Opener's bid after NMF

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S ostensibly showed 5c/4s ( Walshish ) :

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2D! ( EDIT: 4th Suit GF; not NMF )

??

 

Opener's hand:

A K x x

A x

x x

x x x x x

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edit: Yes, 2D was 4th suit GF ( not NMF ... duh.. brain fade ) .

Edited July 30, 2014 by TWO4BRIDGE

[gordontd]

2♥

[biggerclub]

1S ostensibly showed 5c/4s ( Walshish ) :

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2D!

??

 

Opener's hand:

A K x x

A x

x x

x x x x x

 

I would bid 3♣ as my default here. Don't have 3 Hearts, Don't have a diamond stop, if previous bid did not promise 5-4 this confirms at least 5-4, if previous bid did promise 5-4 this one does promise at least 5-4.

[helene_t]

It's FSF rather than NMF, isn't it? Not that it matters. Probably it is best to let the cheapest bid (2♥) be the default. Even without that agreement there is a case for letting 2♥ be allowed on a doubleton. But I don't think that's mainstream. If this is undiscussed I bid 2♠.

[Siegmund]

If you are the type who always opens 1S with 5-5 and 5-6 hands, 2S now just shows concentrated values in the 4-card spade suit and denies 3 hearts or a diamond stopper. But don't do that unless you've discussed it first.

 

As it sits, it's a poster child for always asking with 2C, so a cheap noncomittal 2D bid is available. (But there are lots of other hands where you want to go back to 2 of opener's minor.) If 2S implies 5-6, 2H is probably the least of evils.

[gordontd]

As it sits, it's a poster child for always asking with 2C, so a cheap noncomittal 2D bid is available.

You play 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♣ as artificial? How do you show simple preference?

[whereagles]

If 2♦ is game forcing: perfect hand for 3♦ (stop ask)

 

If 2♦ just forcing for 1 round: 2NT I guess. Pard can ask whether my stopper is lolish with 3♦.

[Trinidad]

You play 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♣ as artificial? How do you show simple preference?

I don't play this method (but I used to play T-Walsh with 2♣ as an artificial relay). But I guess the "false preference" will bid 1NT and the true preference hands will bid 3♣, either immediately or after going through a puppet bid (e.g. 2♣ puppet to 2♦). That is very playable since with a 5-3 club fit, you won't be allowed to play 2♣ anyway.

 

Rik

[steve2005]

He said his FSF was GF so just bid out your hand with 3♣.

 

2♠ showing decent ♠ next choice

 

 

 

[fromageGB]

If one of my partners bid 3♦ I would assume not solid diamonds, but something in that suit. 2NT would be a good diamond stop, and 2♥ 3 card support. If he bid 3♣ I would take his clubs to be better than this. The answer for me is a clear 2♠. This does not show an extra spade (we would open 1♠ on 5xx5, so while 2♠ would also be the bid with 5xx6, as the bid is forced I don't think it guarantees that.

 

Not only does 2♠ show where the values are, but it allows room for 2NT from responder which can then be followed by 3♥ to describe the partial fit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1S ostensibly showed 5c/4s ( Walshish ) :

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2D! ( EDIT: 4th Suit GF; not NMF )

??

 

Opener's hand:

A K x x

A x

x x

x x x x x

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edit: Yes, 2D was 4th suit GF ( not NMF ... duh.. brain fade ) .

 

Well, I finally remembered reading in MaxHardy's yellow paperback ( p.149 ) about

"the least plausible ( or most outlandish lie ) rebid " after being stuck for a bid after 4th suit Game Force .

 

The 4th Suit GF auction was the same one shown here .

 

He suggested 2S also since the 5s/6c hand is very rare .

And if you did have that hand, a 3S rebid next would show the 5s/6c :

1C - 1H

1S - 2D!

2S! ( does not guarantee 5 cards ) - 2NT or 3C/D/H

3S = 5s/6c

[Fluffy]

Here is what all possible bids mean for me:

 

2♥: 3 card support, although in theory 2 with a honnor is possible, it is rare because on this case 2♠ means...

2♠: Free bid to show nothing, normally a 4225 or 4135 without a diamond stopper, for some people it is ambiguous with a 5-6 hand, but even if that is an option it is a big underdog as it happens like a 5-1 ratio vs the non stopper hand.

2NT. Diamond stopper, no extras

3♣: 6+ clubs

3♦: 3 strong diamonds, extras.

3♥: natural, extras

3♠: Good 5-6 or 5-7 but not enough for 2♠ previous round.

3NT: strong 5422 with stopper.,

[gordontd]

I'm surprised by how many people think they can bid 2♠ without being concerned that their partners will think they have five of them.

I think I can bid 2♥ without it showing three because on minimal hands with three hearts I would have raised on the previous round, and with significant extras I would bid 3♥ on this round.

[helene_t]

I'm surprised by how many people think they can bid 2♠ without being concerned that their partners will think they have five of them.

I think I can bid 2♥ without it showing three because on minimal hands with three hearts I would have raised on the previous round, and with significant extras I would bid 3♥ on this round.

2♠ is a cheap bid and there is enough room to sort it out. Responder will bid something (his most neutral bid would be 3♣) and now I bid

3♦ with 4135 no diamond stopper, minimum

3♥ with this hand

3♠ with 5

3NT with 4135 half a diamond stopper

 

2♥ is fine, too, it leaves us with even more room.

[MrAce]

I agree with Gordon, I would not bid 2 spade w/o agreement, even though I agree with most of you that 2sp should be used not promising 5 of them especially for people like me who always open 1 sp with 5-5 blacks.

 

I just would not do it though unless pd knows it.

[helene_t]

But Timo what would you do then? I would think that a random p is more likely to take 2♥ as showing 3 than 2♠ as showing 5. I suppose one could bid 3♣ because it's better to lie about a minor. But for this pair the 1♠ bid already showed five clubs so 3♣ is technically just about the worst bid I can imagine.

[MrAce]

But Timo what would you do then? I would think that a random p is more likely to take 2♥ as showing 3 than 2♠ as showing 5. I suppose one could bid 3♣ because it's better to lie about a minor. But for this pair the 1♠ bid already showed five clubs so 3♣ is technically just about the worst bid I can imagine.

 

I would probably bid 2h or 2 NT. As you probably know from my past comments in these forums that xx vs xxx is all I need to land in 3 NT. Especially if playing with a weak pd.

With a decent pd like you I would probably bid 2h :-)

But yes I agree with most of you that 2 sp here should be standard, if not already, a " catch all " kinda bid.

[the hog]

3c. Can't bid 2h to show a 4315, can't bid 3d as that show 4045. With some pds I would bid 2s, but most here would interpret that as 5/5.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

3c. Can't bid 2h to show a 4315, can't bid 3d as that show 4045. With some pds I would bid 2s, but most here would interpret that as 5/5.

See my post # 11

[aguahombre]

With some pds I would bid 2s, but most here would interpret that as 5/5.

Most here probably would. Your 2S agreement with some pards was written up by Hardy, as two4 states. He didn't invent it, so the Hardy bashers need'nt feel obligated to disregard.

[mikeh]

I'm with the 2♠ bidders in theory, and in practice as well.

 

While Hardy (a terrible bridge writer imo) may have written this up, my first recollection of seeing this sort of hand type being discussed was in the MSC in the Bridge World: not surprising, since the whole idea of the MSC (at least in the late 1970's to the 1990's) was to create hands that fell in the seams of BW Standard, a method fairly close to mainstream 2/1 as it was then played (well, earlier versions were closer to SA than to 2/1, but that evolved).

 

The notion, as I recall, was that when one had no call that actually 'fit', one should try to use the call that was the least distortion, and that partner should realize (even without you breaking tempo :P ) that this 'least distortion' call was suspect.

 

Here, 2♥ showing 3 is simply too valuable, imo, to use as the least distortion bid. Not only does it suggest (show) 3 hearts, but it also shows (suggests) very short diamonds, and that may cause too big an issue, should partner, for example, hold a good hand with xxx in diamonds.

 

So if we accept that notion, and I can see why some might disagree, then the next cheapest candidate is 2♠. I think this has to be correct because it maximizes bidding space: it is far, far easier to work things out after 2♠ than it is after, say, 3♣. What if partner was forcing based on clubs? Over 3♣ he has to bid 4♣, which we can't possibly be happy to see, with xxxxx in our trump suit, having already promised 5 with our 1♠ call.

 

2N is a possibility, as noted by Timo for one. I don't have an issue with playing 3N with xx opposite xxx when we have 9 winners on the side and no better game, but I really don't like playing 3N with xx opposite xx or with having a lead come through partner's Kx(x) at trick one.

 

2♠ is no panacea, but I think that bridge logic dictates that in ambiguous situations, this type of call has to be taken cautiously by partner. Partner shouldn't insist on spades without 4 of them.

[ArtK78]

1S ostensibly showed 5c/4s ( Walshish ) :

 

1C - 1H

1S - 2D! ( EDIT: 4th Suit GF; not NMF )

??

 

 

Let's go back to square one.

 

Am I correct that, in this particular sequence, opener's 1♠ rebid playing Walsh does NOT guarantee an unbalanced hand?

 

I understand that the OP said "Walshish" in his initial post, and he may play that the 1♠ rebid does promise an unbalanced hand. But I am still curious. I was taught that one had to bid 1♠ over 1♥ even on a balanced hand or a 4-4 spade fit could be lost.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Let's go back to square one.

 

Am I correct that, in this particular sequence, opener's 1♠ rebid playing Walsh does NOT guarantee an unbalanced hand?

 

I understand that the OP said "Walshish" in his initial post, and he may play that the 1♠ rebid does promise an unbalanced hand. But I am still curious. I was taught that one had to bid 1♠ over 1♥ even on a balanced hand or a 4-4 spade fit could be lost.

At the time I was playing with someone who said 1S here would show the unbalanced 4s and longer ♣.

With a 4-4, you bypass a ♠ rebid and bid 1NT . I agree with you ... as I have seen ♠ suit "lost" .

[mikeh]

At the time I was playing with someone who said 1S here would show the unbalanced 4s and longer ♣.

With a 4-4, you bypass a ♠ rebid and bid 1NT . I agree with you ... as I have seen ♠ suit "lost" .

So have I, yet I remain to be convinced that this issue offsets the very significant benefits of the method.

 

Btw, and without attempting to deny that there is a net cost to missing the 4-4 spade partial (one will never miss a 4-4 game or slam if proper methods are used over the 1N rebid), in real life the cost is modest and infrequent, and offset to some degree from the pickups when 1N proves to be a better contract than the 2 or 3♠ contracts reached once the fit is found. Indeed, as I think I have said before on this forum, the first time I talked a good friend, and expert, into playing this method, we scored a top by getting a spade lead into our 1N contract, costing the defence a trick in the suit and a tempo on the defence. Everyone else 'found' spades and went down, while we made an overtrick.

 

Here may not be the place to discuss all the benefits of the method, but briefly, they include:

 

1) responder's rebid problems after a non-walsh 1♠ rebid, especially with hands such as 6-10 hcp, 3=4=3=3 or 2=5=3=3 or 3=5=2=3.

 

Does responder bid 1N, and find that the diamonds run and we have a 5-3 club fit, or does responder bid 2♣ and find opener with 4=3=3=3, or 4324/4324, where 1N is clearly superior?

 

2) finding the right game, or (indeed) evaluating game prospects. Will/should responder explore a club contract or opt for 3N? Knowing, early on before having to make descriptive bids, that opener is at least 4=5 blacks or, on the other hand, is NOT shapely, can impact responder's decisions and influence the amount of information given to the opps

 

This can include staying out of game when a misfit becomes immediately apparent.

 

3) finding the right slam, or indeed any slam. Sometimes the key is the ability not merely to count losers but also, having determined that one has only one or zero fast losers, to count tricks. Knowing that opener has shape may allow an early determination to probe for a low hcp slam.

 

There are other gains as well, such as making balancing decisions over our 1N far more dangerous when opener may hold a 4 card spade suit, especially after a 1N rebid is passed around to 4th chair.

 

It is an error to simply identify what is admittedly a cost of the method. One has to identify all costs and all gains and then determine where the balance lies. I haven't regretted the move to 1N doesn't deny spades at any time in the more than 20 years I have played the method. None of the partners with whom I played it for any significant period have since, as far as I know, given it up.

[whereagles]

I made a sim on that sometime ago. If I recall correctly, skipping spades leads to playing 1NT when 2S was a better contract in like 3-4% of the time.

 

Personally I do it all the time, but I've heard stories of an italian junior team coach "firing" a pair for doing it LOL.