[kenrexford]

Mike(777): I understand that theory. I still don't think you gain all that much. My own preference, perhaps, is to handle some of these hands through a 2♥ rebid, to allow for playing 2♣ in an auction where 2♣ is often a good contract, more so than usual, I think. But, I see some merits in what you suggest.

As to the general issues. I remain firmly convinced that an artificial GF (or a GF unless invitational with a club fit) 2♣ response to a 1♣ opening, showing many patterns with no five-card major, solves a lot of problems. With 5+♦/4major, still Walsh. But, these 4-4 jobs and such end up better handled through Golady, IMO.

But, that's another issue.

[mike777]

benlessard, on May 2 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

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.

I am not sure I got what point you are making. With 4-4 I always bid hearts first, well lets say 99.99% with any hand type.
Playing 2 way checkback both of your example auctions are game forcing.
1) 2d is game force checkback
2) 2h is this thread.

I always understood that playing Walsh makes bidding major suit or nt auctions easier at the cost of a few in theory diamond fits.

[mike777]

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through 2 way checkback.


1c=1h
1nt=2c=(invite checkback)
2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)
?

[matmat]

mike777, on May 2 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through 2 way checkback.


1c=1h
1nt=2c=(invite checkback)
2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)
?

if you're putting together an invitational sequence, i think opener rebids 2d not 2h. but whatever.

[mike777]

matmat, on May 2 2008, 11:29 PM, said:

mike777, on May 2 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

This thread hand is really tough( well it is really tough period) if you combine Walsh and play responder's hand is only worth a good invite(not game force) through  2 way checkback.


1c=1h
1nt=2c=(invite checkback)
2h=3d?=(strong invite 12-13 in my style with 4h and long diamonds)
?

if you're putting together an invitational sequence, i think opener rebids 2d not 2h. but whatever.

opener has 3 hearts so they must rebid hearts over 2c in checkback not 2d.


even if playing xyz this is a debate.......is 2d forced over 2c or is 2h forced. I have seen both. In fact I play 2h is forced not 2d..... But here i assume checkback not xyz.

My main point was this is a really tough hand very hard. I offer not one but two checkback auctions where you may reach 5D but I think this is hard.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure about the terminology, but I usually play that you bypass diamonds only with a hand that isn't worth an invitation. With an invitational or better hand you bid your suits in a natural order, including bidding a four-card diamond suit if it seems sensible.

In this style, which is fairly common in England, responder might have either an invitational or a game-forcing hand with a four-card major. It therefore makes sense to distinguish between the two.

I don't understand Ken's (kenrexford's) comment abut not being able to play in 2♦. Doesn't "two-way checkback" include a 2♣ bid that forces 2♦?

[whereagles]

Seems like a simple 3NT now. 3♠ if you're the sort of person worried of stoppers.

[Fluffy]

On my partnership I would bid 3♥, 3♠ would say I need some help in this suit, 3♥ means I have spades wide open.

With no agreements it seems like 3♠ looks like a good choice, whatever partner thinks it means you almost have it.

BTW 2♥ is 100% GF except for a passed hand.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 3 2008, 02:38 AM, said:

I don't understand Ken's (kenrexford's) comment abut not being able to play in 2♦. Doesn't "two-way checkback" include a 2♣ bid that forces 2♦?

Well, sure. If you play that version. But, then you still lose the ability to play 2♣.