[kenrexford]

OK. Seems that we are forced to make assumptions, and reasonable assumptions make sense.

I'll assume that this is a fairly natural Walsh approach.
I'll assume that Responder has shown 5+ diamonds, probably real hearts (could be manufactured), and GF.
I'll assume that Opener has shown a semi-balanced hand with no four-card major but with diamond support of some variety, although maybe Hx is possible (3325 with poor clubs and no spade stop?).

Opener also seems limited.

Are these assumptions fair?

[TimG]

kenrexford, on May 2 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

OK. Seems that we are forced to make assumptions, and reasonable assumptions make sense.

I'll assume that this is a fairly natural Walsh approach.
I'll assume that Responder has shown 5+ diamonds, probably real hearts (could be manufactured), and GF.
I'll assume that Opener has shown a semi-balanced hand with no four-card major but with diamond support of some variety, although maybe Hx is possible (3325 with poor clubs and no spade stop?).

Opener also seems limited.

Are these assumptions fair?

Isn't it important to know whether opener denied a four-card major with his 1N rebid or with his 3♦ bid?

If opener denied a four-card major with his 1NT rebid, then responder's sequence (2♥ then 3NT over 3♦) would show some doubt about 3NT, wouldn't it?

If the 1NT rebid did not deny a major, then responder's sequence could just be checking on a 4-4 heart fit and it would be rare for opener to remove 3N even with something like xxx in spades.

[benlessard]

3S wtp for me. 3D doesnt denies a S stopper of half a stopper.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 2 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

Well one reason it it's completely intuitive that for a reverse by either player the first suit is longer. Even regardless of that, you're saying responder bids up the line and opener doesn't? That seems really weird to me although I can't say I have a good reaosn why. So I guess I have two reasons, and neither one is a real reason

[mike777]

Jlall, on May 2 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

I was taught no. You always start with one heart with 4-4 so for me this is 5-4 100%. But interesting question. On the flip side with 4-4 in the minors I open one diamond, not one club.

[rogerclee]

Jlall, on May 2 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 2 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 2 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Also, why is it assumed that responder is 4-5+? Does no one bid 1D with 4-4 in the reds and a good hand?

Well one reason it it's completely intuitive that for a reverse by either player the first suit is longer. Even regardless of that, you're saying responder bids up the line and opener doesn't? That seems really weird to me although I can't say I have a good reaosn why. So I guess I have two reasons, and neither one is a real reason

I thought Walsh style is to bypass diamonds unless you have either an inv+ or gf+ hand (seems like some diverging views on which). Does this only apply for 4-5+, and walsh people ALWAYS bypass diamonds when they have only 4?

When I reverse I promise 5-4.

[Halo]

3S looks sensible with an honour. Doesn't stop you playing 5D.

[jdonn]

Would 3♠ bidders also make that bid with KQx of spades and small singleton club? If the answer is no then fine, but if it's yes then you are really making a pointless bid.

[Halo]

jdonn, on May 2 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

Would 3♠ bidders also make that bid with KQx of spades and small singleton club? If the answer is no then fine, but if it's yes then you are really making a pointless bid.

The answer is no.

[mike777]

hmm what do I know so far on this hand?
1) partner has 4 or 5 clubs
2) partner has exactly 3d(no 1 d opener)
3) partner has 2-3 h
4) partner has 2-3 spades
5) partner is balanced
6) partner has 12-14 hcp.

time to try and come up with some hand examples where partner would rebid 3d but not 2nt:

[han]

I was playing with Roger and we have made no agreements. I suspect that he would have assumed 2-way checkback but 2H seemed practical.

I didn't know if he would bid 1NT with a 4-card major, I would. I definitely thought that he could have 4 spades when he bid 3D. I also thought 2H showed 5+ diamonds, interesting that Justin wonders if it could be 4 and Frances thinks it should be 6+.

I bid 3S over 3D, I don't know whether Roger thought this showed a fragment or worries about spades, obviously I intended it as worries.

Roger bid 3NT with something like Axx Axx Qxx Qxxx, maybe some spots. They lead a low spade but unfortunately opening leader didn't have the king. 3NT went down 2 I think.

At the other table Justin bid 5D with my hand which he made.

[kenrexford]

I thought Walsh was fairly standard in its interpretation.

Partner opens 1♣.

You bid 4-card majors in response. You bypass diamonds unless you have GF values, in which case you can bid diamonds if the diamonds are longer than the major. Thus, 1♦ denies a 4-card major unless Responder is GF. 1M does not deny four diamonds. With 4-4 in diamonds and a major, you bid the major first.

Opener, hearing 1♦, does not bid a major unless he is unbalanced.

Responder's second call, after first bidding 1♦, might be in a major. In that event, the diamonds are 5+. The major might be 3-card on rare occasion, as a convenience/tactical bid, but 4 is expected.

(If this is not Walsh, completely different.)

I don't get two-way checkback in this Walsh sequence. You are giving up the ability to declare 2♣, and maybe 2♦, to check on something that you cannot be interested in unless you have a reverse. So, why assume 2-way checkback here?

[mike777]

"I don't get two-way checkback in this Walsh sequence. You are giving up the ability to declare 2♣, and maybe 2♦, to check on something that you cannot be interested in unless you have a reverse. So, why assume 2-way checkback here?"

See my previous post for one possible answer to your question.

[the hog]

dcvetkov, on May 2 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

inquiry, on May 2 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

Pass is difficule to understand. I play a raise to 4♦ here as essentially forcing. But I am not good enough for 4♦, I am not going to bid 3NT if partner could only raise ♦, either hearts are singled stopped or more likley, spades are a problem.

So, I am simply going to bid 5♦. At  MPs I might try for 3NT,

I agree with this, pass in unphantomable. Just one note, that 4♦ would be interpreted as RKCB for diamonds in a lot of circles, so I would just bid 5D. It should have a play, unless there is too much spade wastage

"Unphantomable"? You have been reading too many Marvel comic books. (Ghost who walks.)
Pass is not unfathomable at all. Given the constrainst of the system you are apparently playing - no checkback and no blackout, partner has made the weakest bid possible with her 3D bid. Your Q of S is of indeterminate value. Given that you open on lightish based hands, 3D may well be your last + score.
With anything better pd would have bid 2S, maybe 2NT as blackout is not an option.

[benlessard]

Quote

With 4-4 in diamonds and a major, you bid the major first.

Not for me and the reason is simple.

If we compare the 2 possible way to show 44 GF in the red.

1C----1H
1Nt---2D

&

1C---1D
1Nt--2H

Option 1 is one step lower but GF isnt established and there are plenty of invitationnal hands that will follow this road, partner will often respond 2H or jump to 3H/3Nt to show a maximum hand giving me little room to reach the best game. Option 2 with GF already established is slightly more economical in the long road. Partner can bid 2Nt/3D knowing we wont pass.

The difference is minimal and its sure that both ways are both playable. So discussion is important.