[straube]

Free, on Oct 14 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

I think Free put this very well.

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

Playing standard (suits up the line), I might occasionally decide to bypass spades...but only when I had sufficient reasons to judge that it was best to do so.

This hand is 4333 but it has decent spades (AJxx) that can help to pull trump. Even though I'm 4333, partner may have a ruffing value. Also, my hand has KQx of partner's suit and I don't have a stopper in the suit I opened. Suit play is probably best if partner has Kxxx xx AJxxx xx.

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on Oct 13 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

uncontested auction
1♣:1♦
1♠:2♣*
2♦*:3♦
3N

---

Comments?

Is this an advertisement for better minor?

[the hog]

straube, on Oct 15 2010, 12:33 AM, said:

Free, on Oct 14 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

I think Free put this very well.

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

Playing standard (suits up the line), I might occasionally decide to bypass spades...but only when I had sufficient reasons to judge that it was best to do so.

This hand is 4333 but it has decent spades (AJxx) that can help to pull trump. Even though I'm 4333, partner may have a ruffing value. Also, my hand has KQx of partner's suit and I don't have a stopper in the suit I opened. Suit play is probably best if partner has Kxxx xx AJxxx xx.

Straube, you have totally missed the point are are confusing two different concepts. Walsh is bidding a M before a m, with less than a gf hand. Rebidding 1NT on this hand has nothing to do with that concept at all. Many prefer to show the nature of the hand, ie balanced, rather than make numerous bids that say:
well I may have an unbalanced hand with C and S, or maybe I am 4-4 in the blacks, or maybe I am 4333. Take a punt! If responder has hopes of game, she can use some form of checkback to find a S fit, if it exists.

Free, yes I agree with you. Perhaps I should have said that the aforementioned bidding is very poor in my opinion. I know some people play this way, and I hate the guessing games that result there from. There have been numerous posts on this and opinions vary, however there are many posters on this site who agree.

[cherdanno]

South should force to game over 1C 1D 1S. This is much more important than the silly argument about the 1S rebid.

[jdonn]

I strongly dislike 1♠ and never bid it on 4333 hands, although I'll consistently bid it on 4(23)4 hands. But in fairness I think it's quite unfair to say the issue comes down to either describing your hand or putzing around. Showing you are balanced is a description and showing you hold four spades is a description, both are important descriptions, and even that is only part of the issue. Also it's clear walsh has something to do with it, as the main (almost only?) advantage to 1♠ is when partner is a minimum response with four spades which is a hand that 1♦ denies when playing walsh. That said I'll reiterate that I much prefer 1NT here, as 4333 hands are much more about notrump than suits, and often partner has to preference back to your original minor on three cards himself over 1♠.

South should both force to game and show club support.

All that said, no disaster occured and the choices made would all have some supporters.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2010, 07:20 AM, said:

I strongly dislike 1♠ and never bid it on 4333 hands, although I'll consistently bid it on 4(23)4 hands. But in fairness I think it's quite unfair to say the issue comes down to either describing your hand or putzing around.

snipped

OK, slight overbid.

[jillybean]

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

[gwnn]

XYZ is irrelevant, South is a game force no matter what. Sometimes you'll end up too high but inviting is a little too weak.

[straube]

aquahombre said:

yep. The 1NT rebid opposite a pard who is not an "up the line" person, is just right.

fluffy said:

If you don't play walsh the bidding is just fine.

free said:

Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

jdonn said:

Also it's clear walsh has something to do with it, as the main (almost only?) advantage to 1♠ is when partner is a minimum response with four spades which is a hand that 1♦ denies when playing walsh.

The_Hog said:

Rebidding 1NT has little to do with Walsh.

I understand your 1S rebid shows 4S/5C regardless of whether you have agreed to play Walsh and this is the basis (I think) for your later statement that your 1N rebid has nothing to do with Walsh. Fine, you have a treatment that has chances to win. Many other people would not play this treatment unless they were also playing Walsh for fear of missing spade fits.

[the hog]

Forget I posted Straube; it must be a language issue.

[Free]

straube, on Oct 14 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 14 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

Free and Fluffy, playing Walsh has NOTHING to do with a 1S bid. Straube incorrectly mentioned it. It depends whether you want to describe your hand or futz around and bid for the sake of it. I understand that some people will open a C and rebid 1S on this. I think it is a VERY poor description of what you hold, but suit yourselves.

Yes I know that you want to describe your hand, and that's exactly what the 1♠ bid does. In standard methods it shows a hand with 3+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥. Playing Walsh or something similar it would show 5+♣, 4♠ and 0-3♥, a much better description obviously. Not playing Walsh you can use the same description and agree that the 1NT rebid is any balanced hand, which seems to be your agreement.

Nobody says the 1♦ response denies 4M with 6-10HCP, so how will you find your 4-4M fits if you rebid 1NT? This is a choice you've made before you start the auction. Some people prefer to show the balanced nature of the hand, others want to find their best part score. Both methods have merit, both have their flaws. But to claim that the 1♠ bid is awful or wrong, that's a bridge too far.

I think Free put this very well.
~snip~
So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.
~snip~

Hmmm apparently I didn't put it that well, or you misread something.

Without playing Walsh you can still agree to rebid 1NT with any balanced hand, to show the true nature of the hand as quickly as possible. In doing so, you might miss the optimal 2M part score. As we all know, in imps the best part score isn't important, a playable part score is good enough. Some people play 1NT 12-14, 1♣ nat/18-20 and 1♦ nat/15-17 (or something similar). They ignore the Majors completely and are able to show their balanced hands at the 1-level.

[hanp]

What does playable mean?

If I have a 4-4 fit spades and about a combined 20-count, then I generally prefer to play 2S instead of 1NT. If a playable 1NT goes down while 2S is cold, that's a decent number of IMPs. More generally, I don't think that IMP scoring is an excuse to bid badly at the partscore level.

[straube]

Straube said:

I think Free put this very well.

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

[campboy]

jillybean, on Oct 14 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

campboy, on Oct 14 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

I don't understand why responder didn't show club support at any point.

Isn't it more important to show the 6th ♦?

I'm fairly sure it isn't, both because it is much more likely that we should be playing in clubs than diamonds and because it is much easier to get back to diamonds after bidding 3♣ than it is to get back to clubs after bidding 3♦.

[hanp]

By the way, if 1S promises an unbalanced hand then I'd prefer to play 2C natural and use 2H as fourth suit.

[bucky]

jillybean, on Oct 14 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

1N vs 1♠ is not a totally unrelated topic. Knowing whether partner tends to have 5+ clubs and/or an unbalanced hand, that will help you evaluate your hand and plan the auction accordingly.

In my treatment, the responder would bid 2♦ initially. This bid shows diamonds or D+C, and game-force value (but doesn't have to have slam aspiration). It may be a slight overbid, but I think the stretch is worthwhile with my shortage in the majors.

[jillybean]

bucky, on Oct 15 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

jillybean, on Oct 14 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

Ok, I've just started playing xyz and I am looking for hands where we could have, should have, could better use the convention. I'm not playing walsh nor did I expect this to turn into a disucssion on the merits of 1N vs. 1♠ rebid by opener.

1N vs 1♠ is not a totally unrelated topic. Knowing whether partner tends to have 5+ clubs and/or an unbalanced hand, that will help you evaluate your hand and plan the auction accordingly.

In my treatment, the responder would bid 2♦ initially. This bid shows diamonds or D+C, and game-force value (but doesn't have to have slam aspiration). It may be a slight overbid, but I think the stretch is worthwhile with my shortage in the majors.

I understand there is a lot to 1N vs 1♠ which would be interesting to go through. I fear we have bigger things to worry about at the moment
fwiw I play 2♦/1♣ as a limit raise in ♣'s.

[the hog]

straube, on Oct 15 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

Straube said:

I think Free put this very well.

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

This makes no sense at all. Why can't you bypass 1S with a 4333 shape to show the essential nature of your hand. This has as much to do with Walsh as stayman has to do with Gerber - (They are both in the C suit).
Read Frederick's last post.

[straube]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

straube, on Oct 15 2010, 10:21 PM, said:

Straube said:

I think Free put this very well.

If we're bidding suits up the line (not a style that I think is best), then I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs...which I could if I were playing Walsh.

So I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it.

I think I understood you. When I said that "I'm not seeing how Walsh has nothing to do with it" I was referring to my opinion that "I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs" if we're bidding suits up the line.

This makes no sense at all. Why can't you bypass 1S with a 4333 shape to show the essential nature of your hand. This has as much to do with Walsh as stayman has to do with Gerber - (They are both in the C suit).
Read Frederick's last post.

I didn't say I could never bypass spades. I said that I can't afford to bypass spades whenever I don't have 5 clubs. "Whenever" means "every time that". I'm saying that I don't want to be restricted to rebidding 1N unless I have 4S and 5C when I'm playing with a partner who bids suits up the line.

Factors that might make me bypass spades are if I'm 4333, if I'm very minimum, and if my spades are poor.

[the hog]

I give up. You ARE 4333 on this hand!