[jillybean]

P (P) 1♣ (P)

---

Maybe you would open this, this time you passed.

Your bid now. Does it matter if you play walsh or not, does Walsh apply to a passed hand.

[ArtK78]

I bid 1♦.

I don't know if Walsh applies to a passed hand (I would say no, but I am not an expert on Walsh), but since I cannot possibly have a stronger hand than this I am going to bid it out in the natural order of my suit lengths.

[helene_t]

Walsh applies to a passed hand.

Playing Walsh I think you could agree to bid a 5-card diamonds first with 11+ points since you are strong enough to invite over 1NT so you might as well explore a major suit fit then.

Playing up-the-line I bid 1♦, after all that's the agreement

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that some kind of checkback is necessary, particularly playing Walsh. I say that even though I have several partners who aren't willing to make the effort to learn even New Minor Forcing (which is probably the simplest of the checkbacks, and also the least effective).

Even playing Walsh, I'd agree with Helene — bid the diamonds first.

[Phil]

1♦. Partner hasn't bid 1N yet, and even then I don't mind 2♠.

Hopefully partner isn't jokering in 3rd seat.

[hotShot]

Since I prefer bidding up-the-line, 1♦ is a nobrainer to me.

If you agreed to play Walsh (even passed)) you can benefit, because bidding 1♦ now and bidding 1♠ over partners 1♥ has to show the strongest possible hand. Weaker hands would bid the ♠'s first.

[pooltuna]

Flip a coin I don't see any great tactical advantage to either 1♠ or 1♦ on this hand so maybe it is best to try to confuse the opps and bid differently than you have on other hands

[neilkaz]

hotShot, on Aug 13 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Since I prefer bidding up-the-line, 1♦ is a nobrainer to me.

If you agreed to play Walsh (even passed)) you can benefit, because bidding 1♦ now and bidding 1♠ over partners 1♥ has to show the strongest possible hand. Weaker hands would bid the ♠'s first.

Agreed on bidding 1♦ now with 5-4 and a hand that some people would open.

[nigel_k]

1♦. Don't play Walsh and have no desire to. As others have said, the case for 1♦ is even stronger when you are worth two bids. I very much agree with the original pass as well.

[Cascade]

1♦ is normal.

I don't know the ins and outs of Walsh though.

I tell my learners that :

"Whereever possible bid your longest suit first" is the fundamental rule of bidding.

[jillybean]

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

1♦ is normal.

I don't know the ins and outs of Walsh though.

I tell my learners that :

"Whereever possible bid your longest suit first" is the fundamental rule of bidding.

'Walsh' is a completely different beast, as Im finding out.

[jillybean]

P (P) 1♣ (P)

---

So the auction continues..

P (P) 1♣ (P)
1♦ (P) 2♣ P
2♠ (P) 2N (P)

Do you leave it in 2N?

[nigel_k]

3♣ at IMPS. Pass at matchpoints - maybe hearts are 4-4 since they didn't bid.

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on Aug 14 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

3♣ at IMPS. Pass at matchpoints - maybe hearts are 4-4 since they didn't bid.

If you are intending this to play then you need the clear agrement that 3minor is not forcing.

[jillybean]

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 14 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

3♣ at IMPS. Pass at matchpoints - maybe hearts are 4-4 since they didn't bid.

If you are intending this to play then you need the clear agrement that 3minor is not forcing.

I'd think 3♣ would be 100% forcing by a non passed hand, nf by a passed hand and yes, another sequence to discuss with your pard.

[nigel_k]

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 14 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

3♣ at IMPS. Pass at matchpoints - maybe hearts are 4-4 since they didn't bid.

If you are intending this to play then you need the clear agrement that 3minor is not forcing.

I'd be interested to know what sort of agreements people have.

Since I have shown close to a maximum pass by bidding 2♠ and he has limited his hand by rebidding 2♣ over 1♦ we probably belong in either 3♣ or 3NT. My hand has no particular reason to play 3NT beyond what I have already shown so I choose 3♣. If anything I'd say it makes more sense to play 2NT forcing than 3♣. It's possible I could have a hand where 5♣ makes but that's quite a long way off given how the auction started and still no reason that we have to keep bidding.

[cherdanno]

jillybean, on Aug 13 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 13 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 14 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

3♣ at IMPS. Pass at matchpoints - maybe hearts are 4-4 since they didn't bid.

If you are intending this to play then you need the clear agrement that 3minor is not forcing.

I'd think 3♣ would be 100% forcing by a non passed hand, nf by a passed hand and yes, another sequence to discuss with your pard.

Agree with Kathryn.

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on Aug 14 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

I'd be interested to know what sort of agreements people have.

We have a general agreement that 3minor is non-forcing over 2NT.

We don't play 2NT forcing on this sequence.

[ArtK78]

No non-jump non-cuebid is forcing on a passed hand.

That said, I am not passing 2NT. 3♣ has got to be a better contract.

[cherdanno]

ArtK78, on Aug 14 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

No non-jump non-cuebid is forcing on a passed hand.

Huh?