[jillybean]

---

What do you bid here and why?
thanks

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2026-February-06, 22:25, said:

---

What do you bid here and why?
thanks

1♠ as unbalanced & I can then bid the fragment on the next round to show a point count with a 43s5 shape

[DavidKok]

1♠, showing partner the 4(+)♠5(+)♣ (or 4=1=4=4, but we'll revert to diamonds with that hand anyway if partner supports clubs). This is enabled/supported by the Walsh style where a 1NT rebid would show 12-14 balanced, neither showing nor denying a 4cM - partner's 1♦ response denies a 4cM when weak (or, equivalently, promises enough strength to bid on regardless when holding a 4cM), so this won't miss a fit.

Once again I'm happy to be playing 1♣-2♦ as a 4-8 6(+)♦ weak jump shift. That hand opposite might cause problems, but now instead we're off to a great start. Partner has either a game forcing hand (which should be quite smooth sailing, especially as we have extras), or a balanced hand without a 4cM, or an invitational(+) long diamonds hand, or a diamonds-clubs hand. We're in a great position opposite any of these, with potentially 3=3=5=2 being the most challenging.

[P_Marlowe]

Openers rebid does not really change, ..., unless rebidding NT being balanced.
Walsh has an effect on responders 2nd rebid to show the longer diamond suit,
if responder feels it necessary.

[jillybean]

---

normal?, are we done?

[DavidKok]

Jumping two levels with a strong hand is not normal. Why is my partner jumping around instead of bidding 2♥?

Anyway, partner has shown a game forcing hand, presumably a minimum within that range, with at most 3 spades (raise spades), 5 diamonds (investigate 5♦ or even slam) and 2 clubs (investigate 5/6♣). Normally I would expect also at most 3 hearts, but here maybe partner is concealing 4♥5♦. The only other hand type is exactly 3=3=5=2, strong but not too strong so that we don't lose slam prospects. Maybe 12-13?
Incidentally, note that partner cannot hold exactly 4 diamonds - the hands with exactly 4 diamonds either have a 4cM or have 3(+) cards club support, which is valuable to show. Maybe partner took a view with 3=3=4=3, though I would not.
For me the jump to 3NT does not exist, so I'm not sure. If partner can be relied upon to not conceal their shape without good reason then we have an easy pass - no fit in any of the four suits and at most 30 hcp combined.

[jillybean]

To be fair, this hand is with a partner whom I have played with casually years ago. I'm subbing in a BBO Team Game.
We've gone through the CC 10 minutes before the game, "Walsh" was agreed but basically the extent of my knowledge and experience is "bypass diamonds if I don't have a gf hand."

---

The other table had the same number of bids, different result.

[DavidKok]

As always, I strongly dislike the jump. North could easily have bid 2♥, South bids 2NT to complete the shape description, and North bids 3♣ to offer clubs. Now you might find 6♣.
It is worth mentioning that I am pretty extreme in my shape-first approach, many players might prefer to rebid 3♣ rather than 2NT over 2♥ 4SGF.

I'm being a little harsh here, but deals like these show why people struggle to find minor suit contracts. North has an excellent opportunity on hearing 1♠ to realise there is a 9(+) card club fit, and the tools to inform South of this cheaply. In my opinion South is in a much better position to evaluate the combined strength of the hands only after hearing of the fit. North therefore has a duty to inform partner of this. This is especially true as 1♠ is wide-ranging, approximately 11-17 in standard and closer to 10-19 for me personally.

[jillybean]

Thanks David, I would not have considered 3♣ but I am beginning to see the benefit and I'm open to the idea.
The auction at OT. 1♣ 1♦ 2N 6♣

My favorite hand of the match was this

---

We didn't have time to discuss MSS

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-07, 02:50, said:

1♠, showing partner the 4(+)♠5(+)♣ (or 4=1=4=4, but we'll revert to diamonds with that hand anyway if partner supports clubs). This is enabled/supported by the Walsh style where a 1NT rebid would show 12-14 balanced, neither showing nor denying a 4cM - partner's 1♦ response denies a 4cM when weak (or, equivalently, promises enough strength to bid on regardless when holding a 4cM), so this won't miss a fit.

Once again I'm happy to be playing 1♣-2♦ as a 4-8 6(+)♦ weak jump shift. That hand opposite might cause problems, but now instead we're off to a great start. Partner has either a game forcing hand (which should be quite smooth sailing, especially as we have extras), or a balanced hand without a 4cM, or an invitational(+) long diamonds hand, or a diamonds-clubs hand. We're in a great position opposite any of these, with potentially 3=3=5=2 being the most challenging.

What to open with 4=1=4=4 is an age old issue where I think that there is a difference between European and NA bidders, obviously with no perfect uniformity in either region. In NA it is generally considered normal to open 1D. And those who play that 1D promises an unbalanced hand, which is an approach growing in popularity, would also tend to open 1D since most would play that 1C is either balanced or has long clubs.

Note that if opener can bid 1C on 4=1=4=4, and the auction proceeds 1C 1H 1S, responder no longer ‘knows’ that opener has 5+ clubs and untangling the hand can get problematic. Obviously the 1C openers, with that a
Shape, believe there are offsetting benefits,

[DavidKok]

I believe that the motivation is that in NA it is common for 1♦ to be 4(+), or '4(+) or 4=4=3=2', so that showing a 'real' 4 card suit in diamonds ahead of a 'fake' 4 card suit in clubs offers an advantage. Personally I don't agree, but it's a minor point either way.
If you do open 1♦ with 4=1=4=4, then (presumably) 1♦-1♥; 1♠ no longer promises 5(+)♦. The offsetting benefit is just swings and roundabouts.

My personal 1♦ shows 5(+)♦ almost always, and I frequently raise on 3 cards in competition (and sometimes out of competition). I think adding hands with exactly 4 diamonds to the bid is a systemic loss for me on average. However, in this thread I was attempting to use Kathryn's system, so I don't know what the plan is with 4x1 hand patterns.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 08:23, said:

My favorite hand of the match was this

---

I think that is well worth a separate thread
Our current system over 1NT is probably not ideal here, can show slammish 5 card clubs after Opener denies a 5cM but will miss a diamonds fit unless Opener has 5 and feels inspired.
Not that 6NT is likely to be a very bad move in a club tournament.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 08:23, said:

Thanks David, I would not have considered 3♣ but I am beginning to see the benefit and I'm open to the idea.
The auction at OT. 1♣ 1♦ 2N 6♣

My favorite hand of the match was this

---

We didn't have time to discuss MSS

If it helps After 1N I play
2♣ 5cM? - 2♦ not 2/3♥2♠
3♣ SI asking for 5/4 card minors
Or
3♦ GF 2245

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2026-February-07, 16:37, said:

If it helps After 1N I play
2♣ 5cM? - 2♦ not 2/3♥2♠
3♣ SI asking for 5/4 card minors
Or
3♦ GF 2245

thanks, this hand has been moved to it's own thread now