[the hog]

helene_t, on May 11 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

I think there is no such thing as a pink elephant.

However, if there were pink elephants, I am pretty sure that they would
- Have 46 autosomes
- Be pregnant for 14 months
- Produce milk with 3.9% lactose, 0.2% other carbs, 2.6% protein and 2.2% lipids.
- Get upset by the sight of a purple mouse but ignore orange mice alltogether.

I feel strongly about this issue.

?


Too much Old Theakstone, Helene?

Art, quite right. I re read your original posts. I was under the misapprehension that you said a Walsh player will always bypass Ds. Sorry.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on May 11 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

ArtK78, on May 11 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 9 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

Truscott, in The Bidding Dictionary, says that in the uncontested sequence 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, the last bid shows 4 (possibly 3) spades, 3 or fewer hearts, 4 or more diamonds (possibly 3), and no more than 4 clubs. It shows 6+ HCP, unlimited. This last suggests to me that the "unlimited" bit is what makes the bid forcing.

The unlimited part of the definition is, indeed, what makes it forcing. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited.

I don't understand the significance of this comment. I can only say that in Standard, a new suit by responder is forcing and unlimited.

"It is unlimited, therefore it is forcing."
"It is forcing, therefore it is unlimited."

Which is it?

If you play Walsh, the responder's second bid in 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ shows a mininum of 10 points, not six, because with 6-9, responder would have started with 1♠ over 1♣. Unless, perhaps, responder is 5=6, intending to rebid spades on the third round. At least, that's how I understand it.

This is silly.

It is forcing and unlimited.

This is not a chicken and egg problem.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I've just reread Hardy's "Bidding for the 21st Century" books, and he suggests that a 1♠ rebid by responder is FSF.

Art, you want silly? You said, in effect, "it is forcing because it is unlimited. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited." That makes no sense. I believe it's called circular reasoning.

[han]

Strongly disagree Helene.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on May 11 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

Heh. I've just reread Hardy's "Bidding for the 21st Century" books, and he suggests that a 1♠ rebid by responder is FSF.

Art, you want silly? You said, in effect, "it is forcing because it is unlimited. Because it is forcing, you can be unlimited." That makes no sense. I believe it's called circular reasoning.

Let me try this again. Apparently, I am not being clear.

IT IS FORCING AND UNLIMITED.

All of my statements are true. It is just a question of whether you want to emphasize a rule (it is forcing) or the properties of the bid (it is unlimited).

Obviously, if it is unlimited, it must be forcing. The fact that it is forcing doesn't necessarily imply that it is unlimited, but who cares?

My statements were not circular. If you think they are, then you are not thinking clearly.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Winstonm]

The_Hog, on May 10 2008, 06:08 AM, said:

Art, I think you are wrong on this.
My understanding is that playing Walsh
You bid the Major bypassing Ds ONLY if the hand is not good enough to force to game by the natural 2m bid.

What you are describing sounds like MAFIA, not Walsh to me.

Ron,

I think you are dead right but describing "original" Walsh - there have been many bastardizations of it since inception.

I would actually be interested in knowing if in the original version if this sequence was considered forcing or not: 1C-1D-1H-2H or (1S-2S), or can it be made on 3-card support and invitational strength. I was taught back in Santa Barbara in 19..achew...that this was forcing.

But then I've always believed a strength of Walsh was in removing that abomination called 4th suit forcing from the card for the most part - but I wouldn't be biased now, would I?

[blackshoe]

Apparently not, but then it's way past my bed time. Never mind, it's not worth arguing about.