[bd71]

I suspect like most other players, I have treatments I prefer to play even though I don't really have the breadth of experience to be sure that they are best.

For me, I have always liked a general rule that opener should rebid some level of NT with a balanced hand, regardless of whether he's bypassing a 4-card suit to do so. (Ususally, this means bypassing spades, but in theory could also be both majors after 1C-1D with a 4423 hand.)

I like this treatment because:

1. We instantly know whether opener is balanced or unbalanced.
2. It brings into play asking bids (NMF, checkback) that can help us find a 5-3 fit in hearts, which is harder to do if rebidding 1S.
3. It sometimes results in opponents making the wrong lead.
4. You do not always miss 4-4 spade fits, when partner is strong enough for NMF/Checkback.
5. Sometimes NT is the best place to play even with a spade fit, especially since I primarily play matchpoints.
6. In my (limited) experience, it seems to be working on the whole when I use it.

My questions for the experts here are whether they prefer to use this approach?, why/why not?, and whether I'm missing any key reasons to use (or not use) it?

This was all prompted by the blog entry below, which I think makes a good case for this treatment when strong enough to rebid 2NT, but which fails to make what seems to me to be the equally strong case to use it when rebidding 1N.

http://tommybridgebl...my-captain.html

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

This is playable, and if you screen the post on the forum, most
of the good 2/1 players prefer this approach.
Usually it gets pharsed different - if openers bids a 2nd bid this
showes an unbal.

The danger of missing a 4-4 major fit after a 1C opening can be
reduce, if you play Walsh style, at least if you have 4 diamonds
and a 4 card major by bidding the major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

I use this approach, but it is important to understand that methods have to be integrated into one's overall system. A treatment cannot be properly evaluated in a vacuum.

Thus, I play a form of walsh in response to 1♣: responder's 1♦ denies a 4 card major unless he has a certain level of strength.....I prefer 'strong' walsh in which responder's 1♦ denies a major unless he has opening values, and longer diamonds than the major. I have played a style in which 1♦ denied a major unless responder holds at least invitational values.

Imo, this is an important point.....if responder bids up the line with modest values, rebidding 1N over 1♦ risks missing the 4-4 major suit fit that might well play far better than 1N.

So assuming one plays a form of walsh, then imo rebidding 1N over 1♦ on all balanced hands is very useful.

You will not miss a major suit fit since by definition responder won't have one unless his hand is strong enough to move over 1N.

In the meantime, the bigger gain is when opener bids a major....now responder knows that opener has an unbalanced hand.

1♣ 1♦ 1♠

Give responder xx Jxx KQxxx Jxx......in standard, responder has an awkward choice.....1N will often be best....picture opener as 4=3=2=4.....while when 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand, 2♣ is clear...we hold at least an 8 card fit. That was a hastily created example but you can easily conjure up others.

This helps not merely in placing the contract at the one or two level but also in allowing responder to picture game and slam opportunities early due to knowing that partner has shape and real length in his suits.


There are other benefits as well: balancing into our 1♣ 1♦ 1N auctions is more dangerous. Leading into our notrump contracts becomes more of a guessing game.....if leader is 4=4 in the majors, for example, he may well choose to lead into opener's major, when he would avoid that had opener shown the suit.

I use this treatment after a 1♥ response as well, but there is a little more downside than after a 1♦ response. You will inevitably miss some 4-4 spade partials and play in 1N instead. Indeed, in my current partnership, my partner was very unhappy about this. The first time he rebid 1N, the opening lead was a small spade, and I laid down 4=4 majors, and we had indeed missed our 4=4 fit.....but the lead gave us a trick and a tempo and we made 120 with the field failing in 2♠. Now, one hand doesn't exactly prove anything beyond that bridge is a game of percentages, and on balance missing the 4=4 spade partials will cost you, especially at mps. However, in my view, the gains from the other boards outweigh that modest cost.

[wyman]

Playing strong Walsh, which if any calls at the 1-level have to be alerted in ACBL-land?

[aguahombre]

wyman, on 2011-October-03, 11:33, said:

Playing strong Walsh, which if any calls at the 1-level have to be alerted in ACBL-land?

I am fairly sure that both 1N and 1M after:

1C-1D

should be alerted. They carry extra meaning. 1NT explained as "any balanced minimum would bypass a major to rebid 1N" and "unbalanced hand" (because we don't bid up the line with balanced hands). Anyway, we are using the when-in-doubt alert theory for disclosure and don't really care if it is required.

[bd71]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-03, 12:18, said:

I am fairly sure that both 1N and 1M after:

1C-1D

should be alerted. They carry extra meaning. 1NT explained as "any balanced minimum would bypass a major to rebid 1N" and "unbalanced hand" (because we don't bid up the line with balanced hands). Anyway, we are using the when-in-doubt alert theory for disclosure and don't really care if it is required.

By omission, are you suggesting that 1S/1N after 1m-1H is NOT alertable? Seems like the explanations you gave would fit perfectly here too. Or am I reading too much between the lines...

[jeffford76]

wyman, on 2011-October-03, 11:33, said:

Playing strong Walsh, which if any calls at the 1-level have to be alerted in ACBL-land?

This is on the alert chart at http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html as specifically "No Alert" under "Opener’s and Responder’s Rebids":

A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors)

The 1M calls after 1C - 1D aren't there specifically, but I believe not alertable. In general in the ACBL if the hands you have for you bid are expected hands there is no alert even if there are other standard hands your partnership excludes. In this case the hands you would bid 1M on are hands other people would bid 1M on, so the negative inference that you don't have a balanced hand isn't alerted, although obviously explained if asked about your auction.

[billw55]

My own preference is to get balanced minimums off my chest immediately by a 12-14 1NT.

[bd71]

billw55, on 2011-October-03, 14:16, said:

My own preference is to get balanced minimums off my chest immediately by a 12-14 1NT.

I think my questions are completely agnostic to the NT ranges you play.

So for you...what do you do with 15-17 and 18-19 balanced hands when this issue comes up (assuming those are typical 1N and 2N rebids for you)?

[aguahombre]

bd71, on 2011-October-03, 12:40, said:

By omission, are you suggesting that 1S/1N after 1m-1H is NOT alertable? Seems like the explanations you gave would fit perfectly here too. Or am I reading too much between the lines...

No, I wasn't suggesting either way. I don't bypass spades after a 1H response, and it doesn't enter into what our partnership should or should not alert. I am confident that with our methods, rebidding 1NT denying 4 spades is not alertable; and if I need to know about the opponents' treatment of same I can ask after the auction is over.

I can't really need to know during the auction, because my chance to bid spades went bye bye when I didn't do it over the opening bid the first time.

[whereagles]

I used to oppose to hiding the 4-card spade, but I've changed my mind. Better to have 1S/1NT describing shape + strength immediately than have one bid that's very precise (1NT) while the other (1S) can be God knows what.

[MrAce]

bd71, on 2011-October-03, 10:35, said:

I suspect like most other players, I have treatments I prefer to play even though I don't really have the breadth of experience to be sure that they are best.

For me, I have always liked a general rule that opener should rebid some level of NT with a balanced hand, regardless of whether he's bypassing a 4-card suit to do so. (Ususally, this means bypassing spades, but in theory could also be both majors after 1C-1D with a 4423 hand.)

I like this treatment because:

1. We instantly know whether opener is balanced or unbalanced.
2. It brings into play asking bids (NMF, checkback) that can help us find a 5-3 fit in hearts, which is harder to do if rebidding 1S.
3. It sometimes results in opponents making the wrong lead.
4. You do not always miss 4-4 spade fits, when partner is strong enough for NMF/Checkback.
5. Sometimes NT is the best place to play even with a spade fit, especially since I primarily play matchpoints.
6. In my (limited) experience, it seems to be working on the whole when I use it.

My questions for the experts here are whether they prefer to use this approach?, why/why not?, and whether I'm missing any key reasons to use (or not use) it?

This was all prompted by the blog entry below, which I think makes a good case for this treatment when strong enough to rebid 2NT, but which fails to make what seems to me to be the equally strong case to use it when rebidding 1N.

http://tommybridgebl...my-captain.html

I play 1NT as balanced hand and bypass a 4 card major, even after 1m-1♥.

This is not a risk free treatment though. Don't forget every information you give to pd, is recieved also by opponents. I agree that we benefit from leads when we do not show our major and bid 1NT, but we also will suffer from some almost double dummy leads/defenses when we show 5-4 hand. But in long run i believe the merits of this treatment if it fits with overall structure of your bidding method as Mikeh already said.

[kenrexford]

I love this approach, to some extreme. I consider a major rebid as assuredly unbalanced and even have the possibility of a 3-card suit in one auction:

1♣-1♥
1♠ = might be 3-1-4-5 shape.

http://www.bridgeguy...eichenbaum.html

[mikestar13]

The Walsh approach is very superior to the alternative (opener shows a 4-card major if he has one)--in fact I would consider it expert standard in a 2/1 context. Identifying shape as soon as possible, particularly balanced vs. unbalanced, is a long run big winner--though there are a few losing cases when responder isn't worth an invite.

The usefulness of shape showing is so great that in Real Diamond Precision we go Walsh bidders one better by having the opening bid identify balanced vs. unbalanced. With a hand not worth a big club, all 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, and 5-3-3-2 shapes are opened 1NT or passed, so any suit opening is unbalanced or semi-balanced.

[awm]

As an "expert" who doesn't like this style, I'll give the contrasting view.

When responder has a very weak hand, bypassing opener's major loses the opportunity to play in 1M. This is often a superior partial to playing 1NT with less than half the high cards, or playing in 2NT with 18 opposite 5. Note that responder doesn't have four-card support for your major to do this; often the 4-3 major fit (at the one level) is a superior partial.

There are also advantages in that sequences like 1♣-1♥-1NT show (by inference) a real club suit, since 4333 hands would rebid 1♠ (and 3433 raises hearts, and 3343 would open 1♦) which can help you decide whether to sign off in clubs or play notrump. This helps when opponents decide to balance (and responder is a bit stronger) too.

When responder is just short of game-invitational values, you can miss a game by losing the 4-4 major fit. For example, suppose partner opens 1m and I have a 5-count with 4/5 in the majors. I respond 1♥ and partner rebids 2NT. Now if I pass, I might miss a nice 4♠ contract (when partner bypassed a four-card spade suit). But in the more frequent case that we have no such fit, if I choose to bid on over 2NT I could easily reach a silly 3NT on 23-24 high and no fit. This is a lot easier if partner rebids 1♠, I raise to 2♠, he bids the easy game. Something similar can happen with a 10-count opposite a 1NT rebid; usually 10+13 is not game but if you have a 4-4 spade fit it could be.. so do you invite and risk the 23 hcp misfit, or choose not to invite and miss the 4-4♠ fit game?

When responder has game values (or even invite values), you have all the space in the world to figure things out after opener's one-level rebid. You get to force game with two of the fourth suit (or the possibly-cheaper 2♦ if you play XYZ). Opener has made two descriptive bids and you're in a game force below 2NT. I don't think a good pair is going to have any issues figuring out what's going on; the little extra information about whether opener is balanced or not won't really be necessary.

There are siding issues when we are going to game too; suppose I have a balanced weak notrump but no diamond control after 1♣-1♥; if I rebid 1NT then notrump will be played my way, and I could easily go down on a diamond lead through partner's guard. If I rebid 1♠, partner can choose to bid notrump himself (protecting his diamond card) or can bypass notrump (if he doesn't have a diamond card). It often pays not to be in so much of a rush to bid notrump first, because better "siding" decisions can be made later in the auction (if we're going to game, anyway).

The "less information to the opponents on lead" claim doesn't really hold water for me either. Yes, there are hands where bypassing your four-card major hides that major from the opponents and they make a bad lead or something. But the opposite type of situation can happen too; responder often gets to hide his (second?) major if you bid up-the-line whereas he would have to show it on the way to game if opener might bypass. There are sequences where responder has to bid checkback when he could blast 3NT if he knew opener wouldn't bypass, and depending on your checkback agreements this may lead to opener disclosing all sorts of things about his hand for no good reason (three-card support for responder's first suit? five cards in opener's minor? four cards in the other minor?).

[aguahombre]

It also gets spades out of the convolution of responses to NMF when we have rebid 1nt denying 4spades and can use 2S for a bad opening without 3 hearts. That leaves 2NT as a good minimum and all 3-level bids for 3-heart support and a max.

[mikeh]

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

As an "expert" who doesn't like this style, I'll give the contrasting view.

When responder has a very weak hand, bypassing opener's major loses the opportunity to play in 1M. This is often a superior partial to playing 1NT with less than half the high cards, or playing in 2NT with 18 opposite 5. Note that responder doesn't have four-card support for your major to do this; often the 4-3 major fit (at the one level) is a superior partial.

There are also advantages in that sequences like 1♣-1♥-1NT show (by inference) a real club suit, since 4333 hands would rebid 1♠ (and 3433 raises hearts, and 3343 would open 1♦) which can help you decide whether to sign off in clubs or play notrump. This helps when opponents decide to balance (and responder is a bit stronger) too.

When responder is just short of game-invitational values, you can miss a game by losing the 4-4 major fit. For example, suppose partner opens 1m and I have a 5-count with 4/5 in the majors. I respond 1♥ and partner rebids 2NT. Now if I pass, I might miss a nice 4♠ contract (when partner bypassed a four-card spade suit). But in the more frequent case that we have no such fit, if I choose to bid on over 2NT I could easily reach a silly 3NT on 23-24 high and no fit. This is a lot easier if partner rebids 1♠, I raise to 2♠, he bids the easy game. Something similar can happen with a 10-count opposite a 1NT rebid; usually 10+13 is not game but if you have a 4-4 spade fit it could be.. so do you invite and risk the 23 hcp misfit, or choose not to invite and miss the 4-4♠ fit game?

When responder has game values (or even invite values), you have all the space in the world to figure things out after opener's one-level rebid. You get to force game with two of the fourth suit (or the possibly-cheaper 2♦ if you play XYZ). Opener has made two descriptive bids and you're in a game force below 2NT. I don't think a good pair is going to have any issues figuring out what's going on; the little extra information about whether opener is balanced or not won't really be necessary.

There are siding issues when we are going to game too; suppose I have a balanced weak notrump but no diamond control after 1♣-1♥; if I rebid 1NT then notrump will be played my way, and I could easily go down on a diamond lead through partner's guard. If I rebid 1♠, partner can choose to bid notrump himself (protecting his diamond card) or can bypass notrump (if he doesn't have a diamond card). It often pays not to be in so much of a rush to bid notrump first, because better "siding" decisions can be made later in the auction (if we're going to game, anyway).

The "less information to the opponents on lead" claim doesn't really hold water for me either. Yes, there are hands where bypassing your four-card major hides that major from the opponents and they make a bad lead or something. But the opposite type of situation can happen too; responder often gets to hide his (second?) major if you bid up-the-line whereas he would have to show it on the way to game if opener might bypass. There are sequences where responder has to bid checkback when he could blast 3NT if he knew opener wouldn't bypass, and depending on your checkback agreements this may lead to opener disclosing all sorts of things about his hand for no good reason (three-card support for responder's first suit? five cards in opener's minor? four cards in the other minor?).

Please don't take offence, but have you much experience playing the walsh style? I ask this because virtually nothing in your post resonates with my experience, and I have played both methods extensively.

I won't go into all of my differences of opinion (they apply to every point you made), but a couple of points stood out for me.

Firstly, do you advocate a 1♠ rebid with 4234 18-19, for example? I think you'd find that most would choose to bid 2N. While you can work around the problems caused by your method (when does opener start to communicate his size and shape?), all such fixes have a cost in your methods, and it seems to me to be a huge error to invoke those costs in order to avoid the 18 opposite 5 2N situation.....we haven't gone down yet in 2N, have we?

The other is with respect to game bidding. Yes, we have more bidding space in game auctions, but you are using a chunk of that space to define opener's hand type while we walsh players know a full round of bidding earlier whether partner is balanced or shapely, and we can often idnetify good minor suit fits a round earlier as well.....and bidding space is critical to accurate bidding. I don't understand any argument that up the line makes for more efficient game and slam bidding....while there will be some hands on which that helps, my experience and my version of bridge reasoning tells me that the edge is definitely to the walsh style on this one.

[MrAce]

Hi Awm

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

As an "expert" who doesn't like this style, I'll give the contrasting view.

When responder has a very weak hand, bypassing opener's major loses the opportunity to play in 1M. This is often a superior partial to playing 1NT with less than half the high cards, or playing in 2NT with 18 opposite 5. Note that responder doesn't have four-card support for your major to do this; often the 4-3 major fit (at the one level) is a superior partial.

May i ask how many times did you get to play 1M after this type of auction last 3 years that was also superior to 1NT ?

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

There are also advantages in that sequences like 1♣-1♥-1NT show (by inference) a real club suit, since 4333 hands would rebid 1♠ (and 3433 raises hearts, and 3343 would open 1♦) which can help you decide whether to sign off in clubs or play notrump. This helps when opponents decide to balance (and responder is a bit stronger) too.

Thats true, but knowing pd has some 3334 instead of another 4333 will make slim to none difference in your decisions compared to knowing pd has 5-4 and not 3-4.

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

When responder is just short of game-invitational values, you can miss a game by losing the 4-4 major fit. For example, suppose partner opens 1m and I have a 5-count with 4/5 in the majors. I respond 1♥ and partner rebids 2NT. Now if I pass, I might miss a nice 4♠ contract (when partner bypassed a four-card spade suit). But in the more frequent case that we have no such fit, if I choose to bid on over 2NT I could easily reach a silly 3NT on 23-24 high and no fit. This is a lot easier if partner rebids 1♠, I raise to 2♠, he bids the easy game. Something similar can happen with a 10-count opposite a 1NT rebid; usually 10+13 is not game but if you have a 4-4 spade fit it could be.. so do you invite and risk the 23 hcp misfit, or choose not to invite and miss the 4-4♠ fit game?

This has nothing to do with walsh. If you are suggesting to bid 1♠ also with balanced hands as strong as 18-19, then i think thats your choice, but dont show the negative sides of bidding 2NT with 18-19 while u say nothing about negative sides of bidding 1♠ with balanced hands. For example you wrote how superrior to play 1M if one believes they dont have game strength above, but when u bid 1M with strong balanced hand, your pd will not be able to pass it with a very bad 7-8 hcp or even 9-10 hcp while other style can. 1♣--1♥--1♠, responder now cant pass with a lot of hands that i can if opener can be as strong as 19 hcp still. What is he supposed to do ? Bid NT ? If it is not ok to wrongside NT in other style, is it ok here ? Or is he supposed to bid xyz 2 minor ?

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

When responder has game values (or even invite values), you have all the space in the world to figure things out after opener's one-level rebid. You get to force game with two of the fourth suit (or the possibly-cheaper 2♦ if you play XYZ). Opener has made two descriptive bids and you're in a game force below 2NT. I don't think a good pair is going to have any issues figuring out what's going on; the little extra information about whether opener is balanced or not won't really be necessary.

Thats not true at all, show me please 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦(xyz or whatever forcing bid) Show me how can u cover both shape, strength and right siding NT. You simply can not. In fact if i understood u correctly u can even be as strong as 19 hcp balanced and as weak as 4333 12 hcp in this auction, u dont have the space needed at all i am afraid. Steve Weinstein explained this in a topic at bridge winners if i am not wrong, trying to find it but seems like i cant, it has nothing to do with being a decent pair or not, there is not actually enough space as u think it is. And where did opener make descriptive bids ? He can be 4333 12 hcp, he can be 4333 19 hcp in your style, and he also can be 7-4 12 hcp or 6-5 13 hcp or 6-4 16 hcp !

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

There are siding issues when we are going to game too; suppose I have a balanced weak notrump but no diamond control after 1♣-1♥; if I rebid 1NT then notrump will be played my way, and I could easily go down on a diamond lead through partner's guard. If I rebid 1♠, partner can choose to bid notrump himself (protecting his diamond card) or can bypass notrump (if he doesn't have a diamond card). It often pays not to be in so much of a rush to bid notrump first, because better "siding" decisions can be made later in the auction (if we're going to game, anyway).

As i said, wrong siding issues exist in your style too

awm, on 2011-October-03, 19:38, said:

The "less information to the opponents on lead" claim doesn't really hold water for me either. Yes, there are hands where bypassing your four-card major hides that major from the opponents and they make a bad lead or something. But the opposite type of situation can happen too; responder often gets to hide his (second?) major if you bid up-the-line whereas he would have to show it on the way to game if opener might bypass. There are sequences where responder has to bid checkback when he could blast 3NT if he knew opener wouldn't bypass, and depending on your checkback agreements this may lead to opener disclosing all sorts of things about his hand for no good reason (three-card support for responder's first suit? five cards in opener's minor? four cards in the other minor?).

I agree with this

Overall, i dont disagree with your style, i just think the criticisms u made were one sided. Each has its ups and downs, i know very top pairs who plays walsh, and i know very top pairs who plays as you suggested. But in general i believe the style you suggest works better at MP. Not that i made a research about it, just my opinion.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2011-October-03, 10:51, said:

I use this approach, but it is important to understand that methods have to be integrated into one's overall system. A treatment cannot be properly evaluated in a vacuum.
.......................................................

I use this treatment after a 1♥ response as well, but there is a little more downside than after a 1♦ response. You will inevitably miss some 4-4 spade partials and play in 1N instead. Indeed, in my current partnership, my partner was very unhappy about this. The first time he rebid 1N, the opening lead was a small spade, and I laid down 4=4 majors, and we had indeed missed our 4=4 fit.....but the lead gave us a trick and a tempo and we made 120 with the field failing in 2♠. Now, one hand doesn't exactly prove anything beyond that bridge is a game of percentages, and on balance missing the 4=4 spade partials will cost you, especially at mps. However, in my view, the gains from the other boards outweigh that modest cost.

The dots in between the two quoted paragraphs represent the portion of the post which is a true work of art about rebids following 1C-1D.

However, when we get into the rebids (1S vs 1NT) after a 1H response your opening thought really comes into play. Methods chosen are integrated into one's style and cannot be evaluated in a vacuum.

The balanced overview quoted above regarding rebids after the 1H response shows plusses and minuses. Yet your critque of Adam's view on the same subject does not really take into account that he or others might have a method of follow-ups which knock out the minuses of not immediately describing size and shape with the 1S rebid.

It is possible to use the Walsh approach after 1C-1D, but a different one after 1m-1H. The huge difference between the two situations is the fact that 1D/1C denies a major unless G.F, but the 1H response does no such thing regarding spades.

Getting spades out of the picture with a 1NT rebid makes things "cleaner" for the rest of the auction (especially when NMF is employed). Keeping spades in play with a 1S rebid is manageable, even though we have not yet shown the balanced or unbalanced nature of our opening at the 1-level.

Others would prefer to try to untangle the spade fit question through their follow-ups. It is not a matter of who is right; it is a matter of choice and of style.

[whereagles]

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.