[Codo]

1eyedjack, on Jul 28 2006, 08:17 PM, said:

Codo, on Jul 28 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

There is just on little trap: If opener holds a 4405 or 4414 hand with extra strength, he needs a bid below 3 Spade to show this pattern and extra strength.
Solution is the "impossible jump" to 3 Hearts, a bid that you simply do not need for different purpose.

Just out of interest, what benefit is there in showing that hand by 3H rather than 3S?

Sorry for not clarifying:
3 Heart can show both hands with strong invitational strength (16-18) or GF strength (19+) And for the later hands you need a forcing bid below 3 NT.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 28 2006, 02:48 AM, said:

I am a bit surprised that the only options being offered seem to be 1S as 4sf game forcing or 1S as natural game forcing.

I play in two regular partnerships. One has a 'mild' Walsh style (where you respond 1D with a 4CM if you are INV+ opposite a weak NT) and doesn't play 4sf as game forcing at the 2-level either. We'll ignore that one for this thread. 

The other regular partnership plays Walsh, plays 4sf as game forcing at the 2-level, but plays 1S as simple fourth suit forcing, not game forcing (i.e. opener's minimum rebid can be passed).  This seems to be what helene_t was trying to describe.

1S shows mildly invitational values (or stronger) and nothing particularly to say about the hand. Opener's minimum rebid of 1NT, 2C, 2D, or 2S (showing a 4144) can be passed. Responder's typical shape for the non-game forcing hand is 3352 without much stuffing in spades.  Responder might also have a game force with club or heart support, or be lacking in the spade stop department (we play 1C - 1D - 1H - 3D as game forcing, so responder can't be strong with diamonds).  This allows you to try for game on as little as 9-10 count and play in 1NT if partner is minimum, without forcing partner to make a game try over a simple preference on a 16-count or so.

That leaves the 2S bid as currently meaningless. There are various good uses it can be put to: coming immediately to mind are game forcing with club support, game forcing with heart support, game forcing with 4 spades.... we happen to play 2S as invitational with 3-card club support, not suitable for a 2NT bid (in particular no strong desire to be declarer) - the hand that would usually bid 3C, but doesn't want to play in a 4-3 fit opposite a 4414.  I guess it could also be a slam try with 3 clubs, but that's never come up....

My post was triggered by a very specific issue: the existence of two specific schools of thought as to 4th suit in the specified auction in a specific (strong walsh) school. Which is why there were only 2 options on display I was not implying that these two are the only options

I still have not seen any logical analysis of why one might choose to play that 1♠ shows ♠s (and is gf because of the walsh implications) and 2♠ is gf without ♠, so I am going to conclude that either none of the readers of the thread play the 2♠ in this fashion or that, if they do, they have not articulated why.. perhaps not even to themselves

I like the idea of putting the otherwise meaningless 2♠ jump to a specific use: I am about to start playing again with my partner of 6 years ago, and perhaps I will bring it up with him. But I am still going to use 1♠ as a generic gf, because we have an excellent relay structure thereafter.

[Echognome]

In a Walsh structure, it would seem that using 1♠ as natural (responder's reverse hand) is not extremely useful. I will argue this mainly on frequency grounds. Furthermore, using 2♠ for that bid is probably not a big loss.

I looked in my Hardy book and the only thing he mentions with XYZ are the 2♣ bid forcing 2♦ (as invite or sign-off in ♦), 2♦ as ART GF, and 3♣ to play (mikeh's 2NT variant seems an improvement here).

I think one can make an argument to play transfers here:

1♠ --> 1NT (either to play or the start of an invite sequence)
1NT club support (either to play or GF)
2♣ long diamonds (either to play or GF)
2♦ good heart raise GF
2♥ bad heart raise
2♠ natural GF

With higher bids being heart raises. The only problem with this system is that it doesn't translate that well to other sequences (despite its great efficiency here).

[mike777]

"Sorry, Mike.... I am enjoying your posts, but I again have to disagree. As I wrote in my post on the thread of 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♥, for me the raise to 2♥ on 3 cards is not just okay (not on the given hand, but in principle) but essential on hands such as xx KQx Axxxx xxx.

This type of hand can survive sometimes by bidding, for example, 2♣ but let's give opener Jxx AJ10x x AKQxx... I'd like to be in 4♥, wouldn't you?"


Difficult Deal:
1C=1D
1H=2C
3C=3H
4H

[awm]

I've been reluctant to contribute to this thread because I'm not a believer in Walsh style responses. Personally I play 1♠ natural and 2♠ artificial because I like to bid my suits in natural order instead of skipping diamonds.

But in any case, it seems like there are many advantages to playing 1♠ as artificial and forcing using Walsh style. After all responder won't have a four card spade suit without game values and opener usually won't have four spades either to raise (except 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-0-5 exactly).

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that setting up a game force at the one level is the best use for this bid. There are a number of difficult invitational hands that become hard to bid. For example:

(1) Invite with three clubs and no spade stopper. Bidding 2NT seems weird, bidding 3♣ might get you to a 4-3 fit if partner is 4-4-1-4.

(2) Invite with five diamonds or six bad diamonds. Again you could bid 2NT, but it's easy to imagine the hand playing a lot better in diamonds (1435 or 2425 with weak spades).

(3) Invite with three hearts and a ruffing value. I suppose you can bid 2♥ if you play this as three-card support (and thus not GF) but wouldn't you also bid 2♥ with some 8-count? It seems like 8-12 is a wide range for this raise.

Seems like 1♠ as "inv+ fourth suit" would have many advantages, which seems to be what Frances is suggesting as well. Matt's transfer scheme is nice but might be a lot to add if it only comes up in the one auction. In fact one could distinguish between 2♠ = artificial GF wanting to set the suit at next turn (opener bids 2NT and then 3♣/♦ set-suit slam tries) and 1♠ = artificial inv+ no clear direction.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 28 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

"Sorry, Mike.... I am enjoying your posts, but I again have to disagree. As I wrote in my post on the thread of 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♥, for me the raise to 2♥ on 3 cards is not just okay (not on the given hand, but in principle) but essential on hands such as xx KQx Axxxx xxx.

This type of hand can survive sometimes by bidding, for example, 2♣ but let's give opener Jxx AJ10x x AKQxx... I'd like to be in 4♥, wouldn't you?"


Difficult Deal:
1C=1D
1H=2C
3C=3H
4H

Mike, your example auction makes me shudder

1. Responder may have garbage for the preference and bidding 3♣ turns a plus into a minus, or makes a small minus bigger

2. Responder may have some values but will play opener for more: I strongly suspect that most would expect something along the lines of the playing strength of xx AKxx x AKQxxx for 3♣.. the type of hand that was worth a jump to 3♣ over 1♦ but had to stop off to show the ♥ suit first. So responder will bid again over 3♣ with hands that offer no hope... he won't always have KQx in ♥ for the preference

What it boils down to is that you are clinging to the concept that the single raise MUST deliver 4 card support and that it is therefore, by inference, a gf, since responder would not bid 1♦ otherwise.

I also suspect that this belief is rooted in Max Hardy's book (which underwent several revisions over time) about 2/1.

I read the first edition, back in the 1970's, and became a convert to his bidding approach. The first inkling I had that Max was not a good theoretician was when I met him at a Las Vegas Regional. I had experienced problems, using his method, with a responding hand that was 5-5 invitational. I couldn't bid the second suit in a 3 suit auction because that was artificial and gf. The hand was unsuited for notrump.. what was I to do?

I now know that the appropriate answer would have been to acknowledge that this was a problem and to explain that, in his view, the difficulties posed on this hand were offset by the gain of the use of 4sf as gf. I would also suggest, to someone asking me this question now, that responder should decide, based on a number of factors, whether the distortion of forcing to game or bidding a less-than-ideal 2N was the lesser ...or if there were any other alternative...

Instead, the answer was glib and immediate: 'Those hands don't come up enough to worry about them'.

Obviously that statement was untrue otherwise I would not have asked him the question!

Max was a good director and a reasonably good player, but he was NOT a top expert nor was he a good analyst of bidding theory. His book was successful, in my view, because he had very limited competition in setting out a system that was relatively easy and, on the whole, quite effective. But his book, as I recall it, contained only hands that worked with the suggested method and few, if any discussions of problem hands.. of the analysis of cost-benefit that good system designers engage in as they develop their method. Now, in fairness, Hardy never claimed (as far as I recall) that he designed the system... he was setting out a summary of methods pioneered by others... such as Walsh, Smolen and so on.

Compare that approach with a classic book explaining the choices of meaning that led to an early form of Acol: A Design for Bidding by S.J. Simon. While the choices made appear unattractive to modern North American eyes, the discussion of the factors underlying the choices is mandatory reading, in my view, for any aspiring system designer.

I am sure that anyone so much into the game as you appear to be can see that there are times when we need to question old basic assumptions... indeed, while I think that I have a pretty good knowledge of 'standard' bidding, I am continually learning new ways to look at old auctions.... Frances' suggested use for 2♠ in the subject auction is one excellent instance. I hope that my suggestion that you consider that the 2♥ raise be NOT forcing is one for you

[benlessard]

Playing 1c --1d---1h---2h as GF is Throwing away Walsh biggest edge in the garbage


Why give up the 3 card raise ?

If you dont raise with 3 card with that hand you should play play up the line not Walsh


xx
Axx
Axxxxx
xx