know RCKB either, so 5♠ shows 3 Aces.

 

 

This is how I would have bid with an average partner circa 1977.

 

Methods aren't the key here--it's that West needs to realize that this is about the best 13-count he will see in his life and bid accordingly (I'd estimate the playing value of West's hand to be about 19-20.)

[P_Marlowe]

1C - 1D

2C - 2H (1)

3S (2) - 4D (3)

4NT - 5D

5H - 6H

 

(1) Even not playing Walsh, this should show 5+ D, 4+ hearts and inv.+ strength

(2) Splinter, openers most likely shape is 5431, or 6421

(3) Cue, Ace or King, showing some SI, SI due to the control richness

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I do think hand is too strong for 2C, the hand is worth a reverse,

so over 1D, opener should show the 4 card heart suit, as was stated by others,

but I used the start, that was given at the table.