[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

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2011-October-07, 07:09

[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]

kenrexford, on 2011-October-06, 18:43, said:

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]

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]

jmcw, on 2011-October-06, 23:16, said:

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]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-06, 19:25, said:

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]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-07, 05:50, said:

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]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-07, 05:50, said:

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.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-October-07, 09:05

[TWO4BRIDGE]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-07, 08:50, said:

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 .

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2011-October-07, 10:11

[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.

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-07, 09:53, said:

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]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-06, 19:25, said:

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]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-07, 17:07, said:

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.