[PrecisionL]

I do not play a lot of 2/1, although in SA this problem also comes up also.

♠: Kx ♥: K9xx ♦: ATxxxx ♣: x

Bidding goes 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT - ?

I know, playing Walsh many would bid 1♥ would they not?

However, now partner said she could not be 2♥ as that would be a reverse and Game Forcing! I thought it would be G.I.

SAYC books and 2/1 books seem to agree with partner that it is G.F.

Comments / solutions? I had a balanced 14 count: 3=4=2=4 with 8 hcp in ♣s. We got to 2NT down 2 while 3♥s made +140.

[PhantomSac]

You cannot:

A) Bid 1D with 4 hearts and longer diamonds invitational and

B ) Bypass majors over 1D to bid 1N and

C) Have no way to show 4M 5+D invite over 1N.

Those 3 do not mix, so you have to change any one of them meaning either:

A) Bid 1M with 4M 5+D invite or

B ) Don't bypass majors over 1D or

C) Have a system over 1N where you can show 4M 5+D invite

Solution B is very unpopular, as far as I can tell it's pretty even whether people bypass diamonds with invitational hands or not, but certainly those who do not bypass will use solution C, often in the form of 2 way NMF.

As long as you have these 3 conflicting aspects of your system and don't fix one, this will be a recurring problem for your partnership.

[Fluffy]

reverse is perfect here only if you are a passed hand, if not you need some tool.

popular here is that after 1♣-1♦-1NT, 2♣ is stayman.

[bid_em_up]

PrecisionL, on Feb 25 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

Comments / solutions?  I had a balanced 14 count:  3=4=2=4 with 8 hcp in ♣s.  We got to 2NT down 2 while 3♥s made +140.

Why did you choose to rebid 1N instead of 1♥?

As long as you realize that 1D does not deny a 4 card major in this style and show your four card major when you have one (after 1C-1D), this situation will not occur.

jmoo.

[blackshoe]

Larry was the responder, and it's his hand that's shown in the OP. It was his partner who rebid 1NT.

Given a choice, I would play two way Checkback, and would rebid 2♣ with Larry's hand, showing invitational values and asking if opener has a 4 card major.

[bid_em_up]

blackshoe, on Feb 25 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

Larry was the responder, and it's his hand that's shown in the OP. It was his partner who rebid 1NT.

No, he was not.

PrecisionL, on Feb 25 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

Comments / solutions?  I had a balanced 14 count:  3=4=2=4 with 8 hcp in ♣s.  We got to 2NT down 2 while 3♥s made +140.

This (Larry's) hand was the 1♣ opener and the NT rebidder.

The 1st hand given was his partners hand and the hand that bid 1♦ and then said it couldnt bid 2♥ over 1N as it would be a "reverse".

[PrecisionL]

bid_em_up, on Feb 25 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Feb 25 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

Comments / solutions?  I had a balanced 14 count:  3=4=2=4 with 8 hcp in ♣s.  We got to 2NT down 2 while 3♥s made +140.

Why did you choose to rebid 1N instead of 1♥?

jmoo.

Because, Opener's first duty is to show a Balanced or an Unbalanced hand so partner will have an idea where to play.

Otherwise, how will responder know when opener is 5m and 4M and thus play in the minor suit instead of NT for a good matchpoint score?

[blackshoe]

Okay, so I should lrn2read :-).

With a 3-4-2-4, playing Walsh as I play it, I would rebid 1NT because, when partner bids 1♦, either he does not have a four card major, or he's strong enough (at least invitational values) to use Checkback over 1NT.

For me, responder's reverse would be GF, but rarely used, since 2♦ is available (GF checkback).

[Vampyr]

bid_em_up, on Feb 26 2010, 01:53 AM, said:

Why did you choose to rebid 1N instead of 1♥?

As long as you realize that 1D does not deny a 4 card major in this style and show your four card major when you have one (after 1C-1D), this situation will not occur.

If you don't rebid 1NT partner will not know you have a weak NT. That is why it is essential to play some form of checkback Stayman whether you play strong or weak NT.

My style is to bypass diamonds only on hands that will not bid again after a 1NT rebid (which is usually a strong NT). How does Walsh work?

[pooltuna]

PrecisionL, on Feb 25 2010, 07:02 PM, said:

I do not play a lot of 2/1, although in SA this problem also comes up also.

♠: Kx ♥: K9xx ♦: ATxxxx ♣: x

Bidding goes 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT - ?

I know, playing Walsh many would bid 1♥ would they not?

However, now partner said she could not be 2♥ as that would be a reverse and Game Forcing! I thought it would be G.I.

SAYC books and 2/1 books seem to agree with partner that it is G.F.

Comments / solutions? I had a balanced 14 count: 3=4=2=4 with 8 hcp in ♣s. We got to 2NT down 2 while 3♥s made +140.

you can't bid 1NT over 1♦ if you are not playing Walsh and many would frown on it even if they were. I would expect responder to pass 1NT if scoring is MPs and call 2♦ if it were IMPS

[whereagles]

where I live responder reverses are GF, yes

[Codo]

Read Justins post, forget the rest. Your system is not playable.

After years of Walsh, checkback etc I came back to simply bid our suits. It works surprisingly often. But if you need to rebid 1 NT with your example 3424 hand, you need to play Walsh and/ or checkback, both systems work too.