[1eyedjack]

I believe that in SAYC a 2N response to 1-suit is 13-15 (and therefore forcing). Personally I never got to grips with the logic, but there you have it. The cited hand has both a point and distribution in reserve, but hey, if 2N is forcing ...

[kenberg]

Rob F, on Aug 4 2006, 10:38 PM, said:

kenberg, on Aug 4 2006, 11:37 AM, said:

If bridge is truly to be a game of fully disclosed methods then yes, 1C-1D should probably be alerted in SAYC.

So in SAYC with a good 3307 shape opposite a 1♣ opener, if you can't bid blackwood you're supposed to make up a suit? Is that suit supposed to be diamonds?

With no forcing club raise, I guess you are in a tough spot. Seems like a 4-3 major fit may be playable. As I say, SAYC is a simple system and it should be no surprise that some hands arise that are not biddable in any sensible way. Not that SAYC is the only system where this happens. One of the many things I like about the writings of Mike Lawrence is that when presenting his approach to bidding, he points out some situations where it will leave you with no sensible bid. With a well thought out system this shouldn't happen often, but it will happen. Maybe that's the answer to the alert/explain issue. In any system, sometimes you don't have the hand to make a system approved bid, and so you fake it.

I actually like the feature of 1m-2N as balanced and forcing, since sometimes opener is not balanced. This gives him the opportunity to say someting like "Maybe we should rethink the NT idea here" and then responder can say either "trust me, the majors are well stopped, 3N is fine and unless you are really loaded my values may be wasted in a distributionaal slam" or "maybe you're right, let's go for the minor suit game/slam". All this conversation takes place below the level of 3NT. However, I would make 1m-3m as forcing if I were designing SAYC. For some reason nobody asked me.

[Free]

I don't see why "we play walsh" is not a good explanation. If opponents know it, they'll understand the situation better. And if they don't know they'll ask again and you can explain "4+♦ without a 4 card M, unless invite+". That pretty much covers it, but walsh says more about your other possibilities imo.

What to do with the hand posted? If you really don't have a forcing minor raise, bid 3NT. If you want to bid this hand accuratly, make an agreement with partner so you can bid this kind of handtype.

[sfbp]

Isn't there something called MAFIA?

Majors Always First In Auction iirc. This would certainly be an easy way to announce.

"Mafia except on game forcing hands" perhaps even......

Stephen

[Trinidad]

Free, on Aug 5 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

I don't see why "we play walsh" is not a good explanation.  If opponents know it, they'll understand the situation better.  And if they don't know they'll ask again and you can explain "4+♦ without a 4 card M, unless invite+".  That pretty much covers it, but walsh says more about your other possibilities imo.

What to do with the hand posted?  If you really don't have a forcing minor raise, bid 3NT.  If you want to bid this hand accuratly, make an agreement with partner so you can bid this kind of handtype. 

There are two reasons why you shouldn't use the names of conventions when explaining. The first reason is that you cannot be sure whether your opponent properly understands "Walsh", "Michaels", "MAFIA" or "DONT". He might think he understands it (the real possibility that you left out) and never ask for a clarification.

The second reason why you shouldn't use the names of conventions is that you cannot be sure whether you understand it properly yourself...

Rik

[kenberg]

This seems to have drifted off of the original post of 1C-1D in SAYC (which does not, by default, use Walsh reponses). But probably there isn't that much more to be said about the original question. As to describing a bid by "Walsh" or whatever, no doubt it's not the approved way. Nevertheless, here is a ecent experience:2D on my right, alert on my left, query by me. Four spades, five hearts, 11-15 hcps. I'm thinking "Oh no. Another of these new gadgets". Then "Oops. Flannery. Why didn't they just say so". I actually like reponses such as "Walsh", "Flannery" etc. It seems to me that if your opponents are playing a 2/1 card with lots of gadgetry and describe themselves as advanced players, they are likely to be fine with "Walsh". But I accept the fact that it does not have the blessing of the authorities and I at least try to comply. On a recent hand I described our leads as 3/5. Of course I explained when I was asked what that meant, but my initial description (which I sent at trick 1 to the opps before I led third best in a side suit) was just 3/5. Wrong? I'm not that great a typist and we do need to get through the hands.