[cherdanno]

OleBerg, on Aug 29 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

In my own system I could get into trouble;

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)
2♠ - 2NT = GF
3♦ - 3♥ = FSF
4♦ - 6♦


I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have?

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on Aug 29 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 29 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

Natural;

1♣ - 1♦
1♠ - 1NT/2♦
3♥ - A walk in the park.

In my own system I could get into trouble;

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)
2♠ - 2NT = GF
3♦ - 3♥ = FSF
4♦ - 6♦


I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

You don't you spades first if you have 5♦, 4♠ and less than GF values? If you did, trumps could be set quite low.

I don't quite follow.

In my system, the 2♠ bid is mandatory, as lower bids are reserved for other hands.

This is the scheme:

1NT = 15-17 bal
2♣ = Clubs, non-forcing.
2♦ = 3-card diamonds, or 4 card diamonds and a real bad hand. Non-forcing.
2♥ = 3-way: Natural reverse, 18-19 bal. or various strong club-hands. (2♠ = Relay.)
2♠ = Natural reverse.
2NT = Strong diamond support, forcing.

Doesn't seem that insensible, but it does force us high on this hand.

I play that 1♠ denies four card majors unless 10+. Not so hot on this hand, but even if played "unless GF" it is not without problems to support diamonds immediately. The pro's and con's of immediate support in a T-Walsh-structure would merit its own thread. I like for responder to be able to show 10 hcp by bidding 1♠ followed by 2M. Problems rarely occur, but when opener is Marmic or 4-0-4-5/0-4-4-5, things can get a little muddy.

(Supporting diamonds immediately, would make it impossible to get back to spades, as all subsequent 3♠-bids will be used to prompt for 3NT.)

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Aug 29 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 29 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

In my own system I could get into trouble;

1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦)
2♠ - 2NT = GF
3♦ - 3♥ = FSF
4♦ - 6♦


I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day.

Not a good hand for T-Walsh.

(Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have?

Indeed an option.

I find it borderline whether to bid 3♦ or 4♦. As opener I would respect a 3NT bid from responder, but maybe that's to chickenish (is that a word???).

I play, that after 4♦, it is not an option to declare 4NT (or 5NT ), but it might still be the right bid.

Anyway, it wouldn't have solved my ace-checking problem.


Edit: If I felt certain that 3♦ promised 4-card-support (and maybe it is obvious???), the ace-problem would be solved, as opener could bid 4♣ instead of 4♦, freeing the necessary space.

[cherdanno]

In your sequence, I would find it obvious that 3♦ can be bid with 4135 hands - one of the reasons I prefer 4♦ over 3♦.

[mike777]

If I open one club I would respond 1d...now I just rkc with 4h...
granted as a nonexpert I overuse rkc but this deal seems really easy.

1c=1d(walsh)
4h(rkc for d)