[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1♣    Pass  1♦
 Pass  1♥    Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♦    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

comments on this bidding and your way of bidding it please

[rona_]

I would respond a spade to North's one club. With a hand that I can bid twice, then diamonds first. Wait for the experts to comment though...

[mikeh]

You did better than I would have done

I would never respond 1♦ on a hand worth only one bid: but I am a firm believer that up-the-line bidding is a poor approach... this is one of (many) philosophical issues that divide the bridge community (opening 1♣ or 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, what to open with 4=5 in the minors, frequency of offshape notrumps etc)

For me, this is a 1♠ response, which would fetch 2♣ from most of my partners and 1N from one (I vote for 2♣). 2♣ ends the auction. However, if partner bid 1N, I would bid 2♣ to puppet to 2♦, and play there.

[whereagles]

Bidding was precise, correct and elegant.

[mike777]

sceptic, on Oct 1 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QJT3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KJ4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQ432 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AQ76 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K98 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 72 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KJ96 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> JT52 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A6542 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> A93 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 8 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> K983 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 7 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QT865 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> T75 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

West  North East  South

 -     1♣    Pass  1♦
 Pass  1♥    Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♦    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

comments on this bidding and your way of bidding it please

To say this bidding is correct or precise seems to really miss the boat. .
1) I would overcall 1H as east but can live with x by east.

2) Now as south I would pass.
3) Now cuebid 2clubs as west. Will let those that play fit jumps explain what the correct bid with west is here.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 1 2005, 08:22 PM, said:

I would never respond 1♦ on a hand worth only one bid: but I am a firm believer that up-the-line bidding is a poor approach... this is one of (many) philosophical issues that divide the bridge community (opening 1♣ or 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, what to open with 4=5 in the minors, frequency of offshape notrumps etc)

I play Walsh style most of the time, but up the line in one partnership. While I am still more used to Walsh, I think up the line has a lot of appeal, and this beautiful auction is a good example

Wayne, about your question: I think 2♦ is clear with this hand -- unless you play that it promises extras, in which case you might be 2♦ the first time.

As an aside, Walsh runs clearly contrary to the general principle of bidding theory that the lowest bid should be the most frequent.

Arend

[han]

I agree with Arend when it comes to Walsh. Purely from a constructive viewpoint it can't be right to bypass diamonds when they are longer. However, getting your major in quickly will often work out better when the opponents compete. And 1C-1S might make it harder for them to find their heart fit.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Same way I would bid it. I'm one of the few left that responds 1D still  lol.

You're not alone here. Me too.
On a hand worth just 1 bid, bidding the longest suit you have can't be horrible...

At IMPs important to play the safe part score, i.e. 2♦ not 1NT.

If you want to play Walsh, play TRANSFER Walsh.

1♣ - 1♥ (♠)
1NT - 2♦
Pass

[sceptic]

the nice thing here is both me and my p seem to like up the line bidding, I am sure that with 4D and 4S he would have bid the spades first,

my 2 diamond bid, does it show 1435 or 0445 or 1444 as possible distributions

I do not play it as showing extra values, just showing dist

also I would have bid 1 spade even though somehere, have said it is a one bid hand, was it worng to do so and if so why ?

[paulg]

It's a one bid hand in the sense that you would pass 1NT, 2♣ and most non-forcing rebids by opener. Clearly it is right to continue with 1♠ on this auction though.

I would not be too prescriptive about the meaning of 2♦ although hands with 4-card support would often raise given your style.

Paul

[MickyB]

Gerben42, on Oct 2 2005, 08:04 AM, said:

Quote

Same way I would bid it. I'm one of the few left that responds 1D still  lol.

You're not alone here. Me too.
On a hand worth just 1 bid, bidding the longest suit you have can't be horrible...

At IMPs important to play the safe part score, i.e. 2♦ not 1NT.

If you want to play Walsh, play TRANSFER Walsh.

1♣ - 1♥ (♠)
1NT - 2♦
Pass

If pard will rebid 1NT bypassing a 4 card spade suit, then IMO it is much better to respond 1S than 1D playing Better Minor. Pard will rarely have 4 diamonds so won't be able to put in a raise, and if he does you will just goad your opponents into finding their 9 card heart fit.

Agree on the Transfer Walsh thing, except I wouldn't treat opener's hand as balanced, if I was to treat it as balanced I'd rebid 1♠ showing 11-13 bal, and if I then wanted to sign off in diamonds I'd have bid 2♣ puppet to 2♦

[david_c]

MickyB, on Oct 2 2005, 10:59 AM, said:

Agree on the Transfer Walsh thing, except I wouldn't treat opener's hand as balanced, if I was to treat it as balanced I'd rebid 1♠ showing 11-13 bal, and if I then wanted to sign off in diamonds I'd have bid 2♣ puppet to 2♦ 

Hey Mike, does this mean you've found a partner who plays this thing?

It depends what style of T-Walsh you're playing - if completing the transfer shows 3-card support then rebidding 1NT on this hand is fine. But if you're forced to complete the transfer with any minimum balanced hand (so that 1NT = 17-20) then I'd agree you're better off rebidding clubs, because partner would pass after 1♣:1♥,1♠ with a lot of fairly poor spade suits.

1=4=3=5 hands are killers. I'd almost convinced myself that they were so rare that they weren't worth worrying about - but then someone goes and posts one to BBF! In the system I'm thinking about at the moment I have to open 1♣, and rebid 1NT over 1♠. But then responder has two ways to take out into 2♠:

2♥ = transfer to spades, but please break the transfer with a singleton.
2♠ = I want to play here even opposite a singleton.

[MickyB]

Yup, will be playing it for the uni team this year

Nice point on that sequence being passed.

Not sure I like the two ways of pulling to 2♠ - if you felt the need to improve the original contract of 1NT, 2NT probably won't be great! ATM I either have the 1NT rebid usually show 1-2 card or 2-3 card support, but how about this?

1C = nat or bal
2D, 2H, 2S responses show 5 cards with 4 card club support, non-forcing
1C:1S, 1N:2D/2H = 5S4D/H
1C:1S, 1N:2S = 6 cards

[david_c]

MickyB, on Oct 2 2005, 11:08 PM, said:

Not sure I like the two ways of pulling to 2♠ - if you felt the need to improve the original contract of 1NT, 2NT probably won't be great!

Ah, but the break implies a 5-card club suit, and you can play in 3♣. Or indeed 3♦ occasionally - opener must have at least three of those too.

[inquiry]

This is my auction.

1♣ - 1♠
1NT - 2♣
2♦ - Pass

1c and 1s (walsh) are automatic.
1NT = what else?
2C = xyz forces partenr to bid 2♦
2D = as requested.

[awm]

I like up-the-line bidding, and I like your auction. Good job getting to the right contract.

Obviously one can construct other auctions to 2♦ using other methods, but I find this up-the-line sequence particularly convincing. After 1♣-1♠-1NT, if partner would almost always raise spades on three you're in good shape to reach 2♦. But I'm well aware that a lot of people who play walsh don't frequently rebid 1NT on the given hand. I think many people would end up in 2♣ (a slightly inferior spot) when opener rebids 2♣. Note that 2♣ would also be the final contract if responder's distribution was 4-3-5-1...

[Winstonm]

Maybe I am weird....no, there's no doubt there so scratch that....due to my oddities, I have convinced myself that the value of Walsh is the inherent natural meaning of virtually every bid. I see Walsh style as more like reverse Canape, where the second suit if a minor is not only longer but shows weakness. In a pure Walsh method, there is very little use for 4th suit forcing, an atrocity I very much like doing without. So with this hand, the bidding could also progress in these two ways: 1C-1S-1N-2D-P or 1C-1S-2C-P/2D. Both show weak hands, the second strongly suggestive of 6 diamonds.

The trade off comes in that 2C is used in all 1 over 1 over 1 auctions as the only way to create a forcing sequence; hence, you never get to play 2C with clubs and a weak hand as responder.

Another benefit to me is that 1C-1D-1H-2H becomes a game force, so 3H and 4H can all be assigned precise meanings or picture bids.

I know on this hand we would have played 2C on 1C-1S-2C-P. What the heck, I understand that in some versions of either Roman or Blue Club the Italian Blue Team used to have to bid 1S-2S on a 5 bagger due to Canape' and they did all right. You just pick the trade off that works for your style is all.

Winston

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

your bidding is fine, especially if you bid spades
instead of diamonds, when you hold 4-4, I dont,
but this is a common treatment, even when one
doesnt play walsh.

Because if you do, you have a 8 card fit in diamond,
ruffing values, and playing IMP's, you are looking
for the safest part score.

Marlowe