[dickiegera]

---

West bid 2♣ and I believe that 1♥ is better. Now I bid 2♥ and partner bid 4♥

Passed out. Making 7. Q of hearts a doubleton

Comments

[dickiegera]

---

THIS WAS OUR BIDDING

---

[Cyberyeti]

We have a gadget for this:

1♣-1♦-2♣-2♦(artificial ask)-3♥(good 6-4) - blackwood - 6♥

although I prefer 1♥ and 3♣ in that order to 2♣

[monikrazy]

Agree w/ Cyber that 1H>3C>2C.

Normal 2/1 auction probably goes:

1C - 1 D - 1H - 4C - 4D - 4N - 5H (2 o 5 no queen) - 6H

[Cyberyeti]

monikrazy, on 2014-January-16, 16:58, said:

Agree w/ Cyber that 1H>3C>2C.

Normal 2/1 auction probably goes:

1C - 1 D - 1H - 4C - 4D - 4N - 5H (2 o 5 no queen) - 6H

What are 4♣ and 4♦ ? it is not normal to cue a shortage in partner's suit as your first cue, might get him too excited thinking you have a high card.

[monikrazy]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-16, 17:13, said:

What are 4♣ and 4♦ ? it is not normal to cue a shortage in partner's suit as your first cue, might get him too excited thinking you have a high card.

4C is splinter, 4D is a cue-bid

It's not an ideal cue bid but opener has too many extras not to cooperate with any slam try by responder.




Or if responder doesn't splinter:

1C - 1D - 1H - 1S (4sf) - 3C - 3H - 4H - 4N - 5H - 6H


I tend to think splinter is a better bid for responder in general, even though it does have the unfortunate result of denying opener the chance to show his unusually long club suit this hand.



Edit: For the first auction if responder chooses to cue-bid 4S instead of keycard opener can offer a choice of slam by bidding 6C. Perhaps that auction would be better. Looking forward to hearing some science in other responses as all of my auctions have some drawbacks.

[kenrexford]

I would imagine a great start of 1C. 1D. 1H. 2H.

If Walsh, 2H is gf, no?

Not reaching slam now would be hopeless. The route is style.

[CSGibson]

my own auction playing my preferred xyz methods would be:

1♣-1♦,
1♥-2♦*, Transfer to hearts, either game forcing or drop dead
2♥-2♠, Accept transfer (not just shy of a jump shift), patterning out & showing GF 5+♦, 4+♥
3♣-3♦, Values or advanced cues
3♥-3♠, Values or advanced cues
4♠-5♣, Kickback, showing 0 or 3
5♥-5♠, (systemic, with 0 pass, with 3 clarify the Q situation, 1st step denies the Q but shows 3 keycards)
6♥

[Cyberyeti]

monikrazy, on 2014-January-16, 17:29, said:

4C is splinter, 4D is a cue-bid

It's not an ideal cue bid but opener has too many extras not to cooperate with any slam try by responder.

Simply asking aces is probably sufficient here rather than misleading partner that you have K♦, embarrassing when he looks at his ♦AQJ109x and bids 7♦ when you don't have Q♥ after the cue which would be the right thing to do if you had ♣AKxxxxx and stiff K♦ instead of AKQxxxx and x.

a thought - 7♥ is pretty good in expert circles as the trump lead is almost auto, so if they don't lead a trump, assume they've got the Q.

[ggwhiz]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-16, 17:49, said:

The route is style.

The auction starts 1♣ - p - 1♥ in my partnership with toys and agreements that find diamonds later so it's easy for us. Not so much on some others.

[iviehoff]

Opener's 2C response was a truly terrible bid because it suggests a minimum opener, whereas in practice he has a 3-loser hand of power and quality. Look how little you need from partner to make 5C. That is the main point I would want to make to him, in the hope of furthering his novice-level command of bidding. In view of this, only a gadget-free auction is likely to be of interest to the players.

With that restriction, only Monikrazy has yet suggested a suitable auction (I think 4sf is universal rather than a gadget). However I wouldn't choose the 3H call by E unless I was sure partner was of a level of sophistication to understand that 4sf followed by minimum return to one of partner's suits is a forcing sequence. In present company, I'd prefer 4H over 3H at that point in the auction as less risk of an accident. W now knows enough to try Blackwood.

[dickiegera]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-16, 17:49, said:

I would imagine a great start of 1C. 1D. 1H. 2H.

If Walsh, 2H is gf, no?

Not reaching slam now would be hopeless. The route is style.

Very Good. I believe that it would be 100% GF.
Thank you

[kenrexford]

dickiegera, on 2014-January-17, 10:35, said:

Very Good. I believe that it would be 100% GF.
Thank you

Yeah, I mean how easy is this hand after that start?!?! Opener would not be insane if he just blasted 6♥, although delicate inquiry might make sense. The easiest inquiry, though, is just 4NT RKCB. Two stiffs, a solid long side suit, a partner with slam interest, and only questions in the trump suit?

[mikeh]

For those of us who play the form of Walsh wherein 1♦ denied a 4 card major unless strong enough to force to game, the auction would be, as Ken suggests, very easy. Opener made a beginner's mistake not bidding 1♥ at his second turn and, had he done so, responder's 2♥ call, promising 4 card support, was a game force....see the first part of this post.

However, not everyone plays that form of walsh.....I know some who say that responder's 1♦ denies a 4 card major unless at least invitational in strength (those with whom I have played this are weak notrumpers, and the point is that 1♦ denies a major AND a hand strong enough to gf opposite a strong notrump). In addition a vast segment of the bridge playing population doesn't play any form of walsh at all.

As with so many threads, we get everyone's pet gadget, which is of little use to the OP who was, presumably, looking for guidance within the context of standard bidding, or popular bidding.

Posting answers that say, without any discussion of standard bidding, that 'I have a method that works perfectly, look how smart I am' is masturbation. By all means discuss your pet methods to show off how good you are, but why not couple that with actually helping the person who made the post?

If one doesn't play walsh, then as responder you can either blast to game over a 1♥ response or make a fourth suit forcing bid. I am assuming that 3♥ would be invitational, altho many years ago it would have been treated as forcing....that was before the invention of fourth suit forcing.

Blasting is a bad idea and should be limited to hands with shape but not as many hcp as this, and definitely not as many controls as this.

As for 4SF, there are 2 schools of thought. One says that one should jump to 2♠ here, as 4SF denying spades, with 1♠ being 4SF with spades. I hate that, and use 1♠ as my 4SF call, with or without spades.

Opener would rebid 2♣ to show at least 4=5, and a hand unsuitable for a 1N rebid and denying 3♦, with which he would rebid 2♦ most of the time (maybe not with 0=4=3=6).

Now responder bids 2♥ to show that his gf was based on a heart fit.

Opener should realize that his club suit is an enormous source of tricks for slam purposes. He can start cue-bidding right away, and the partnership should easily reach slam once opener shows interest. Different partnerships will choose different routes but it would be poor valuation to miss slam after this start.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2014-January-17, 11:33, said:

For those of us who play the form of Walsh wherein 1♦ denied a 4 card major unless strong enough to force to game, the auction would be, as Ken suggests, very easy. Opener made a beginner's mistake not bidding 1♥ at his second turn and, had he done so, responder's 2♥ call, promising 4 card support, was a game force....see the first part of this post.

However, not everyone plays that form of walsh.....I know some who say that responder's 1♦ denies a 4 card major unless at least invitational in strength (those with whom I have played this are weak notrumpers, and the point is that 1♦ denies a major AND a hand strong enough to gf opposite a strong notrump). In addition a vast segment of the bridge playing population doesn't play any form of walsh at all.

As with so many threads, we get everyone's pet gadget, which is of little use to the OP who was, presumably, looking for guidance within the context of standard bidding, or popular bidding.

Posting answers that say, without any discussion of standard bidding, that 'I have a method that works perfectly, look how smart I am' is masturbation. By all means discuss your pet methods to show off how good you are, but why not couple that with actually helping the person who made the post?

If one doesn't play walsh, then as responder you can either blast to game over a 1♥ response or make a fourth suit forcing bid. I am assuming that 3♥ would be invitational, altho many years ago it would have been treated as forcing....that was before the invention of fourth suit forcing.

Blasting is a bad idea and should be limited to hands with shape but not as many hcp as this, and definitely not as many controls as this.

As for 4SF, there are 2 schools of thought. One says that one should jump to 2♠ here, as 4SF denying spades, with 1♠ being 4SF with spades. I hate that, and use 1♠ as my 4SF call, with or without spades.

Opener would rebid 2♣ to show at least 4=5, and a hand unsuitable for a 1N rebid and denying 3♦, with which he would rebid 2♦ most of the time (maybe not with 0=4=3=6).

Now responder bids 2♥ to show that his gf was based on a heart fit.

Opener should realize that his club suit is an enormous source of tricks for slam purposes. He can start cue-bidding right away, and the partnership should easily reach slam once opener shows interest. Different partnerships will choose different routes but it would be poor valuation to miss slam after this start.

Um, Mike. The title of the post says that this auction is in the context of 2/1 GF. Unless I am mistaken, Walsh is part of 2/1 GF. Now, while there may be variations of 2/1 GF that do not include Walsh, I would assume that to be the exception. So, if you post a problem and state that the problem is in the context of 2/1 GF, and then the answer is given in the context of normal 2/1 GF, that is hardly masturbation or a comment on how wonderful one's pet agreements are. The agreed "pet agreement" is 2/1 GF, which includes the Walsh structure, so the "pet agreement" is assumed.

Ironically, in this context, you then discuss your own pet agreement, which is not part of 2/1 GF unless modified. For, you require a 1♠ call to be 4SF, apparently, which makes no sense, because it categorically denies four hearts unless you have some pet convention that is not true 2/1 GF. And, you do this without conceding and discussing what is "standard" 2/1 GF, at that!

I hope you grabbed a tissue.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 11:49, said:

Um, Mike. The title of the post says that this auction is in the context of 2/1 GF. Unless I am mistaken, Walsh is part of 2/1 GF. Now, while there may be variations of 2/1 GF that do not include Walsh, I would assume that to be the exception. So, if you post a problem and state that the problem is in the context of 2/1 GF, and then the answer is given in the context of normal 2/1 GF, that is hardly masturbation or a comment on how wonderful one's pet agreements are. The agreed "pet agreement" is 2/1 GF, which includes the Walsh structure, so the "pet agreement" is assumed.

Ironically, in this context, you then discuss your own pet agreement, which is not part of 2/1 GF unless modified. For, you require a 1♠ call to be 4SF, apparently, which makes no sense, because it categorically denies four hearts unless you have some pet convention that is not true 2/1 GF. And, you do this without conceding and discussing what is "standard" 2/1 GF, at that!

I hope you grabbed a tissue.

Ken, next time you want to make a smart-arse post, try reading the post to which you are responding, and try to understand it.

Not all 2/1 GF players use 'strong walsh'. Your experience may suggest otherwise, but I can assure you that I have played with better players than you, playing 2/1 GF, who did not use strong walsh. I am discussing players with multiple national titles.

I personally like and try to persuade all my partners to play strong walsh, which is why I referenced, with approval, your suggestion on how the auction could go. I do think that you ought to have recognized that your solution might not work for everyone, but it appears that you made the same mistake that I have made in the past: you extrapolated from your limited experience and assumed that everyone who played 2/1 played it the way you do.

My gibe at masturbation wasn't aimed at you, btw. Your suggestion, while not universally applicable, would be perfect for a large segment of the 2/1 crowd.

As for your poke at me for my 4SF suggestion, it seems to me that you simply misread my post.

I started by saying that a 2♥ raise would be perfect for those playing strong walsh, and then went on to make a suggestion for those who don't: for those for whom 2♥ would be non-forcing.

In those circumstances, one needs to have a forcing bid and what else is there other than 4SF?

[CSGibson]

mikeh, on 2014-January-17, 11:33, said:

Posting answers that say, without any discussion of standard bidding, that 'I have a method that works perfectly, look how smart I am' is masturbation. By all means discuss your pet methods to show off how good you are, but why not couple that with actually helping the person who made the post?

Hey Mike, chill dude. Showing what methods and thought processes is helpful, it says that this is a problem that many feel is best solved through a conventional solution, and opens the eyes to what conventional solutions are available. This is entirely different than when OP actually gives you the conventional tools they have available - obviously there they want a judgment about what is best to do with their own agreements, and there is an implication that they are not interested in hearing alternative methodology.

[mikeh]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-17, 12:16, said:

Hey Mike, chill dude. Showing what methods and thought processes is helpful, it says that this is a problem that many feel is best solved through a conventional solution, and opens the eyes to what conventional solutions are available. This is entirely different than when OP actually gives you the conventional tools they have available - obviously there they want a judgment about what is best to do with their own agreements, and there is an implication that they are not interested in hearing alternative methodology.

Did you not see that this is the IA forum?????

Advocating that responder rebid his diamond suit as a transfer as the approach an IA player should adopt is....well, I leave it to you to imagine what I think of it.

Maybe I am out of line...it wouldn't be the first time.....but were I to play such a method, I hope I would have firstly answered the OP in the context of what an IA 2/1 player might benefit from reading and only then gone on to say that for more experienced partnerships (and this tool of yours is a partnership idea, not something that individual players can suddenly use mid-auction), there are other approaches, such as using transfers by responder on his second call.

I mean, do you really think that the OP was asking for gadgets such as yours or cyberyeti's, or for help understanding mainstream, IA, ideas? As I say, maybe I am the one not getting it. Oh well.

[kenrexford]

Mike, a few things.

1. Weird that you would suggest that I was smart when my response seemed less offensive than you post to which I was responding.

2. Credentials by way of partner lists seems irrelevant to the issue. And weird to mention. Almost pitiful.

3. When Mr. Walsh is the origin of the system, that seems important.

4. The fact that some megastar plays what he calls 2/1 GF without what you call strong Walsh doesn't change the core understanding of standard 2/1 any more than rodwell somehow existing changes what simple precision means.

5. A post offered in the context of stated assumptions should not be attacked because it is not a 20 page dissertation on various nuances of stylistic differences both geographically and temporally. You might add a note yourself and be constructive. That would be helpful.

6. I suspect that you just don't want to admit that you forgot that basic standard 2/1 has Walsh assumed, thinking instead about your inner circle tweak as if that was standard, and then got caught looking stupid and arrogant. Oops. Best response now might be, yep, that's true. Sorry.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-17, 12:37, said:

Mike, a few things.


3. When Mr. Walsh is the origin of the system, that seems important.

4. The fact that some megastar plays what he calls 2/1 GF without what you call strong Walsh doesn't change the core understanding of standard 2/1 any more than rodwell somehow existing changes what simple precision means.



6. I suspect that you just don't want to admit that you forgot that basic standard 2/1 has Walsh assumed, thinking instead about your inner circle tweak as if that was standard, and then got caught looking stupid and arrogant. Oops. Best response now might be, yep, that's true. Sorry.

3. Walsh was the 'origin' of 2/1? I didn't know that. In fact I don't think it true. Walsh was definitely an innovator: see walsh relays and the walsh principle of bypassing diamonds in response to 1♣, but the origin of 2/1 GF isn't, from my reading of bridge literature from the 1950's onwards, the work of any one player. It was a style, and a style, moreover, that developed differently in different areas of the US. Thus, when Hardy wrote his first book on the subject the title included an express reference to Two Over One, Western Style, to distinguish it from the similar 'strong' 2/1 methods then becoming prevalent on the East Coast.

As with any 'style', different players use different tweaks. Lawrence's 2/1 is not the same as Hardy's 2/1. In the early days, many 2/1 players excluded 2♣/1♦ as gf, and some do to this day. In Hardy's first book, he advocated fragment bids, a treatment that was never common and has since disappeared, as best as I can tell, at least in the context that he described...fragment bidding definitely still exists in other areas of bidding.

As far as I know, and I am a collector of bridge books, Walsh, who was a wealthy 'playboy' personality (read Inside the Bermuda Bowl), never wrote a bridge book, let alone a treatise on 'his' methods.

Arguing that 2/1 must include Walsh, even if he were the 'originator' of 2/1 is like arguing that we have to play Stayman the way Rapee (who invented the bid and whose gadget was then written up by Stayman) used it, or Drury the way Theodore Drury used it. Nobody uses either 'convention' as they were first described.

4. I wasn't referring to megastars. I have played with megastars, either as teammates or (rarely) partners, but that wasn't my point. I think it was a couple of years ago that there was a long acrimonious thread here about what was meant by '2/1 GF' and my recollection was that most of the posters agreed that there wasn't actually any such thing as a 'standard' 2/1 GF method. 2/1GF is a style, and a style with many variants. The fact that, it seems, you don't recognize that reality says more about you than it does about 2/1.

6. You and I had some pretty heated flame wars in the past. I had hoped those days were over. I am sorry that you misread my earlier post. I am even more sorry that you are, it seems to me, projecting onto me the consequences of that. Maybe you are incapable of overcoming the cognitive dissonance that seems to render you incapable of seeing that you may be in error. Maybe it is me who suffers from that problem, or even both of us. It doesn't matter: I'm done with responding to you. Our posts are now generating heat but no light.