[quiddity]

3NT was a terrible bid and after South bids 4♦ anyway North has an obvious slam drive. I'd pass with South over 3NT.

[aguahombre]

quiddity, on 2013-December-21, 08:51, said:

3NT was a terrible bid and after South bids 4♦ anyway North has an obvious slam drive. I'd pass with South over 3NT.

Yes, if North had bid 3H showing the 6th heart, South would definitely have bid 4D, but the 2D method still created mud about Opener's playing strength. It is a recurring theme with any 2-way or xyz style that when the stronger variant is used by responder, opener's strength is hard to discover.

[Winstonm]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-20, 14:59, said:

Since when?

When you pick up hands like this one.

[mike777]

yes it turns out that partner had the tough decision...3h rather than 3nt which would get you to 6d.

Good discussion about xyz...it can be tough to find out if opener is stronger than the usual junk one expects. Most of the time responder will have the stronger hand when gf.

[jillybean]

complete hand

---

♦ lead

Ken for us 4♥/4♦ is kickback, partner had a chance to rebid hearts the round before.

[kenberg]

Even acknowledging that it is easier to bid when all hands are visible, I still think that if I were North then, after the 4♦ bid, I would be asking myself whether this should be in 6 or 7. Yes 6 can go down with bad luck and yes 7 can make with good luck, but with the NS cards the hand belongs in 6. Since 4♥ would be kickback I would bid it and of course sign off in 6 after we are missing a key. If kickback shows that we have all the keys plust the Q, I am bidding 7. we have all five keys.

I don't hassle my partners over judgement. There is plenty of hassle just over getting our signals straight. But if I were the type to hassle my partners, this is the hand I would do it on.

[Fluffy]

This hand depends on whether you play walsh or not over 1♥.

If you do, 3♦ already promises a good 6 or 7, so ther ei sno more effort to do.

[kenberg]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-23, 08:21, said:

This hand depends on whether you play walsh or not over 1♥.

If you do, 3♦ already promises a good 6 or 7, so ther ei sno more effort to do.

jb can clarify, but I am guessing that 1♠ showed spades and that's it. But that's not why I am replying here. Two questions:

1. (Terminolgy and so not all that big a deal) I think of Walsh as the agreement that after 1♣-1♦, opener can rebid 1NT holding 4-4 in the majors. He can do this because a responder, holding AKQxxx in diamonds and yyyy in hearts, would already have responded in hearts, and with that shape but more strength he will be bidding again over 1NT, trotting out his hearts. That's very different from saying that after 1♦-1♥ opener can skip over spades to bid NT. The logic is different and the follow-ups have to be different. Both are generally called Walsh?

2. (More important). Playing this style, which I don't but suppose that I were, after 1♦-1♥ the opener, holding Axxx / x/ AKJxx / xxx would not bid 1♠? I understand that there are advantages to reserving 1♠ for a shapely hand, but this one seems pretty shapely to me. Do I really have to wait for six or seven diamonds?

[kenberg]

Most everything is partly system, partly judgement. I have mostly been talkiing about judgment, taking the system as the ever present but ambiguous "standard".

Assuming non-Walsh style, let's look quickly at 2♣ versus 2♦ as the artificial gf. At least here, it seems to me that 2♣ is a winer. 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣(artificial) -2♦-2♥-3♦.

In this sequence, North has described a game-forcing had with at least six hearts, South has shown that, for whatever the reason, he is not convinced that the hand should be played in either 3NT or 4♥.

How it would go from there is perhaps uncertain (probably cue bids of 4♣ and 4♠), but it seems to me that a more complete picture has been painted by the time the auction gets to 3♦.

With just about any convention you win some, you lose some. With these hands, it seems a gf 2♣ is better than a gf 2♦.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2013-December-23, 08:58, said:

Assuming non-Walsh style, let's look quickly at 2♣ versus 2♦ as the artificial gf. At least here, it seems to me that 2♣ is a winer. 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣(artificial) -2♦-2♥-3♦.

In this sequence, North has described a game-forcing had with at least six hearts, South has shown that, for whatever the reason, he is not convinced that the hand should be played in either 3NT or 4♥.

How it would go from there is perhaps uncertain (probably cue bids of 4♣ and 4♠), but it seems to me that a more complete picture has been painted by the time the auction gets to 3♦.

With just about any convention you win some, you lose some. With these hands, it seems a gf 2♣ is better than a gf 2♦.

Agree, but confused about "non-Walsh style". Unless you are referring to xfer Walsh, the auction you propose with 2♣ leading to more clarity than 2♦ would apply in our Walsh style as well.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-23, 10:08, said:

Agree, but confused about "non-Walsh style". Unless you are referring to xfer Walsh, the auction you propose with 2♣ leading to more clarity than 2♦ would apply in our Walsh style as well.

I am guessing a little as to what agreements were. After 1♦-1♥-1NT, many (not I usually, but many) play both 2♣ and 2♦ as artificial and with 2♦ being gf. In thier auction, 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♦, this was described (and presumably was) an artificial gf. Nothing was said about what 2♣ would have been. It sometikmes happens after 1♦-1♥-1♠ that responder would like to use an artificial check-back w/o forcing to game, and I was guessing that's what they were doing. If I am guessing correctly, over 1♠ both 2♣ and 2♦ would be artifical, with 2♦ being the stronger.

OK, I was doing a lot of guessing, not all of it clearly stated.

But anyway, my point was that playing as I do, where 2♣ is the artificial gf, there is more room to sot out the hand.

Given that I am guessing on a lot of the agreements, I probably should have just let it liel

[jillybean]

Hello, I've had a couple of forced days off bridge - Merry Christmas.

1♠ was natural, spades I don't fully understand Walsh.

We play 2 way check back so 1x 1y 1z 2♣ is a relay to 2♦, invitational hand, 2♦ is our gf.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2013-December-26, 10:46, said:

Hello, I've had a couple of forced days off bridge - Merry Christmas.

1♠ was natural, spades I don't fully understand Walsh.

We play 2 way check back so 1x 1y 1z 2♣ is a relay to 2♦, invitational hand, 2♦ is our gf.

We understood what you play, but were discussing how the little tiny difference between 4SF and 2-way cb xyz can take away helpful continuations from Opener....in this case the 2D rebid which would be available to choose after 2C 4SGF. Also, we find that after a 1D opening and a 1S rebid, there is no particular gain from having 2C as an invitational relay. Natural invitational bids are fine.

[kenberg]

I wasn't exactly arguing against 2♦ as the artificial gf, I was saying that in this case 2♣ as a gf works somewhat better. I assume that the selling point of the artificial 2♦ is a hand where responder has an 11 count and five hearts. He would like to check back, but he does not wish to force to game. I generally play that 2♣ is gf, and sometimes when I hold this 11 pointer I am a little unhappy. If the hand is at all suitable I call 2NT, trusting that partner, if he wishes to accept, will give some thought to accepting via 3♥ to provide me with a choice.

I have watched xyz things in action some and I regard the evidence as not overwhelming either for or against. My experience is limited.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-23, 08:21, said:

This hand depends on whether you play walsh or not over 1♥.

I think this hand depends on which cards are held by East and which West. Reverse the defenders' hands and it would never have made the forums.