[dickiegera]

---

I believe West should have bid 1♦ rather than 1NT, walsh style.

However after 3♣ West should have bid 3NT.

I didn't like my 3♣ bid ,maybe 2NT, 2♥ or 2♠?

Comments would be helpful.

[kenberg]

W: I would probably bid 1♦ instead of 1NT. I think 1NT is not awful. It wouldn't matter whether I was or was not playing Walsh.
E: After 1♣-1NT, I am sure I would bid 2♥. After which it seems 1♣-1NT-2♥-3♦-3NT seems likely. The 3♦ is natural and expresses doubt about NT since I lack spade stops and pard is showing most of his cards/values in clubs and hearts..
If it begins 1♣-1♦-1♥ then W has, perhaps, a bit of a problem. In the Walsh style this shows a shapely hand for E so I think again W would not look favorably on NT. Bidding 2♣ seems a little weak, but 3♣ seems a little much. I think I choose 2♣. Then 2NT-3NT I would think.

This is my guess. We will see what others think.

Harder to say what I would do as W after 1♣-1NT-3♣, but I claim I wouldn't be there since I would have bid 1♦. But if I had started with 1NT I might well just gamble out the 3NT now. No one bid spades so maybe no one has five. I don't like it, but I can't see passing 3♣.

[the hog]

dickiegera, on 2013-October-29, 18:52, said:

---

I believe West should have bid 1♦ rather than 1NT, walsh style.

However after 3♣ West should have bid 3NT.

I didn't like my 3♣ bid ,maybe 2NT, 2♥ or 2♠?

Comments would be helpful.

1NT is fine if that is systemic for you. 3C is poor as it overstates the C suit - I would bid 2H. After 2H I would force to game with 2S asking for a S stopper or 3D if 2S does not ask for a stopper in your system.

[nigel_k]

I agree with the Hog re 2♥ vs 3♣. But West has seriously underbid and that is the primary cause of the problem here.

[aguahombre]

If your version of the Walsh Style, includes ---as ours does --- that the 1NT response= 8-10..and that 1D as a response is nebulous...then I believe 1NT is the correct systemic response. The 3C rebid doesn't look so bad when Responder's 1NT response almost always contains 3 cards in the suit; this is the one rare exception.

So:

1C-1N
3C-3D
3N

Regardless, passing 3C with a max 1NT response can't be right.

[mycroft]

If you believe that 1NT shows 8-10 over 1♣, rather than 6-whatever, then I don't mind 1NT. It's not like you have a call you can really make after 1♣-1♦-1M that you're going to like. Having said that, passing a highly-invitational call with a clear (if not super-)maximum is Just Not Done. I don't really know what - 3♥ to point out the spade worry?

On the other side, I agree with all those who reverse. It shows your hand better than 3♣, and if you're playing Walsh-style, might be the best way to find the 4-4 heart game (it will also get you to the 4-3 heart game if that's the only one that makes).

[kenrexford]

Opening 1♣? Perfect.

Responding 1NT? Yes. If a 1NT opening is 15-17, then I like a 1NT response to a 1♣ opening as 8-10(11), Buy time with 1♦ is (4)5-7(8).

Rebid 3♣? Sick. 2♥ is obviously right. If Responder had the exact same shape and the exact same number of Kings and Queen, but instead ♠Qxx ♥KQx ♦xxxxx ♣Kx, Six Clubs looks rather icy, and 7♣ would have play.

What next after a reverse? 3♦ would be a nice call. Opener, after all could have held a very similar ♠-- ♥AKxx ♦Axx ♣AQxxxx, where this time 7♣ is the icy contract. A much lesser stiff spade and 1-4-2-6 pattern makes Six Clubs, or an overtrick if a spade lead is somehow missed.

[CSGibson]

I disagree strongly with all aspects to the auction after 1N, which I think is a fine bid - it describes your hand (8-10, no 4 card major), and your hand is lead directional in 3 suits.

If you have the values to jump to 3♣, then you have the values to reverse. And reversing is nearly always better because it keeps the auction lower, describes more of your hand, and because the tools for bidding over reverses are fairly easy to use with some minimum discussion, whereas bidding over a 1x-1y-3x auction is somewhat of a crapshoot.

If partner jumps to 3♣, then a 10 count is enough to force to game. You are at the upper range of your bid, and partner has 15+ HCP, since he cannot have running clubs (i.e., I see the king). I would bid 3♦ now, and try and probe around the spade situation for 3N or 5C. If partner's hand were something where a jump to 3C is more appropriate - i.e., AKx Axx x AQxxxx - then he has a fairly easy 3N now.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-October-30, 10:39, said:

On the other side, I agree with all those who reverse. It shows your hand better than 3♣, and if you're playing Walsh-style, might be the best way to find the 4-4 heart game (it will also get you to the 4-3 heart game if that's the only one that makes).

The 4-3 heart game could be ugly with the hand having four of them ruffing Diamonds; and there is no 4-4 heart fit when playing Walsh style unless Responder bid 1♦ with game values --- absolutely zero possibility after a 1NT response in any standard systems.

Some pairs do bid 1D up the line with four hearts and less than g.f. response, but they shouldn't be calling it Walsh style.

[mycroft]

Oh, I'm not saying it will be a *good* 4♥ game; it just might be the only one that has a chance. It might be that +130 is the best you can hope for on the hands. But bidding 2♥ instead of 3♣ is the only way to find it - and, also, the safest way to not avoid 3NT if Responder's majors are reversed.

But you're right - there shouldn't be a 4-4 heart fit. I don't know what I was thinking.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-30, 03:21, said:

If your version of the Walsh Style, includes ---as ours does --- that the 1NT response= 8-10..and that 1D as a response is nebulous...then I believe 1NT is the correct systemic response. The 3C rebid doesn't look so bad when Responder's 1NT response almost always contains 3 cards in the suit; this is the one rare exception.

So:

1C-1N
3C-3D
3N

Regardless, passing 3C with a max 1NT response can't be right.

So Aguahombre, you are bidding your partner's hand for him rather than biding your own hand with 2H. It is great that you can bid on both sides of the table simultaneously.

[PhilKing]

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♥
2NT-3NT

A jump to 2♥ by opener is unjustified.

Playing Walsh, the raise to 2♥ shows 8-10 with three hearts, since 1♦ denied hearts unless game forcing.

[Hanoi5]

1♦ is better than 1NT. I'm not sure whether 3♣ is better than 2♥, but over 1♦ I'd just bid 1♥. In this sequence west CANNOT pass 3♣.

[the hog]

Hanoi5, on 2013-October-30, 18:37, said:

1♦ is better than 1NT. I'm not sure whether 3♣ is better than 2♥, but over 1♦ I'd just bid 1♥. In this sequence west CANNOT pass 3♣.

These comments are really silly. Whether 1D or 1NT is better depends on the system you play and what the rest of your responses mean. An arbitrary comment like this is meaningless unless you know the rest of the system.

[aguahombre]

the hog, on 2013-October-30, 19:02, said:

These comments are really silly. Whether 1D or 1NT is better depends on the system you play and what the rest of your responses mean. An arbitrary comment like this is meaningless unless you know the rest of the system.

Instead of "silly", do you ever use "hogwash"?

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2013-October-30, 18:16, said:

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♥
2NT-3NT

A jump to 2♥ by opener is unjustified.

Playing Walsh, the raise to 2♥ shows 8-10 with three hearts, since 1♦ denied hearts unless game forcing.

Ah! I'm embarrassed to admit that this did not occur to me. I don't play Walsh all that often, maybe that's why.
I have heard (the occasional) Walsh players claim that 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♥ is the strong hand (opening strength) with four hearts but I never agreed with this. Good three card support is far more sensible.