Help
However, does it not strike one as inefficient to limit the use of our most economical bid in such a narrow way? By playing a completion as forcing, you can do so much more. Once you do this many solutions are possible (MickyB's structure has quite a few similarities) but this one is mine. Note that balanced hands in the 18-20 range open 1♦, so they are not an issue. After 1♣-1♥:
1♠ = forcing, see below
1NT = a weak no trump
2♣ = nat, 6+ card suit unless specifically 4♥5♣
2♦ = heart reverse (can start a bit lighter than standard for obvious reasons)
2♥ = good 4-card raise to exactly 2♠
2♠ = a bad raise to 2♠, typically unbalanced 11-13 with 3 card support or a minimum weak NT with 4-card support
2NT = GF with 6+ clubs, denies 3♠
3♣ = a sound rebid - eg ♠Ax ♥AJx♦xx ♣AQJTxx
Higher = can be fairly standard, but obviously aren't
The hand-types that can go through a forcing 1♠ transfer completion are as follows:
Almost all hands with 5+♣4+♦
A very good 3-card raise to specifically 2♠ (nominally 14-16 3(14)5 or 3-6)
Various off-cntre 3♣ rebids a) a suit-oriented 3♣ rebid slightly lacking in high cards b) a natural 2NT rebid with 6♣, typically about 16+ to 18- points c) a 3♣ or stronger rebid with 3♠.
Now that sounds overloaded, but is more or less the absolute limit of what we can get into 1♠. The first thought would tend to be "you crazy idiot - you can't possibly get all that into 1♠", but it unwinds in a deceptively simple way. Responder basically bids on the assumption that he is facing 4♦ and 5♣:
1NT = to play opposite 45m minimum
2♣ = ditto
2♦ = ditto
2♥ = a GF relay
2♠ = constructive (WJS was available)
2NT/3♣/3♦ = inv opposite minors
This is how it unwinds after 1NT:
2♣ = 45m extras (about 16)
2♦ = a sound reverse - good 17+
2♥ = 3♠6♣, strong unlimited
2♠ = 3♠ unbalanced, nominally 14-16
2NT = natural with 6♣
3♣ = natural based on playing strength
higher = no meaning
Continuations are pretty much the same after 2♦, are obviously manageable after 2♥ and 2♠, so just a quick look at the invitational jumps:
After 2NT: all continuational are nat F (3♠= cards, the 4-card raise just bids game)
After 3♣/3♦: ditto, with a raise to 4m being RKC
Trade offs
I lose the ability to stop in 1[♠] and the knowledge of whether it will be advantageous to remove a 1NT rebid to 2♠. But I believe I get way more in return. By far the biggest plus is that we have 3 ways to raise to 2♠. This just gains time after time, enabling frequent good stops in 2♠ when it is bid directly and logical routes to "unbiddable" games after the good raises.
The second biggest gain has been the ability to get to good minor-suit partscores. These days, both minors can often get lost, since we end up treating the hand as balanced or alternatively rebidding clubs. And game bidding on the minor-suit hands is also more accurate.
The transfer reverse to hearts is just a spin-off benefit, but if you just do a simple single dummy simulation of 50 or so hands, you might be surprised at how often the method gains. It makes all the lousy Lebensohl variant playable - you will almost never have to bail to 3♣ on some stupid doubleton again.
After that, the gains get smaller, but the overall effect is that responder often gets to know opener's general hand type and strength at a much lower level than in standard T-Walshe - not just in the unusual sequences but because the "standard" ones are also more closely defined as a result. One might assume there is a high level of information leakage, but the reverse tends to be true. After the various raises to 2♠, for instance, we tend to have much quicker auctions than standard bidders.
Four 3♣ rebids, three raises to 2♠, new life into 45m hands and transfer reverses. This is the future!
So my guess is that on balance praying is probably a satisfying way to waste some time if one happens to believe in that sort of thing. Don't know what it has to do with the thread of course. I suspect it was just seen as an opportunity to make an unprovoked insult. Hope it made you feel good, fluffy