[dickiegera]

---

Playing walsh does 1♦ asking partner to bid 1NT, if balanced need to be alerted?

If ♦ are short as in example is the main purpose of question.

Also does 1NT bid need alerted as could be bypassing a 4 card major?


Thank you

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2018-April-18, 16:38, said:

---

Playing walsh does 1♦ asking partner to bid 1NT, if balanced need to be alerted?

If ♦ are short as in example is the main purpose of question.

Also does 1NT bid need alerted as could be bypassing a 4 card major?


Thank you

This is obviously a matter of jurisdiction and regulation.
I do not know ACBL rules, but where I play the 1♦ bid must be alerted (among other reasons) because it does not "promise" at least four cards in Diamonds.
A 1NT bid need not be alerted on the sole ground that it bypasses a 4 card major.

[wank]

pran, on 2018-April-19, 01:12, said:

This is obviously a matter of jurisdiction and regulation.
I do not know ACBL rules, but where I play the 1♦ bid must be alerted (among other reasons) because it does not "promise" at least four cards in Diamonds.
A 1NT bid need not be alerted on the sole ground that it bypasses a 4 card major.

who says 1d doesn't guarantee 4 diamonds? it does in walsh, though of course it may not in whatever system you play. anyway, it wouldn't need to guarantee 4d in the acbl. 3 would be sufficient to be non-alertable.

[blackshoe]

As I understand Walsh, 1♦ does not ask opener to bid 1NT. Rather it says that if opener rebids 1NT, and if responder has a four card major, responder has enough to bid again over 1NT. And I wouldn't bid 1♦ with the given hand. Looks more like a 3♣ bid to me.

1♦ playing Walsh does not require an alert in ACBL. Neither does the 1NT rebid.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-19, 01:12, said:

This is obviously a matter of jurisdiction and regulation.

The thread title says "ACBL".

[barmar]

wank, on 2018-April-19, 04:52, said:

who says 1d doesn't guarantee 4 diamonds? it does in walsh, though of course it may not in whatever system you play. anyway, it wouldn't need to guarantee 4d in the acbl. 3 would be sufficient to be non-alertable.

The OP seems to be confused about what Walsh style means. But his example shows bidding 1♦ with only 2 diamonds. If that's part of their agreed system, it needs to be alerted.

[wank]

barmar, on 2018-April-19, 09:24, said:

The OP seems to be confused about what Walsh style means. But his example shows bidding 1♦ with only 2 diamonds. If that's part of their agreed system, it needs to be alerted.

well, yes, the op is evidently misplaying walsh.

[barmar]

wank, on 2018-April-19, 11:14, said:

well, yes, the op is evidently misplaying walsh.

Or playing something different and mis-calling it Walsh.

There's some relationship between what he's playing and Walsh. In Walsh, you often bid a 4-card major even though you have a biddable diamond suit, therefore bidding 1♦ over 1♣ suggests that you don't have a major, and opener can bypass their major to bid 1NT. The OP has taken this to an extreme, bidding 1♦ whenever you don't have a 4-card major, even if you don't have diamonds. Or maybe it's optional: he might bid 1NT himself if he has better texture in the majors rather than small cards in both.