[Vampyr]

[After 1♣-1♠
2-♣, 3♦ showing weak(!) 4-6]

gnasher, on 2011-September-04, 05:01, said:

Does it really? I'm not that familar with 2/1, but I'd assume it was a splinter.

I would be happy to play it as nearly anything apart from a weak hand introducing a new suit with no recourse to opener's bid and rebid suit at the 3-level.

But I think that there must be some misunderstanding somewhere, because I don't really think that the above suggestion was made on purpose.

[Phil]

I don't understand Acol.

Some of you might be well served not to try to understand Walsh

[whereagles]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-04, 12:10, said:

It would seem strange if I lived in a place where there is a classical meaning for a bid when pass would be correct. Oh, wait. I live in one of those places, too.

Well, "classical" doesn't mean "modern standard". These days 2D is an artificial bid in most national standard systems.

[barmar]

The general rule in standard bidding is that new suits by a responder who hasn't yet limited his hand are forcing.

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2011-September-04, 15:37, said:

The general rule in standard bidding is that new suits by a responder who hasn't yet limited his hand are forcing.

1C 1S
1N 2H

[aguahombre]

I think we knew what Barmar meant; but what the heck, it was a free shot.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2011-September-04, 12:24, said:

I don't understand Acol.

Some of you might be well served not to try to understand Walsh

You are right. Playing in 3♦ with a weak hand and no expectation of a fit when partner has bid 1♣ and then 2♣ defies understanding.

[pooltuna]

1] probably natural ...only probable because there may be some hands where you need a forcing call.

2] forcing

[P_Marlowe]

#2 2D is forcing.

And this is even true for Acol, ... at least the way I learned it, but I learned Acol
in the 90s.

#1 without any further discussions, this would show 4 diamonds and 5 spades, with 44 he
should bid something else.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on 2011-September-04, 15:39, said:

1C 1S
1N 2H

Playing standard, without NMF or something similar, I still would assume 2H to be
forcing.

But a better example may be

1C - 1D
1H - 1S

1S not being FSF.

I claimed here on the forum, that 1S is forcing, ... but was not able to find a reference
on the net, to demenonstrate, that this was not a esorteric treatment, but a standard
agreement (standard with regards to area).
So this special sequence may really be an exception to the general rule.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

P_Marlowe, on 2011-September-05, 00:35, said:

Playing standard, without NMF or something similar, I still would assume 2H to be
forcing.

You might assume that, but it is not true.

[gordontd]

Phil, on 2011-September-04, 04:31, said:

3♦ shows a weak 4-6. With a weak 4-5 you probably have to pass.

I think you are confusing 1C - 1M - 2C - 3D with 1C - 1M - 1NT - 3D.

[MrAce]

rduran1216, on 2011-September-03, 14:41, said:

Its forcing, shows 5+ spades, that is all.

This is a default bid for forcing hands with 5+ spades.

And what do you think he would bid with 15-16 hcp 4♠+ 3-4♣ over 2♣ ? He would start 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ later, since direct 3♣ would be invitational. Or what do you think he would bid with 13+ hcp and 6 card ♠ since direct 3♠ would be invitation ?

It is a forcing gate, a gate that strong hands has to go thru unless they can splinter or make a picture bid. And it is % 100 artificial by the way. It is coinsidentall if 2♦ bidder has 4 or more ♦s.

Same goes for

1♦--1M
2♦--2OM is 3rd suit forcing. You need it just like u need nmf or 4th suit forcing.

[ArtK78]

MrAce, on 2011-September-05, 05:23, said:

And what do you think he would bid with 15-16 hcp 4♠+ 3-4♣ over 2♣ ? He would start 2♦ planning to bid 3♣ later, since direct 3♣ would be invitational. Or what do you think he would bid with 13+ hcp and 6 card ♠ since direct 3♠ would be invitation ?

It is a forcing gate, a gate that strong hands has to go thru unless they can splinter or make a picture bid. And it is % 100 artificial by the way. It is coinsidentall if 2♦ bidder has 4 or more ♦s.

Same goes for

1♦--1M
2♦--2OM is 3rd suit forcing. You need it just like u need nmf or 4th suit forcing.

That is why some (including me) play Extended NMF when opener rebids a minor. In the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ I play 2♥ as natural and non-forcing; 3♣ is NMF.
As for 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠, that is natural and forcing to game.

[Phil]

gordontd, on 2011-September-05, 03:04, said:

I think you are confusing 1C - 1M - 2C - 3D with 1C - 1M - 1NT - 3D.

Both are 6-4 jumps.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2011-September-05, 11:45, said:

That is why some (including me) play Extended NMF when opener rebids a minor. In the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ I play 2♥ as natural and non-forcing; 3♣ is NMF.
As for 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠, that is natural and forcing to game.

3C commits to game, right? And a hand with 5-4 in majors invitational must do something else or just decide to commit to game or downgrade?

Just asking, not arguing at all. That might be a way of handling a tough scenario.

We also use 2H as natural, but forcing (not to game), with 3C being game-forcing hands without hearts. Dunno what others might recommend, here; but would like to know.

[gnasher]

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

I found this thread about it in rec.games.bridge:

http://groups.google...ed8ce616b465e4b

but there seems to be no consensus there.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-September-05, 11:56, said:

Both are 6-4 jumps.

there is a 3rd one of that ilk: 1♣- 1♥-1♠- 3♦ or the rounded 4-6 if 1D is started.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-September-05, 12:16, said:

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

I found this thread about it in rec.games.bridge:

http://groups.google...ed8ce616b465e4b

but there seems to be no consensus there.

It wouldn't have occurred to me to assume Phil's suggested meaning without discussion. But maybe my understanding of Walsh is only minimally better than that of Welsh...

[MrAce]

I been playing walsh since i don't know when (long time) and i never heard the treatment Phil suggests either.