Help
1NT is the obvious choice. I can't even understand any other choice. Raising promises 4, 1♥ promises 4. Balanced hands should bid like balanced hands and forget about stoppers when the opponents haven't bid yet. This is one of the aspects of current bidding that distinguishes it from bidding of the past.
Confirmation Class
#21
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-June-13, 15:03
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2007-June-13, 16:19
Ken: you started the problem with the following condition:
You then go on to say:
If you would have stopped there, no one would disagree with you. But you carry on with:
Look, if you want to start introducing a balanced hand with a fragment, call it Walsh, and say that a Walsh rebid can accomodate a hand like this, along with an unbalanced 4144 or 4-5+, go ahead. But its not Walsh. Frankly, pure Walsh players would laugh at the concept.
As far as lying about 4 hearts now or later, I think raising hearts later is clearly the lesser 'lie'. Most of us play some sort of checkback after 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N, so there's no need for responder to introduce a fragment call of 2♥ after a 1N rebid to create a force. 2 of a major is most certainly patterning out after the original 1♦ response.
(Curiously in my own partnership, 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N - 2 major doesn't really exist, since all invitional and GF hands start with xyz, with the exception of the 3 level jumps. We've actually defined 2 major AS a fragment, with an invite.)
I personally abhore any 1 level rebids on a fragment. I know Ben plays them sytemically, but I think it can create a lot more problems that it solves. One of the MSC problems this month is the rebid after 1♦ - 1♥ with: AKx, x, KJxxxx, AJx ( I think). Some will vote for 1♠, but this is a real misdescription.
Quote
Walsh-pure 2/1 GF.
You then go on to say:
Quote
If 1♥ absolutely promises four hearts and absolutely promises 5422 pattern at the worst, then clearly 1♥ is not a possible bid, as it is definitionally prohibited.
If you would have stopped there, no one would disagree with you. But you carry on with:
Quote
That's not, however, the real question. The real, underlying question is whether 1♥ should absolutely promise four hearts with 5422 at worst, or whether 1♥ can include 2335 (and 1♠ include 3235) with a COV problem. If the answer is something like, "Yes, that sounds like a good idea," then the definitional problem goes away
Look, if you want to start introducing a balanced hand with a fragment, call it Walsh, and say that a Walsh rebid can accomodate a hand like this, along with an unbalanced 4144 or 4-5+, go ahead. But its not Walsh. Frankly, pure Walsh players would laugh at the concept.
As far as lying about 4 hearts now or later, I think raising hearts later is clearly the lesser 'lie'. Most of us play some sort of checkback after 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N, so there's no need for responder to introduce a fragment call of 2♥ after a 1N rebid to create a force. 2 of a major is most certainly patterning out after the original 1♦ response.
(Curiously in my own partnership, 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N - 2 major doesn't really exist, since all invitional and GF hands start with xyz, with the exception of the 3 level jumps. We've actually defined 2 major AS a fragment, with an invite.)
I personally abhore any 1 level rebids on a fragment. I know Ben plays them sytemically, but I think it can create a lot more problems that it solves. One of the MSC problems this month is the rebid after 1♦ - 1♥ with: AKx, x, KJxxxx, AJx ( I think). Some will vote for 1♠, but this is a real misdescription.
"Phil" on BBO