[inquiry]

For me, 2♠, which tends to deny 3 spades but rather show Hx in spades.

As to why not show 3♠, maybe I am way out of the main stream but when I rebid 2♣ I will have an unbalanced hand, and when I have three card support for my partners major and a weak unbalanced hand, I raise to 2M immediately. Ergo, this auction 1C-1S-2C-2D-2S tends to deny 3 spades. Oh sure, I might have really good clubs and 3 really weak spades, but the tendency is for a hand similar to one shown.

Why not 2♥? That doesn't look like a four card suit to me despite holding four or them, and I play two way reverse flannery by responder so partner could have bid 2♥ forcing with four. So there in no future in hearts here.

[Walddk]

Codo, on Jun 2 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

In that case I strongly recommend that you start playing something else. 2♦ as a sign off after 1♣ - 1MA ; 1NT was abandoned in most places 30+ years ago.

They played walsh 30 years ago? Wow, thought that was new...

But I still do not see your point: If 2 ♣ is a defined puppet, (which is very usefull playing walsh) where responder mostly has to bid 2 ♦, why should 2 ♦ direct not show Diamonds?

Quote

But back to the point:

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦

has nothing do to with NMF.

Roland

Okay, so in your book, it shows 2 or more diamonds and is forcing.
Per definition, opener bid 1 Club, so this is a new minor. Somehow, this adds up to NEW MINOR FORCING, doesn´t it`?

1. The Walsh System was invented more than 30 years ago!

2. Playing 2-way checkback Stayman: After a 1NT rebid, 2♣ is not mostly, as you write, but always a puppet to 2♦ (usually followed by an invitational bid). Please read my post again.

So if I want to play 2♦ I bid 2♣. Accordingly, I have 2♦ free as an artificial game force.

3. New Minor Forcing (NMF):
"The use of a bid in an unbid minor suit by responder as an artificial convenient forcing bid after a 1NT rebid by the opening bidder".

This is the decription. Note "1NT rebid".

2♦ happens to be a new minor on the auction outlined in the first post, but I repeat: it has nothing to do with NMF. This is often misinterpreted by intermediate and advanced players, never among experts.

Roland

[Echognome]

2♦ used as ART and forcing is called the Bourke relay. A similar question arises over 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦. Do you want to use 2♥ as ART and forcing?

This is one of those things that where not everyone will play 2♦ as ART and call it that, though you'd find 2♦ listed in bidding polls as an option on many hands with 3 diamonds. Similarly one might reverse on a 3 card suit if there was no other good bid. Also, most people will choose to "fudge" a minor suit rather than a major suit. Maybe the better question is whether the bid should be alerted if it is common enough or is it "just bridge".

[hotShot]

Opener could have rebid 1NT over 1♠, so 2♣ denies all sorts of balanced hands.
Responder did not show ♣ support yet, did not bid 2♥ showing 5-4 in the majors. So most likely he has an unbalaced hand too.
2♠ is the weakest bid i can make after partners forcing 2♦ bid. And since I'm forced to bid it does not promise any support in ♠. But with a ♠ void i would have another bid available.

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Jun 2 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

Thanks for your try, but I still don´t buy it. I use to raise your example hand to 2 Spade too. But the difference for me between a direct raise and a later raise is the possibility to show hands with a side shortness (direc t raise) or balanced hands (later raise).

I think, that this is of much more practical use then to raise pd in the given biddingn into a 4-2 fit.

Assume the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦

The purpose of the 2♦ bid is to permit opener to describe his hand.

Those pairs who use the 2♠ rebid to show Hx or some such are not raising partner and they are not suggesting playing in a 4-2 Spade fit. Rather, they are simply clarifying their hand.

I'm not claiming that either way is necessarily best. I am simply suggesting that if you frequently raise 1♠ to 2♠ on most hands with three card Spade support than it seems inefficient to reserve the auction

1♣ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♠

as showing three pieces...

[Jboling]

For me, new minor forcing is variation of Checkback Stayman/Chrowhurst, with the distinguishing feature being that you use a bid in a new minor as forcing instead of 2♣ always. In the current situation 1♣-1♠-2♣ a 2♥ bid would also be forcing, although it is not a minor. The reason for that is that it is a new suit by an unpassed responder. The same does not hold for opener, a non-jump and non-reverse new suit, no matter if it is a major or a minor, is nonforcing. Or would you apply NMF to opener also?

Back to the original problem, what does responder do with 5+♦ and 4♠ and invitational strength? I think that it could go like this

1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦ = roundforcing, 2+♦ and 4+♠
1♣-1♠-2♣-2NT = natural invitation
1♣-1♠-2♣-3♦ = 5+♠-4+♦, GF
1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-2NT = 4♠-5♦, inv
1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♠-3♦ = 4♠-6+♦, inv

Or the last two could just describe the heart stopper situation. Responder denied 4♠ and 5+♦ with GF strength with his 1♠ bid.

Another issue which seem to be unclear is whether 2♥ is fourth suit forcing or natural and thus maybe even nonforcing?

[mikeh]

I had no idea that using 2♦ was called the Bourke relay: I had just thought that it was common sense

1♣ 1Major 2♣ has always been one of the weak areas in standard methods, and I cannot recall how long ago I began playing 2♦ here as a 'noise': certainly, for the past 10+ years, I have (in my serious partnerships) an entire structure built around it, but I would not expect any expert partner to think that I was guaranteeing any number of ♦'s. How else does one create a force with a multitude of problem hands? And with weakness, I am 100% with Hannie: use the magic word: PASS.

I am looking at a 2=4=1=6: the only conceivable reason for not bidding 2♥ would be that I hate my ♥ suit, and my Ax ♠, by comparison, looks like Jxx... with which I would have an easy 2♠ bid.

In my methods, 2♦ does not deny a 4 card ♥ suit, because we play 2♥ by responder as non-forcing: this allows us to bid weak major 2-suiters without much fear: you hold Qxxxx KJxxx xxx void and on the given auction, you have to pass 2♣, because 2♥ is forcing one round...

So, in my methods, 2♥ is mandatory, but I appreciate that these methods may not be mainstream

I would opt for 2♥ anyway.

BTW, since 2♦ is a forcing noise, I would NOT treat 2♥ by opener as fourth suit: indeed, while my approach my be simplistic, I never treat opener as able to use an artificial 4th suit bid in any auction: 4th suit as an artificial force rests with responder. I should add that I have never seen an auction in which opener needs to 'fourth suit', altho that is not to say that one could not come up with one.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Jun 2 2006, 08:19 AM, said:

For me, 2♠, which tends to deny 3 spades but rather show Hx in spades.

As to why not show 3♠, maybe I am way out of the main stream but when I rebid 2♣ I will have an unbalanced hand, and when I have three card support for my partners major and a weak unbalanced hand, I raise to 2M immediately. Ergo, this auction 1C-1S-2C-2D-2S tends to deny 3 spades. Oh sure, I might have really good clubs and 3 really weak spades, but the tendency is for a hand similar to one shown.

Why not 2♥? That doesn't look like a four card suit to me despite holding four or them, and I play two way reverse flannery by responder so partner could have bid 2♥ forcing with four. So there in no future in hearts here.

I am quoting this post since I completely concur, other than that I don't normally play Rev Flan.

[Codo]

Quote

 
2. Playing 2-way checkback Stayman: After a 1NT rebid, 2♣ is not mostly, as you write, but always a puppet to 2♦ (usually followed by an invitational bid). Please read my post again.

I understood, that YOU play it this way.
I learned it different: (And we do not name it 2 way checkback, it is called relay Transfer... With a weak hand a three card spade support, opener is allowed to bid 2 Spade instead of 2 Diamond. I never claimed, that you play this way, but this is why I wrote mostly.

Quote

3. New Minor Forcing (NMF):
"The use of a bid in an unbid minor suit by responder as an artificial convenient forcing bid after a 1NT rebid by the opening bidder".

This is the decription. Note "1NT rebid".

2♦ happens to be a new minor on the auction outlined in the first post, but I repeat: it has nothing to do with NMF. This is often misinterpreted by intermediate and advanced players, never among experts.

Roland

So please enlight my intermediate or advanced view:

Experts do know, that after 1 ♣ 1 ♠ 2 ♣ 2 ♦ does not promise more then two diamonds, is a new minor and is forcing, but is not new minor forcing, because per definition a new minor is just named a new minor after a NT rebid?

Or are there real differences, which I just cannot see?

[Walddk]

1.
♠ AKJ953
♥ KQ7
♦ A5
♣ Q6

2.
♠ KQJ95
♥ J53
♦ AKJ
♣ K8

3.
♠ AQJ943
♥ Q32
♦ A
♣ KJ5

4.
♠ AK1064
♥ K
♦ KJ43
♣ 1097

In all 4 examples the bidding goes:

1♣-1♠
2♣- ??

What is your next bid? Most of you will probably have figured out what I am aiming at but feel free to disagree.

Roland

[Walddk]

[quote name='Codo' date='Jun 2 2006, 05:58 PM'] 3. New Minor Forcing (NMF):
"The use of a bid in an unbid minor suit by responder as an artificial convenient forcing bid after a 1NT rebid by the opening bidder".

This is the decription. Note "1NT rebid".

2[di] happens to be a new minor on the auction outlined in the first post, but I repeat: it has nothing to do with NMF. This is often misinterpreted by intermediate and advanced players, never among experts.

Roland [/QUOTE]

So please enlight my intermediate or advanced view:

Experts do know, that after 1 [cl] 1 [sp] 2 [cl] 2 [di] does not promise more then two diamonds, is a new minor and is forcing, but is not new minor forcing, because per definition a new minor is just named a new minor after a NT rebid?

Or are there real differences, which I just cannot see? [/quote]
Now you got it absolutely right. After a 1NT rebid, it's called NMF. However, if the rebid is not 1NT, it's simply a new suit, Bourke relay, etc. No, it doesn't promise more than a doubleton as I (and apparently MikeH too) play it. See above.

You may call it NMF all you like but be prepared for misunderstandings if you agree to play NMF. Your BBO pick-up partner will likely not understand that this is how you mean it.

1[cl]-1[sp]
2[cl]-2[he]

is also forcing. Do you call that NMAF = New Major Forcing? The term NMF only applies after a 1NT rebid. I did not invent the description as quoted in one of my earlier posts.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jun 2 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

BTW, since 2♦ is a forcing noise, I would NOT treat 2♥ by opener as fourth suit: indeed, while my approach my be simplistic, I never treat opener as able to use an artificial 4th suit bid in any auction: 4th suit as an artificial force rests with responder. I should add that I have never seen an auction in which opener needs to 'fourth suit', altho that is not to say that one could not come up with one.

I use 4SF as opener every now and again. Here are some of the auctions:

1♣  1♥
2♦  2♥ (forcing for 1 round)
2♠

1♦  1♠
2♣  2♦
2♥

Opener is typically 5422, could be 5431 with singleton honour in partner's suit, or poor holding in the 4th suit

1♠  2♦
2♥  2♠
3♣

Particularly in a style where responder's 2S wasn't forcing. Again, opener is typically 5422 with extra values.

Now, there are certainly alternative ways to play these sequences (e.g. your way, which is 'natural') and you might in practice end up making the same bid either way... but these are the sort of hands in which I find it useful.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 2 2006, 11:35 AM, said:

I use 4SF as opener every now and again. Here are some of the auctions:

1♣  1♥
2♦  2♥ (forcing for 1 round)
2♠

1♦  1♠
2♣  2♦
2♥

Opener is typically 5422, could be 5431 with singleton honour in partner's suit, or poor holding in the 4th suit

1♠  2♦
2♥  2♠
3♣

Particularly in a style where responder's 2S wasn't forcing. Again, opener is typically 5422 with extra values.

Now, there are certainly alternative ways to play these sequences (e.g. your way, which is 'natural') and you might in practice end up making the same bid either way... but these are the sort of hands in which I find it useful.

Your meanings are fine, but I don't consider them 4sf. To me they are more just an extension of the definition of natural, that opener can take liberties if needed with the third suit he bids. 4sf incorporates a tremendously wide range of shapes, this is just saying opener can fudge the 4th suit by a card or an honor on certain specific hands.

[awm]

Well I think there is actually a difference in these treatments. Take the following two hands:

xx
Qx
AQJx
AKQxx

KJx
x
AKxx
AKxxx

On both hands the auction starts 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥. What's opener's rebid?

If 2♠ is "natural" it seems clear to bid 2♠ on the second hand. It seems weird to bid 2♠ on the first. If 2♠ is "fourth suit" then it's primarily a stopper ask and the clear favorite on the first hand, but seems weird on the second.

In my style (which seems to be Frances' style as well) I would bid 2♠ on the first hand only as a "noise" to get another call from partner, and bid 2NT on the second hand.

I guess the point is, it's okay to play that a bid is natural and occasionally fudge it with an awkward hand. But if you normally don't make the "natural" bid when you actually have the suit and only make it with an awkward hand, then it's not really a natural bid anymore.

[jdonn]

On the hand with KJx of spades I would bid 2NT. Change the spades to Axx and I would bid 2♠. Which way am I playing? The whole thing isn't either of 2 choices, it is a continuum.

I still think calling either method 4SF is inaccurate. That would imply you could bid 2♠ on just about any shape with a game forcing hand, which no one seems to be saying.

[FrancesHinden]

Ah well, now you mention it....
I play an English style where we reverse a bit lighter than the US style. So, for example,

1C - 1H
2D - 2H
2NT/3C/3H

are all non-forcing

If I had a game force without direction, I would indeed bid 2S here. Particularly as it's cheap.

[mike777]

I still like my 3nt choice here. I like my hand and I think pard has a decent hand or better. With a weakish 4s6D he gots to pass 2clubs. That is the whole point with Walsh, you skip over minors with weak hands. Walsh is from the 1960's with a lot of the ideas borrowed from 30's to 50's. If you cannot stand not bidding long D suits then do not play Walsh.
He does not have 4 hearts on this auction....ergo he gots ta have something here.

[fred]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

Close between 2♥ and 2♠. I don't mind either, but I have a slight preference for 2♠.

Roland sums up my thoughts on this problem exactly.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jun 2 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

I still like my 3nt choice here. I like my hand and I think pard has a  decent hand or better. With a weakish 4s6D he gots to pass 2clubs. That is the whole point with Walsh, you skip  over minors with weak hands. Walsh is from the 1960's with a lot of the ideas borrowed from 30's to 50's. If you cannot stand not bidding long D suits then do not play Walsh.
He does not have 4 hearts on this auction....ergo he gots ta have something here.

I don't understand the hurry here: why jump to 3N when partner may have a powerful but complex hand: see some of Roland's hands. And he may have other hand types of course. Do we really want to play 3N from our side when partner holds Kx♥? Do we really want to stress that we have the reds well stopped on this hand?

It is not as if we HAVE to bid 3N now or never get there: I cannot think of any bid by us, other than 3♣ or 2♠, that can be passed. And, if he passes 2♠, I'm sure not going to think we missed a game.

To me, the only choices are a shape-showing 2♥ that slightly overstates that suit and a preference of 2♠ that, again, slightly overstates that suit. A space-consuming, auction-destroying 3N makes little sense to me.

Plus, Mike, from what you have posted on other threads, I assume that you play that partner's 4♣ call over 3N would be keycard... and that strikes me as a very strong reason NOT to bid 3N on any hand... let alone this one. Now, I would never play 4♣ over 3N as keycard, and maybe I have misunderstood your style. If not... if I have understood your style.... I ask you how partner can place the contract appropriately merely knowing how many keycards you hold? I apologize if my language seems aggressive: i respect your posts and mean no insult

[mike777]

I see your point and concern with having nt from partner's side. 2H does show my shape but really overstates my heart honors. I can live with 2H.
BTW 4 clubs can never be RKC for me on any auction.