[skjaeran]

Winstonm, on Nov 5 2007, 04:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 4 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

2♥ looks obvious under the given constraints. Raising spades afterward shows a hand that may be interested in slam.

Without solid agreements, I'm curious how others think that we will be able to avoid a bad slam and get to a slam with minimum values. There will have been a minimum of information exchanged up to 3♠, and is it so clear for opener to cue bid over 3♠ with a vanilla 14 count?

It also helps to know if 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand.

Playing xyz, this looks like a direct 3♠ call and some sort of serious / non-serious cue could help us evaluate.

Two things here - although I know many are adamantly opposed to the idea, I still like a Walsh sequence of 2S here to be a game force; however, adding xyz to Walsh obviates the need to use 2S as forcing, so now I prefer that approach.

When I played Walsh the raise to 2♠ showed a GF unbalanced hand; 4♠ and 5+♦, while 2♦ followed by a ♠ raise showed a balanced hand.

I play Walsh with two new partners now, but with little system discussion so far. We haven't touched this topic yet.

[Yogeshdg]

Play forcing 2♣ convention. Bid 2♣.Pd will clarify his opening and u sign off in 4♠ if he shows minimum or go on if he shows max. i am sure noone knows how to bid this in standard.

[joker_gib]

Walddk, on Nov 5 2007, 08:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 4 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

I would give every bid other than 2♥ a 0.

I can beat that. I will give it -10.

Roland

Agree ! LOL