[kenrexford]

I had thought perhaps I was out there in my views in a specific auction, until I independently had confirmed that several folks thought the same way.

Here's the problem:

Walsh-pure 2/1 GF. IMPs (KO).

You open 1♣ with ♠xx ♥KQx ♦Qxx ♣AJ10xx.

The opponents are silent.

Partner responds 1♦.

Your call?

[gwnn]

1NT?

[FrancesHinden]

The 'system' call is 1NT.
I know plenty of people who would raise to 2D.

I don't think either option is "way out there"

[hrothgar]

I suspect that my view will be very much in the minority, however, I am torn between a 1♥ and a 2♦ rebid.

If the auction starts

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (P)
1N - All pass

I'm not going to be happy.

I expect that the opponents are going to be able to run 4-5 Spades off the top. If I were playing Polish Club, I'd have a simple 1♥ rebid. I suspect that my desire to do so in a 2/1 context is somehow related.

I would (probably) rebid 2♦. If partner has a strong hand, he'll be able to make a reasonable rebid. If partner passes, I expect that the opponents will back in to 2♠

[Gerben42]

2♦ would be the bid in a Walsh-style system where 1♦ is "5 cards unless GF", as Richard has shown why 1NT is possibly dangerous. 1NT would be the field bid, though, and as such not crazy at all.

[Fluffy]

I'd bid 1NT without even thinking of it.

It is standard around here to play 2♦ as reverse values or more.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Jun 13 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

I suspect that my view will be very much in the minority, however, I am torn between a 1♥ and a 2♦ rebid.

If the auction starts

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (P)
1N - All pass

I'm not going to be happy. 

I expect that the opponents are going to be able to run 4-5 Spades off the top.  If I were playing Polish Club, I'd have a simple 1♥ rebid.  I suspect that my desire to do so in a 2/1 context is somehow related.

I would (probably) rebid 2♦.  If partner has a strong hand, he'll be able to make a reasonable rebid.  If partner passes, I expect that the opponents will back in to 2♠

This was the "weird" action.

I have felt for a while that 1♣-P-1♦-P-1M is the "right call" with a 2335/3235 and a COV problem.

This example tickled me when a better player than me described the auction on this hand as starting out 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥.

Apparently there are a few of us out here.

[Codo]

Good luck in rescuing your bidding choice after
1 ♣ 1 ♦ 1 ♥ 4 ♥ (or some other space consuming bids from pd.

Yes you can solve a problem just to create another which may be bigger.

What is your problem in 1 NT? They take the first 5 tricks in spade? So what, you may get 7 from the last 8 to make your contract.

[mikeh]

Gerben42, on Jun 13 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

2♦ would be the bid in a Walsh-style system where 1♦ is "5 cards unless GF", as Richard has shown why 1NT is possibly dangerous. 1NT would be the field bid, though, and as such not crazy at all.

In a walsh approach, 1♦ is the default bid on, say, 3=3=3=4 with 6-7 hcp.... and certainly with 3=3=4=3 with 6. The point is that in walsh, the 1N response to 1♣ is usually played as 8-10.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 13 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

I suspect that my view will be very much in the minority, however, I am torn between a 1♥ and a 2♦ rebid.

If the auction starts

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (P)
1N - All pass

I'm not going to be happy. 

I expect that the opponents are going to be able to run 4-5 Spades off the top.  If I were playing Polish Club, I'd have a simple 1♥ rebid.  I suspect that my desire to do so in a 2/1 context is somehow related.

I would (probably) rebid 2♦.  If partner has a strong hand, he'll be able to make a reasonable rebid.  If partner passes, I expect that the opponents will back in to 2♠

This was the "weird" action.

I have felt for a while that 1♣-P-1♦-P-1M is the "right call" with a 2335/3235 and a COV problem.

This example tickled me when a better player than me described the auction on this hand as starting out 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥.

Apparently there are a few of us out here.

I understand 1♥... certainly, at mps, it has some attraction. The problem arises when partner has a GOOD hand.. which is relatively infrequent, hence less of an issue at mps than at imps. At imps, if he is, for example, 4=5 in the reds, you are never going to persuade him that you are 5332... in a walsh method, you have promised 4=4=1=4 or wilder. And there will be other scenarios in which he cannot picture your hand accurately and thus may get to the wrong contract.

BTW, what on earth is the fear of them running ♠s against 1N? Neither of them bid, and we are, when we shy away from 1N by distorting our shape, assuming that partner has a weak hand. So ♠s rate to be 4=4 and partner may have a stopper. Besides which, last time I played 1N, I didn't expect to take all of the tricks: I only need 7 of them...I won't begrudge the opps some winners. I'd be far, far more concerned with discouraging a balance. My 1N rebid, which may be based on 4=4=2=3, is more likely to be effective in that regard than 1♥

[kenrexford]

Codo, on Jun 13 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

Good luck in rescuing your bidding choice after
1 ♣ 1 ♦ 1 ♥ 4 ♥ (or some other space consuming bids from pd.

Yes you can solve a problem just to create another which may be bigger.

What is your problem in 1 NT? They take the first 5 tricks in spade? So what, you may get 7 from the last 8 to make your contract.

No one bids 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥-P-4♥ in Walsh. If anything that would be RKCB for clubs (Flagwood) or for diamonds (Redwood). 2♥ would be GF.

Further, the problem is not with 1NT. The problem is with 3NT. I'm not sure that partner needs to pass 1NT. To quote your example, switched for this auction, what do you do after 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-3NT? Take seven of the remaining eight tricks, for down two? LOL

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 13 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

I understand 1♥... certainly, at mps, it has some attraction. The problem arises when partner has a GOOD hand.. which is relatively infrequent, hence less of an issue at mps than at imps. At imps, if he is, for example, 4=5 in the reds, you are never going to persuade him that you are 5332... in a walsh method, you have promised 4=4=1=4 or wilder.

These types of auctions, and "strange" variants, only cause problems for partners if they do not have understandings as to these problems.

A simple solution in this context is rather obvious, it seems. If partner has a good hand with hearts, he will bid 2♥, which is GF. You then bid 2NT, 3♣, or 3NT, whichever tells partner that you have a COV 2335/3235. (Our solution is 3♣.)

The same situation arises after, say, 1minor-P-1Major-P-2Major(raise). You are raising with three cards sometimes, because of a COV problem. If partner next bids 2NT (random game try -- what I use; all else shows 5-card), you will rebid you minor with the 3-card COV raise problem hand. Same solution for the same problem.

The fact that this is an auction where you introduce the three-card major before partner shows the 4-card major is somewhat relevant, to a degree, but the situation is rather similar theoretically. Granted, partner will not have a 5-card suit, such that a true fit cannot exist. However, you also have the protection that partner will not suspect a fit incorrectly unless he has the GF hand with 5-4, in which case he will assuredly bid 2M, leading you to safely indicating that you really had the COV hand.

I'm also not simply concerned about 1NT or 3NT. I also am interested in letting partner know about the fifth club, in case a club slam is there, or 5♣, or competing to 3♣.

[pclayton]

Ken - as Mike points out, you simply cant bid 1H playing Walsh. It promises an unbalanced hand.

Oddly, the best way to get to the Moysian (in walsh) is to rebid 1N and raise pards hearts. He'll play you for a balanced hand with 4 hearts - which isnt too far off the mark.

Playing up the line where 1D could be just about anything, Im bidding 1N at MPs . For Mike's reasons, Im not that concerned about gettting killed in spades.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

A simple solution in this context is rather obvious, it seems. If partner has a good hand with hearts, he will bid 2♥, which is GF.

Since when is 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H game forcing?
The traditional Walshesque meaning is a hand like

xxx
KQx
KJxxx
xx

good luck in your 3-3 fit.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 13 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Ken - as Mike points out, you simply cant bid 1H playing Walsh. It promises an unbalanced hand.

Oddly, the best way to get to the Moysian (in walsh) is to rebid 1N and raise pards hearts. He'll play you for a balanced hand with 4 hearts - which isnt too far off the mark.

Playing up the line where 1D could be just about anything, Im bidding 1N at MPs . For Mike's reasons, Im not that concerned about gettting killed in spades.

Um...

It seems that you are making a rather convenient argument here.

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.

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.

I also find it strange that you are willing to show three hearts as four hearts later in the auction, when partner has promised four himself, rather than early in the auction, when in a large number of instances the "lie" will not matter and when the importance of the call is heightened. Your late action occurs when space for partner to work out the "lie" has been lost unless you forfeit something more useful.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 13 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

A simple solution in this context is rather obvious, it seems.  If partner has a good hand with hearts, he will bid 2♥, which is GF.

Since when is 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H game forcing?
The traditional Walshesque meaning is a hand like

xxx
KQx
KJxxx
xx

good luck in your 3-3 fit.

This exact hand pattern was the source of the full discussion. With this pattern, Responder bids 1♠ (one-round force). Now, Opener bids 2♦. That may sound like 1435, but 2335 is possible (if you bid this way, of course).

The actual auction discussed was 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-P-P. The contract was right, but Responder was baffled by dummy, as he had never seen this auction before. Now, he will recognize it. As a non-participant in the auction, I was asked about this sequence for when I play with these folks, and I agreed that Opener is 1435 or 2335 (with a COV problem), confirming that I "knew" this.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 07:46 PM, said:

This exact hand pattern was the source of the full discussion. With this pattern, Responder bids 1♠ (one-round force). Now, Opener bids 2♦. That may sound like 1435, but 2335 is possible (if you bid this way, of course).

The actual auction discussed was 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♥-P-1♠-P-2♦-P-P-P. The contract was right, but Responder was baffled by dummy, as he had never seen this auction before. Now, he will recognize it.

Hi Ken:

While I suggested 1♥ as a possible bid, maybe even an attractive bid, I don't (necessarily) think that this is a good bid playing a basic Walsh system. I certainly wouldn't consider this systemic, nor would I expect that partner would ever believe that I would make this bid with three hearts. Please recall that I am the only other player who even considered a 1♥ rebid (never a good thing) and even I wasn't willing to make this bid.

For what its worth, I do think that you can design a playable set of method in which 1♥ only promises three cards, however, this really shouldn't be considered standard nor should you expect that other players will miraculously be on the same wavelength.

[whereagles]

I really don't understand not making the system bid of 1NT. If you're gonna mastermind, you better have a GOOD hand, not a mundane one.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on Jun 13 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

I really don't understand not making the system bid of 1NT. If you're gonna mastermind, you better have a GOOD hand, not a mundane one.

You are not masterminding if the bid can be made with three pieces.

Then, the question is when to "mastermind." If we assume that to be a question of when to use this call, it seems more intuitively that you would do this witha mundane hand, where your meager values are concentrated. The more strength that you have, the more likely you will not have a COV problem.

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 13 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 13 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

A simple solution in this context is rather obvious, it seems.  If partner has a good hand with hearts, he will bid 2♥, which is GF.

Since when is 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H game forcing?
The traditional Walshesque meaning is a hand like

xxx
KQx
KJxxx
xx

good luck in your 3-3 fit.

They way we play Walsh in Norway, a 1♥ rebid shows a 4-bagger and an unbalanced hand, a raise to 2♥ by responder is GF.

I have no qualms about rebidding 1NT with this opening hand. With Frances' responder hand I'd not bid the ♦'s at all, just respond 1NT. (In my preferred methods (our version of T-Walsh) this is a 1♠ response btw, showing 6-9 "balanced" or ♦'s and unlimited.)