What do you bid?

[Free]

Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - ?

(note: 1♠ is not forcing by agreement, you play 4th suit forcing and Walsch)

(note: you're playing a 5 card Major system, with ♦'s always 4+ cards, so 1♣ can be a doubleton)

(note: 1♠ doesn't deny a balanced hand) -> Chamaco :rolleyes:

 

You hold:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sqtxhjt9xxda87xcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

What do you bid?

[whereagles]

1NT seems just about par. There are hints of misfit, so better put on the brakes.

 

One could also pass, but might miss a game if pd happens to have 3 hearts and an half-decent hand.

[Chamaco]

Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - ?

(note: 1♠ is not forcing by agreement, you play 4th suit forcing and Walsch)

(note: you're playing a 5 card Major system, with ♦'s always 4+ cards, so 1♣ can be a doubleton)

 

You hold:

 

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> QTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> JT9xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> A87x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

What do you bid?

 

If the following are true:

 

a. 1S denies a balanced hand ( in Walsh style, opener's suit rebid here instead of 1NT guarantees at least 44 in the suits bids, usually with unbalanced hand OR , if balanced, with concentrated values), and

b. 1S is passable

 

then I will PASS.

 

1- Pard has real clubs, so our singleton is a minus

2- Pard is likely to be short in hearts; true, he might have 2 or (for some pairs) 3 , but he might be as well shorter;

3- we have only 7 hcp and the misfit does not justifying reevaluating the hand for distribution; let's stop at the one level: many opps will balance into THEIR misfit contract.

[Rebound]

1NT. Bidding is supposed to be all about describing your hand. Well I have a stop in the unbid suit so I think I'll let partner know now.

[flytoox]

1N, no second choice here.

[flytoox]

Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - ?

(note: 1♠ is not forcing by agreement, you play 4th suit forcing and Walsch)

(note: you're playing a 5 card Major system, with ♦'s always 4+ cards, so 1♣ can be a doubleton)

 

You hold:

 

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> QTx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> JT9xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> A87x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

What do you bid?

 

If the following are true:

 

a. 1S denies a balanced hand ( in Walsh style, opener's suit rebid here instead of 1NT guarantees at least 44 in the suits bids, usually with unbalanced hand OR , if balanced, with concentrated values), and

b. 1S is passable

 

then I will PASS.

 

1- Pard has real clubs, so our singleton is a minus

2- Pard is likely to be short in hearts; true, he might have 2 or (for some pairs) 3 , but he might be as well shorter;

3- we have only 7 hcp and the misfit does not justifying reevaluating the hand for distribution; let's stop at the one level: many opps will balance into THEIR misfit contract.

Pass is too conservative. You have very good 7HCP and game is still possible. Keep the door open.

[Chamaco]

Pass is too conservative. You have very good 7HCP and game is still possible. Keep the door open.

1S is a passable bid, and there is clear indication the hand is a misfit (clubs are real under the Walsh assumptions).

 

Opener has less than 18 and probably less than a good 17, otherwise he could jump to 2S.

 

We might *occasionally* miss a 3NT with 24 hcp, but usually in misfit hand it takes more hcp to bid 3NT.

 

A much more likely scenario is opps sticking in balancing over 1S and be punished.

[whereagles]

Clubs may not be real. As Free said, opener may still have a balanced hand, including a 4-3-3-3. Though I agree a 4-x-x-4 is more likely.

 

Still, 1NT is technically correct.

[Chamaco]

Clubs may not be real. As Free said, opener may still have a balanced hand, including a 4-3-3-3.

Then, to my understanding, it's not Walsh style.

 

In Walsh style, the way I learned it (if I remeber it well, in "Better bidding with Bergen"), opener rebids 1/2NT to show the appropriate range of balanced hand, even bypassing a major.

 

So in Walsh style, a suit rebid by opener guarantees a hand with 2-suiter features (either a 54 or, if balanced, 4432 with concentrated values; with scattered values in 4432, rebid NT)

[whereagles]

You can play walsh in two ways:

 

1. Bypassing majors always, or

2. Bypassing majors only on the case 1C-1D-1NT.

 

Free seems to be playing 2.

[Walddk]

A textbook 1NT.

 

Roland

[Winstonm]

This hand brings up a couple of interesting side questions. First, is there value in playing this 1S rebid as a 100% force and if not what is the top end? And second, could it ever be right to make an immediate raise of spades with 3-card support.

 

If the hand in question were a little better where game is more probable, I might be tempted to raise spades with:

 

Q10x

A873

A9432

x

 

On the auction, pard is more likely in Walsh style to be 5422 or 5431 than to have a concentrated 4432. Might not this hand make more tricks in the Moysian fit?

 

Even AJ93, x, xxx, AKxxx could produce a spade game but NT would be ugly.

 

I'm sure I'm the minority here but I would be sorely tempted to bid 2S on this example hand. :P

 

On the given hand I rate 1N the best but would be very tempted at MPs to make the pass; at imps, I hate to give up on a pard who holds:

AKxx, KQx, x, A10xxx and is waiting to show delayed support over my 1N bid.

 

WinstonM

[han]

1NT for me too, it is way to early to be masterminding about a possible maysian fit game in my opinion.

[hrothgar]

I think this is a clearcut 2♠ bid.

 

If partner has a balanced hand, then he also holds a minimum. In this case, we're going to rest in a nice 2♠ contract and be very well positioned to destroy the opponents if they balance.

 

If partner holds a maximum, he is unbalanced with clubs and spades. In this case, the Moysian should play better than NT.

 

Either way, I'm positioned well.

 

Its also worth noting that that the 2♠ bid actually puts some pressure on the opponents. An anemic 1NT or pass provides the opponents with an easy chance to describe their hands.

[mike777]

I think this is a clearcut 2♠ bid.

 

If partner has a balanced hand, then he also holds a minimum. In this case, we're going to rest in a nice 2♠ contract and be very well positioned to destroy the opponents if they balance.

 

If partner holds a maximum, he is unbalanced with clubs and spades. In this case, the Moysian should play better than NT.

 

Either way, I'm positioned well.

 

Its also worth noting that that the 2♠ bid actually puts some pressure on the opponents. An anemic or pass also the opponents an easy chance to describe their hands.

I bid 1nt here.

 

Agree with all of your premises. Your conclusions are unique and very interesting and have not seen them before.

 

Discussing only the balanced minimum opener case:

1) Understand 2s would put a lot of pressure on opp.

2) Would you bid the same MP or IMP?

3) Why does 4-3 play better than 1nt?

4) As in other forum post, why not let them balance you out of 1nt and then rebid 2s and make them guess again at 3 level? Is the opp doubling you in 2s that real of a concern to consider?

 

Thanks in advance.

[luke warm]

Bidding goes (partner starts, opps are quiet):

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ - ?

(note: 1♠ is not forcing by agreement, you play 4th suit forcing and Walsch)

(note: you're playing a 5 card Major system, with ♦'s always 4+ cards, so 1♣ can be a doubleton)

(note: 1♠ doesn't deny a balanced hand) -> Chamaco :)

 

You hold:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sqtxhjt9xxda87xcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

What do you bid?

1nt for me, partner is 4/5 in the blacks (or some 4441).. if he moves again i'll show the 5 hearts or 3 spades

[Winstonm]

Hrothgar

I think this is a clearcut 2♠ bid.

 

I believe their is a lot of merit to the 2S bid, more so at MPs than imps. This hand looks more promising in a trump fit but I would be concerned about getting overboard at imps.

 

Still, I admire the thinking behind this bid. :)

 

WinstonM

[the hog]

In my partnerships - 2S. The way I play opener is unbalanced with the blacks; neither of my rd suit stoppers is robust, so 2S should play better that 1N.

 

I really can't comment on the problem as originally presented by Free's based on the premise that opener may not have C & S. I stopped bidding like this years ago.

[pclayton]

1S does not promise an unbalanced hand. But in my partnerships it carries the same level of force as a reverse.Not standard, I know.

 

With this agreement, my biggest worry is that part holds a semi balanced 18-19 that spins 3N. Sometimes we will rebid 1S on a bare 4333 19 or a thin 18 like AQxx xx AQx AQxx.

 

So I'm a little torn between pass and 1N. As much as I admire 2S its a little rich with a dead minimum and only 3 trumps. The hands that I like a 3 card raise in this instance are typically a Q better.

[hrothgar]

1S does not promise an unbalanced hand. But in my partnerships it carries the same level of force as a reverse.Not standard, I know.

 

With this agreement, my biggest worry is that part holds a semi balanced 18-19 that spins 3N. Sometimes we will rebid 1S on a bare 4333 19 or a thin 18 like AQxx xx AQx AQxx.

The original post explictly noted that 1♠ is non-forcing

Partner doesn't have a balanced 18-19 count.

[Fluffy]

1NT, easy one.

 

Supporting ♠ as opener with 3 cards is pointless IMO, doing it when you know for sure there cannot be a fit.... Oh, well it can be better, who knows.

[Free]

I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.

 

About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.

[EricK]

I was sitting west. Opener had a 4-3-2-4. His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown). Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.

 

About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response. I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.

Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!

 

Eric

[luke warm]

I was sitting west.  Opener had a 4-3-2-4.  His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown).  Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.

 

About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response.  I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.

Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!

 

Eric

or bid 1nt instead of 1♠ :D

[EricK]

I was sitting west.  Opener had a 4-3-2-4.  His partner passed the 1♠ bid, and they got a bottom (they went -1 tnx to great defense from my partner, while 2♥ was laydown).  Whoever claims that your opponents will bid in this situation is playing too much against weak opponents imo, it's completely crazy to bid V vs NV after misfit auctions.

 

About the walsch thingy: the guys told me they only bypass a Major after 1♣-1♦, not after 1♥ response.  I don't know who is right or wrong in this discussion, but they seem to play a simple "walsch-response scheme", nothing else.

Which is why opener should have raised ♥ when he had the chance!

 

Eric

or bid 1nt instead of 1♠ :D

Will responder always return to 2♥ with 5♥? If so, playing 2♥ with Jxxxx opposite xx is no fun; but if not you would miss the 5-3 fit unless opener raises.

 

Eric