[aguahombre]

If you have a style which solves a problem which occurs 5% of the time, doesn't create insurmountable problems for other times, and makes things easier another % of the time; how does knowing the frequency really matter?

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on 2011-October-04, 06:41, said:

awm: I've once ran a sim on this very issue. If I recall correctly, it as a very low percentage of the time (something like ~5%) that responder would have 4 card spades and a hand below 7 hcp. In this scenario a spade contract fares better than 1NT.

It's anyone's guess whether the pros of walsh style compensate for the 5% of the time that you'll be playing an inferior contract, but the conclusion stands that bypassing spades appears not to matter much.

I would add, as well, that it is perhaps also unclear how often 1NT is in fact the final auction.

For example, one might have this auction:

1♦-P-1♥-P-
1NT-P-P-2♣-
P-P-X-P-
2♠-P-P-P

[Flem72]

What happened to all the folks who are always complaining about structures that take away a 2m contract? Playing the 1m-1X/1Y = unbalanced style makes it much easier to play 2m -- or even 3m -- when you can.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[JLOGIC]

I like to rebid 1S over 1m 1H ? with 4 spades and a 1N rebid. I like to rebid 2N with a 2N rebid and 4 spades. 1C 1D is different and depends on what hands you bid 1D with.

There have been a ton of threads on this, I remember them as being good, maybe someone can find them. Maybe it even spawned a war between me and mikeh at the time

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-October-04, 16:46, said:

I like to rebid 1S over 1m 1H ? with 4 spades and a 1N rebid. I like to rebid 2N with a 2N rebid and 4 spades. 1C 1D is different and depends on what hands you bid 1D with.

There have been a ton of threads on this, I remember them as being good, maybe someone can find them. Maybe it even spawned a war between me and mikeh at the time

who? you and me? couldn't happen

[awm]

I should have been more clear that my post is about the auctions 1♣-1♥ and 1♦-1♥. In these cases, rebidding notrump could very easily miss a spade fit. This will often mean playing an inferior partial, and occasionally missing a good game. It is admittedly a bigger deal at MP scoring (which I prefer, and play more of, relative to Mikeh and some other posters). I find this to be a pretty huge negative to bypassing 1♠ in these auctions (yes, I have played that style substantially at partner's request and do not enjoy the experience). Perhaps another point here is that my methods are such that I won't want to rebid 2♥ on a five-card suit over 1m-1♥-1NT (allowing responder to do this is one of the advantages of bypassing spades) and I also have methods such that I won't miss a five-three heart fit in the auction 1m-1♥-1♠-1NT (a lot of people holding 43(24) would be unable to find that fit after the 1♠ rebid, making a 1NT perhaps more appealing).

As Justin says, the 1♣-1♦ auction is different if you play this as denying a major unless responder has a pretty good hand. If you play that style, then you won't miss a 4-4 major fit by having opener bypass -- and I think if you play that response style, it is obvious that opener should bypass on balanced hands despite the occasional loss of the ability to play a 4-3 major fit at the one-level. Personally I don't like this style either, but the reasoning is different and has more to do with the infrequency of the cheap and flexible 1♦ response, and with unnecessarily distorting responder's shape and/or concentration of values when opener is strong enough to look for game or slam.

[mike777]

I play walsh but most players dont and many good players hate it fwiw.

On top of that there are a couple of diff versions of walsh so even more confusing.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2011-October-04, 21:50, said:

I play walsh but most players dont and many good players hate it fwiw.

On top of that there are a couple of diff versions of walsh so even more confusing.

Yep, just like almost any system; many of us with long-time partnerships started out with a "named" style: Walsh, Hardy, precision, Acol, whatever.

Over the years, we add and change; we adopt new toys and juggle things around. But sometimes we forget that what we are playing isn't the same Walsh, Hardy, or whatever. And when others say how they hate the named style, we get defensive. We shouldn't; we aint playing what they hate.

[mikestar13]

whereagles, on 2011-October-04, 06:41, said:

awm: I've once ran a sim on this very issue. If I recall correctly, it as a very low percentage of the time (something like ~5%) that responder would have 4 card spades and a hand below 7 hcp. In this scenario a spade contract fares better than 1NT.

It's anyone's guess whether the pros of walsh style compensate for the 5% of the time that you'll be playing an inferior contract, but the conclusion stands that bypassing spades appears not to matter much.

I think the cons are even less than this. Assuming competent opponents, you will never play 1♠ with a weak hand unless spades is the wrong strain, and you chances of buying it for 2♠ are not good. 1NT is pretty likely at least as good as 3♠ even when you have 4-4 spades.

[awm]

mikestar13, on 2011-October-04, 22:34, said:

I think the cons are even less than this. Assuming competent opponents, you will never play 1♠ with a weak hand unless spades is the wrong strain, and you chances of buying it for 2♠ are not good. 1NT is pretty likely at least as good as 3♠ even when you have 4-4 spades.

Actually, my experience is that good opponents sell to 2♠ a lot, even at matchpoint scoring. The risk of going for a number after balancing at the three-level is simply too high. As for 1♠, it's usually a 4-3 fit and not a 4-4 fit. If the spades are breaking, opponents usually won't balance. If opponents do balance, either opener had a big hand (often 18-19 flat, in which case they could go for a number balancing over our non-fit) or else opener had a minimum and we had substantially less than half the strength (in which case we are happy to defend their two-level contract).

It's important to remember that the goal in bridge isn't to declare all the hands. Defending can win if your contract wasn't making (especially if it was down two) or if the opponents contract doesn't make (especially if you find a double). It's much better to (attempt to) play in 1♠ on 18 high than in 1NT: you are more likely to make it, and opponents are less likely to penalize when you are going down.

[whereagles]

awm, on 2011-October-06, 19:13, said:

It's important to remember that the goal in bridge isn't to declare all the hands.

No, that's the goal of bidding

As in, "either we play the hand or opps play it DOUBLED."