[jillybean]

2/1 playing "walsh"

---

[mike777]

1c=1d
1nt(11-13)=2h(nat gf, 5d and 4h)
3h=4d or 4c?
4h=pass
------


North might also rebid 4h over 2h, maybe.

--


In any case 1c=1d=1nt=2h is clear in walsh....rest is really more judgement.

[Mbodell]

P - 1♦
1♥ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♥

or

1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 2♠*
2nt - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♥ - 4nt
5♦ - 6♥

[mike777]

Mbodell, on 2011-March-06, 15:02, said:

P - 1♦
1♥ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♥

or

1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 2♠*
2nt - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
4♥ - 4nt
5♦ - 6♥

nO your second example is not possible in walsh

north must rebid 1nt, no choice.

[mtvesuvius]

1♣ - 1♦
1N - 2♥
4♥ - P

[inquiry]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-06, 16:02, said:

1♣ - 1♦
1N - 2♥
4♥ - P

Seems right to me.

[MrAce]

inquiry, on 2011-March-06, 22:48, said:

Seems right to me.

I totally disagree, a hand which has already limited itself by 1 NT as strengthwise and shapewise, SHOULD NEVER jump to 4 with 2+ keycards just because it looks like working very good in this hand and a legit way to stop at 4 level. In another hand it can backfire.

When one limits his hand as "12 to 14 and balanced" (in this example can not be semi balanced either due to walsh, 4333 or 4432 ) and pd may have a giant, last thing he wanna know will be if u are 12 or 14.

In Fred Gittelman's "serious 3 NT" article, it has been explained very well that, in gf auctions jumping to 4 just because one thinks he has a bad hand, is a bad idea. And in his examples, the jumper did not even limited his strength or shape previously, as in this current example.

I will not say i wouldn't open the N hand, but in principle passing 11 balanced hands with boss suit short is a good idea. This is a bad slam even if it makes, and even 5 level is pretty bad, but i doubt i would be able to stop b4 5♥.

[Fluffy]

north's hand doesn't look like a complete minimum when the context is slam investigation, maybe 3♥ is correct.

[Free]

1♣ - 1♦
1NT - 2♥
3♥ - 3NT*
4♥ - pass

(3NT frivolous - similar auctions when playing 3♠ frivolous, or serious 3NT/♠)

[jillybean]

MrAce, on 2011-March-06, 23:13, said:

I totally disagree, a hand which has already limited itself by 1 NT as strengthwise and shapewise, SHOULD NEVER jump to 4 with 2+ keycards just because it looks like working very good in this hand and a legit way to stop at 4 level. In another hand it can backfire.

When one limits his hand as "12 to 14 and balanced" (in this example can not be semi balanced either due to walsh, 4333 or 4432 ) and pd may have a giant, last thing he wanna know will be if u are 12 or 14.

In Fred Gittelman's "serious 3 NT" article, it has been explained very well that, in gf auctions jumping to 4 just because one thinks he has a bad hand, is a bad idea. And in his examples, the jumper did not even limited his strength or shape previously, as in this current example.

I will not say i wouldn't open the N hand, but in principle passing 11 balanced hands with boss suit short is a good idea. This is a bad slam even if it makes, and even 5 level is pretty bad, but i doubt i would be able to stop b4 5♥.

This is the problem I had with the hand. Having chosen to open it I don't like showing any willingness to investigate slam but as MrAce says here, partner could have a giant hand. I'm beginning to think these hands should not be opened, a sure sign I am getting old.

[xxhong]

It's usually right to open it and treat it as a minimum but not a dead minimum. It has some potentials in slam zones and may not play well in 3NT.

Free, on 2011-March-07, 09:12, said:

1♣ - 1♦
1NT - 2♥
3♥ - 3NT*
4♥ - pass

(3NT frivolous - similar auctions when playing 3♠ frivolous, or serious 3NT/♠)

[skjaeran]

1♣-1♦
1NT-2♥
3♥-4♣
4♦-4♥
p

4♦=last train

[aguahombre]

The points made about not using "fast arrival" are valid. We only use it in a situation like this to show very good trumps and nothing else worth mentioning. Maybe that treatment is not really fast arrival but, rather, a descriptive bid.

The given North hand (another bullet) would not qualify.

[Free]

Free, on 2011-March-07, 09:12, said:

1♣ - 1♦
1NT - 2♥
3♥ - 3NT*
4♥ - pass

(3NT frivolous - similar auctions when playing 3♠ frivolous, or serious 3NT/♠)

xxhong, on 2011-March-11, 16:23, said:

It's usually right to open it and treat it as a minimum but not a dead minimum. It has some potentials in slam zones and may not play well in 3NT.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Not opener but responder shows light slam interest by bidding an artificial 3NT, this isn't a suggestion to play.
Perhaps opener should do something over 3NT with his 3 bullets, but he's out of options (except 4♦ last train which might be interpreted too positive)

[dickiegera]

inquiry, on 2011-March-06, 22:48, said:

Seems right to me.

I agree also

[losercover]

Here's how my partner (South) would bid it:

P 1D
1H 2N ( 17-18 HCP. She would rather initially show the points than the support)
3N 4H (shows the 4 card heart support)

At this point North would need to decide if the heart fit + a combined 28-29 HCP was worth a slam try.

If I were bidding South:

P 1D
1H 4H (good hand with 5 or fewer losers)
At this point North would look at the controls, shape and decide whether to make a slam try. The hand should make either 5H or 6H.

[kenrexford]

skjaeran, on 2011-March-12, 10:24, said:

1♣-1♦
1NT-2♥
3♥-4♣
4♦-4♥
p

4♦=last train

This is my auction, as well. Because of the discussions up to this point, I think I'll elaborate (and skjaeran likely will agree):

The first four bids seem automatic. As to the question some raised as to whether to open this hand or not, I cannot imagine not opening a 3-quick-trick hand. This also is why you 9should) play 14+ t0 17 1NT, because otherwise you pass a 4432 3-quick trick hand.

Opener's 3♥ also seems clear. With, again, three quick tricks, and more importantly with an answer of "two with the Queen" or better, fast arrival is poor bridge. A good rule is to NEVER fast arrive if your answer to RKCB would be 5♠ or better. You opened because you have an opening hand. Nothing but good stuff has happened to date. Why change tacks?

Responder's 4♣ is "non-serious," but it still means slam interest opposite a minimum balanced hand.

Opener's hand is not good enough to accept the slam move, but that darned double top honor in hearts is simply too good to sign off with. When the other partner is missing the Ace and King of trumps, and another side Ace, be aggressive if you are looking at these cards -- partner will not. In fact, partner is scared to death.

If there is any doubt as to the strength of Opener's hand, consider that if hearts and diamonds split 3-2, Responder can count five diamonds, four hearts, a stop spade, and a spade ruff in dummy, for 11 tricks. Now, all he needs is the club Ace onside, or a club lead, or a spade lead away from the King and serious table feel. If Opener started with as little as the extra diamond Jack, or had Responder the diamond Jack, the slam is substantially better. If adding the Jack means that accepting the slam try pays, removing just that diamond Jack seems to call for LTTC.

[mike777]

good discussion however to use terms such as nonserious or serious I think should be more sharply defined.


As for last train, my guess is only a few hundred top partnerships play it often here in the USA and my feeling is even here it is often ill defined as to what it promises or asks.

To put it bluntly at this point these terms seem to mean whatever one thinks they mean and pard should figure it out.

--


As far as the OP i do think the first 4 bids are pretty auto playing Walsh.

[655321]

Since everyone is agreeing on the start (1♣ - 1♦; 1NT - 2♥) I thought I would mention that I like to play that this promises 4-6 in the red suits - when playing this agreement the 4-5 hands go through checkback.

[JLOGIC]

655321, on 2011-March-14, 18:05, said:

Since everyone is agreeing on the start (1♣ - 1♦; 1NT - 2♥) I thought I would mention that I like to play that this promises 4-6 in the red suits - when playing this agreement the 4-5 hands go through checkback.

+1 as usual.

Also, just jumping to 4H with AK of trumps, an A and a doubleton is retarded, I mean wtf, sorry guys. Just because you are a minimum opener does not mean you are minimum in slam suitability.