[Tramticket]

---

IMPs

System: Your basic system is Acol (four-card majors and weak no trump). You respond up-the-line with four-card suits but respond the higher of two five-card suits. You play strong jump shifts, but not with two-suited hands.

You have a strong hand with slam potential if you can find a suitable fit. Do you respond your longer suit (diamonds) or your five-card major (spades). What is your plan?

[Cyberyeti]

I respond 1♦, but partly because of some bits of system we have here.

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣-2♠ shows this sort of thing

1♣-1♦-2♣-3♠ is this hand because the splinter goes through an artificial 2♦

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2019-August-06, 07:41, said:

Interesting psyche by East

Thanks - fixed!

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-06, 07:27, said:

I respond 1♦, but partly because of some bits of system we have here.

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣-2♠ shows this sort of thing

1♣-1♦-2♣-3♠ is this hand because the splinter goes through an artificial 2♦

We would be similar on the first sequence, but I'm not sure how far this is forcing.

The second would have been a splinter - so we would have to bid 2♠ and follow up with 3♠ - which gets messy...

[FelicityR]

Please see my reply to mikeh below. In Acol bidding ♦ then ♠ twice not only shows the 6-5 shape but is GF too.

[Tramticket]

FelicityR, on 2019-August-06, 09:38, said:

HOWEVER Walsh/Transfer Walsh as far as I am aware isn't used generally with 4M Acol. And that's a shame.

We will open a major if 4-4, so there is less reason to skip a suit to bid a four-card major - hence bidding four-cadd suits up the line. But we will bid the higher of 5-5 suits. With 6-5 and the values to force to at least game, I am less clear which is the best tactical choice.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-06, 07:27, said:

I respond 1♦, but partly because of some bits of system we have here.

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣-2♠ shows this sort of thing

1♣-1♦-2♣-3♠ is this hand because the splinter goes through an artificial 2♦

An automatic 1♦ for me... this could be weak or even just clubs, but it's forcing and if opener rebids at 1 level as is probable then we get the strong jump back through XYZ:
1♣-1♦-1Z-3♠

If he raises diamonds then we control-bid ♥ and take it from there.

[perko90]

I like Walsh, too. But especially then, this is a 1♦ response with the plan to do a "Responder's Reverse" (GF hand with ♦s longer than ♠s). I'll bid ♠s at next opportunity.

[mikeh]

In any natural, non-canape system one should always show shape if one has the strength to warrant doing so.

Here, bidding 1S needlessly complicated matters, while making it difficult, if not impossible, to describe this hand


Bid 1D and then spades, planning on bidding spades twice,this showing 5-6 with an opening hand, or better

Exactly how one does this depends on system, style and opener’s rebid over 1D

Thus if opener bids 1H, our rebid depends on agreements as to 4SF methods. I avoid much of this, at the cost of having other issues, by playing t-Walsh. However, any semi-competent pair knows how to create a force while showing spades

Even stone-age bidders play that a change of suit is F1, so we can bid 1S over 1H if necessary, and then a later spade bid reveals the hand-type


The main point is that, when one has the requisite strength, ALWAYS show pattern in natural-based methods. Far too many players think that they will make all or most of the partnership decisions and do, with good hands, bid to have partner describe his hand, rather than bid to show theirs. There are times to assume captaincy, but round one of an auction where no fit has been found, is not one of them. Be a good partner: describe your hand

[FelicityR]

mikeh, on 2019-August-06, 14:31, said:

Bid 1D and then spades, planning on bidding spades twice, this showing 5-6 with an opening hand, or better

The main point is that, when one has the requisite strength, ALWAYS show pattern in natural-based methods. Far too many players think that they will make all or most of the partnership decisions and do, with good hands, bid to have partner describe his hand, rather than bid to show theirs. There are times to assume captaincy, but round one of an auction where no fit has been found, is not one of them. Be a good partner: describe your hand

You are so right in what you say. In Acol bidding, this sequence of bidding ♠s twice must show an opening hand with 6♦-5♠ because if responder is weaker he will rebid ♦s before ♠s. Even with the auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♠ opener should never pass as responder has used a 'responder's reverse' which most, if not all, players play as GF.

I have amended my comment on this post accordingly.

[nekthen]

I do use a Walsh transfer style set of responses to 1♣ for Acol. This is a special hand which would respond 3♠ showing 5♠ and 5+♦ GF
Partner can simply bid a game, cue bid in ♣ or ♥, bid 4♦ to set that suit or bid 3N to show a ♦ cue

[mikeh]

nekthen, on 2019-August-07, 06:17, said:

I do use a Walsh transfer style set of responses to 1♣ for Acol. This is a special hand which would respond 3♠ showing 5♠ and 5+♦ GF
Partner can simply bid a game, cue bid in ♣ or ♥, bid 4♦ to set that suit or bid 3N to show a ♦ cue

What an incredible waste of bidding space. Rule 1 in constructive bidding: conserve bidding space. Which is why, for example, very few (if any) top players use strong jump shifts, which use less space than your sequence.

Respond 1D then bid 1S over 1H or 2S over 1N or 2C. Then, if necessary, bid 2S in the first sequence or 3S in the second, and you have described 5-6 gf, with partner having made an additional informative call. Compare that to your gadget.

[Tramticket]

This was not our finest hour:

---

It seemed obvious to respond in my longer suit, 1♦. I then bid 1♠ as 4th suit forcing. We play 4th suit forcing as game forcing except in this specific sequence! Partner will raise spades as the first priority with a four-card suit and we never miss 4-4 fits with this approach. But I have never bid 4SF with a five card suit before. It felt like 2♠ over the 2♣, should be forcing but it was un-discussed and I didn't want to risk being left to play there and elected for 3NT on a hand that looked to be misfitting.

6♦ is of course an excellent contract and 7♦ is ok as the cards lie. I can make 6NT but chose to duck the first two hearts in case of a bad diamond distribution. The good news was that the rest of the room also failed to bid this slam.

It was later suggested that responding 1♠ might have been better, but I can't see that this helps in a natural system.

[mikeh]

1C. 1D
1H. 1S
2C. 2S
3D



And off we go. Various routes lead to slam

[FelicityR]

Tramticket, on 2019-August-07, 09:04, said:

This was not our finest hour:

---

It seemed obvious to respond in my longer suit, 1♦. I then bid 1♠ as 4th suit forcing. We play 4th suit forcing as game forcing except in this specific sequence! Partner will raise spades as the first priority with a four-card suit and we never miss 4-4 fits with this approach. But I have never bid 4SF with a five card suit before. It felt like 2♠ over the 2♣, should be forcing but it was un-discussed and I didn't want to risk being left to play there and elected for 3NT on a hand that looked to be misfitting.

6♦ is of course an excellent contract and 7♦ is ok as the cards lie. I can make 6NT but chose to duck the first two hearts in case of a bad diamond distribution. The good news was that the rest of the room also failed to bid this slam.

It was later suggested that responding 1♠ might have been better, but I can't see that this helps in a natural system.

Instead of 2♠ (not discussed) or 3NT, are you able to bid 3♦ here? Or does system prevent it? Or is it only invitational in this sequence?

[Tramticket]

mikeh, on 2019-August-07, 09:10, said:

1C. 1D
1H. 1S
2C. 2S
3D

And off we go. Various routes lead to slam

Yes, I'm sure that we find would find slam as long as partner didn't pass 2S. I should have got it right.

I guess that partner might have bid 2D at her second turn, but showing the six-card suit is probably better.

[msjennifer]

mikeh, on 2019-August-06, 14:31, said:

In any natural, non-canape system one should always show shape if one has the strength to warrant doing so.

Here, bidding 1S needlessly complicated matters, while making it difficult, if not impossible, to describe this hand


Bid 1D and then spades, planning on bidding spades twice,this showing 5-6 with an opening hand, or better

Exactly how one does this depends on system, style and opener's rebid over 1D

Thus if opener bids 1H, our rebid depends on agreements as to 4SF methods. I avoid much of this, at the cost of having other issues, by playing t-Walsh. However, any semi-competent pair knows how to create a force while showing spades

Even stone-age bidders play that a change of suit is F1, so we can bid 1S over 1H if necessary, and then a later spade bid reveals the hand-type


The main point is that, when one has the requisite strength, ALWAYS show pattern in natural-based methods. Far too many players think that they will make all or most of the partnership decisions and do, with good hands, bid to have partner describe his hand, rather than bid to show theirs. There are times to assume captaincy, but round one of an auction where no fit has been found, is not one of them. Be a good partner: describe your hand

SIR I fully agree.However,if the bidding goes 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT, we bid 3S (and not 2S) as our 2S is forcing upto 3D only after partner has limited his hand by his 1NT (12/14).And 2S-3D-3S as we play now is starting cue bid sequence. Off course either way it does show 5Sand 6D.

[HardVector]

msjennifer, on 2019-August-07, 10:02, said:

SIR I fully agree.However,if the bidding goes 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT, we bid 3S (and not 2S) as our 2S is forcing upto 3D only after partner has limited his hand by his 1NT (12/14). Off course either way it does show 5Sand 6D.

Why are you jumping all the way to 3s? The only reason to bid diamonds before spades is to show a hand that has values along with the shape of the hand. When you rebid spades with a 2s bid, you show 5 spades, therefore 6 diamonds. So it's forcing to 3d, so what? When partner bids 3d and YOU keep bidding, now partner is clued into what you are trying to do. Bidding 3s put a lot of pressure on partner to make the right guess, should we play 3n, or go for a diamond slam?

[mikeh]

It seems, from this thread, that a lot of players lack confidence in their bidding methods, so come up with space-consuming jumps in order to be sure that partner won't pass. This is understandable but short-sighted. Make the correct bid, and if partner passes, have a discussion (preferably polite) about why you bid as you did and, hopefully, persuade partner that in future he will respect the force.

Perhaps a useful concept is the reverse by responder. Thus 1C 1D 2C 2M is a reverse, showing 4+ in the major (usually 4 simply on frequency grounds) and longer diamonds and game-force values. Note that there is no need for responder to bid 2M with less than game-going values, since opener has denied a 4 card major by rebidding 2N (indeed, this allows responder to be creative with 2M, and can use it with concentrated values, rather than length, so as to force and get opener, if possible, to bid notrump with the other major stopped, or to support diamonds...thus I'd bid 2M with say, KQx Jx AJ10xxx Qx: I'd bid 2S, paving the way for 3N from his side or a minor suit game.

1C 1D 1H creates a different scenario and much depends on how one plays 4SF here. I know some who use 1S and 2S for different purposes. While I have seen some attempts to justify this, none seem persuasive to me and I (much) prefer to play 1S as game-forcing, but neither promising nor denying spades. Opener will raise to 2S with 4, and otherwise make a descriptive bid. If I hold 4S myself, I can bid 4S over 2S with a minimum game force and otherwise set trump with 3S. If opener denies spades, by failing to raise, then my rebid of spades (say 1C 1D 1H 1S 2C....2S) shows that my 1S bid was based in part on 4 spades and now I am showing my 5th spade, and hence my 6th (or more) diamonds, and game-force.

Admittedly this is made trivial for me in that I have played a walsh style 2/1 for 30 years (moving the transfer-walsh in my serious partnerships about 6 years ago).

However, I think even basic Acol or 2/1 would use 1C 1D 1H 1S as natural and forcing for 1 round, and now over a non 2S bid by opener, a nonjump spade rebid by responder sends the same 5-6 gf message.

Yes, these hands are infrequent and, yes, your partners (if non-expert) may get confused and pass, but most of the time they will take another call even if they don't understand your bid...and in any event you should treat this as a learning experience for both of you. In the long terms both your bidding and partner's will improve if you learn discipline in bidding.

Note that as HV says, playing 1C 1D 1H 1S 1N 2S as only a one-round force (which frankly makes little sense to me, but probably because of my walsh experience), is just fine: responder is not going to pass next turn! Meanwhile jumping to 3S over 1N makes zero sense for reasons I set out in an earlier post. When one has potential slam or choice of games decisions, and the opponents are silent, it is criminal to preempt the auction when unsure of strain and level.


In what I expect to be my final post on this thread: here is my suggested t-walsh auction


1C 1S 1S is either a 1N bid with 5-8 hcp or any hand with diamonds...if with diamonds, will have no 4 card major unless gf with 5+D
2C 2S 2C shows an unbalanced hand with 5+ clubs. 2S is natural, and because 1S denied a major unless gf, it is by definition gf.
3D 4H we play kickback and this is one of those rare hands where responder doesn't need to hear any cuebids and can place the contract on hearing the response. However, if you disagree, we could bid 3S, ambiguous but forcing. Opener cues 4C and now responder uses whatever keycard ask the partnership has.


Over 4H opener admits to 3 keycards. Responder, in my view, should bid 7D. It will always have play and will often be cold on any non 4-0 trump break.

Note by the way that opener is declarer, though that would matter only on an unlikely club lead.

[cherdano]

Tramticket, on 2019-August-07, 10:01, said:

I guess that partner might have bid 2D at her second turn, but showing the six-card suit is probably better.

Strongly disagree - partner knows of a fit, he should show a fit. He even has a ruffing value! My preferred auction would be
1C 1D;
1H 1S;
3D 4N (*)

(*) An auction where even mikeh would agree that jumping to keycards tells us all we need to know!