nullve

About the simplest T-Walsh imaginable: 1♣-1♦: same as 1♣-1♥ in Walsh 1♣-1♥: same as 1♣-1♠ in Walsh 1♣-1♠: same as 1♣-1♦ in Walsh 1♣-1♦; ?: 1♥= 3 H, F1 opposite a positive hand ...P = subpositive hand (e.g. xxx-Qxxx-Jxxxx-x) ...1♠/N = NAT NF ...2♣+ = XYZ 1♠+: same 1♠+ over 1♣-1♥ in Walsh but denying exactly (exactly) 3 H 1♣-1♥; ?: 1♠ = 3 S, F1 opposite a positive hand ...P = subpositive hand (e.g. Kxxxx-xxx-xxx-xx) ...1N = NAT, NF ...2♣+ = XYZ 1N+: same as 1N+ over 1♣-1♠ in Walsh but denying (exactly) 3 S 1♣-1♠; ?: 1N/2♦/2N+: same as 1N/2♦/2N+ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh 2♣: same as 2♣ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh but may have a 4c major, maybe even 4414 (a problem shape) 2♥/2♠: same as 2♥/2♠ over 1♣-1N in standard (i.e. a normal reverse, not a jump reverse like 2♥/2♠ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh)

FYP And if you play Gazzilli (oops, wrong forum!), 1M-1N; 2♣-2M = 5-7 total points with 3c support OR 5-7 hcp with 2c support.

[hv=pc=n&w=sa986hk3da654cq75&e=sk732hjt64dj3caj6]266|100[/hv] "Dutch" T-Walsh: 1♣(1)-1♦(2) 1♠(3)-2♠(4) P (1) NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL (2) 4+ H (3) 4+ S, tends to deny 3 H (4) < INV raise "Swedish" T-Walsh: 1♣(1)-1♦(2) 1♥(3)-1♠(4) 2♠(5)-P (1) NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL (2) 4+ H (3) 3 H or 11-13 BAL w/ 2-3 H (4) 4+ S, often played as NF (5) 4 S, MIN (but not a terrible MIN if 1♠ was NF) The T-Walsh played by Brogeland-Lindqvist is very similar to the "Dutch" one, but they open 1♦, not 1♣, with (11)12-14 hcp and 4342, so I guess ther auction on these hands would be the more standard-looking 1♦(1)-1♥(2) 1♠(3)-2♠(4) P. (1) 4+ D (but not 4342) (2) 4+ H (3) 4+ S (but not 4342) (4) < INV raise

Line A has the bonus that a defender with ♠Kx♥QJx(x) or ♠Kx♥H9x(x) might (erroneously) unblock the ♠K to avoid being endplayed.

+1,000,000 I didn't critcise your line (B). But you said lamford's line C is anti-percentage, sort of implying that you your own line B, which seems to cater specifically to West having K-??-?????-QT852 / K-??-??????-QT83, is less anti-percentage. But, again, would you (or any good player sitting West) ever lead a club on this auction with such a hand? (Not a rhetorical question!)

1255/1264 is definitely consistent with West's pass of 1♠. But would you ever lead a club from K ?? ????? (choose from QJT876532) QT852 or K ?? ?????? (choose from QJT876532) QT85 against this auction? I'm not (yet) saying that there is a better line than your line B.

In which case West must be either 1255 or 1264. So what kind of hand with ♣QT85(2) and either 1255 or 1264 shape would you play West for? (Note that East didn't double 3♣ for the lead.)

Did you consider sacrificing against 4♠ as North? I think LoTT suggests you should have. Worst case scenario for LoTT is that partner has 2344 shape so that there are only 18 total trumps that need to split 10(them)-8(us) for the sacrifice to be lucrative. Here there are even two fewer total tricks (18) than total trumps (20), but they do indeed split 10(them)-8(us).

Also true of the conventions I listed. Ok :blink:

♣A

First of all, what can you infer from opps' bidding and what happened at trick 1?

Fair enough. So T-Walsh is basically like any other piece of system in this respect. The main disadvantage is that people think that T-Walsh requires work and that standard doesn't. But threads like this show that they are wrong.

Does this make T-Walsh fundamentally different from * control-showing cuebids * Jacoby 2NT * Roman Key Card Blackwood * Stayman ? (To take just a few examples.) Yes, there are many versions of T-Walsh, but some are local dialects "spoken" by many. In Norway, for instance, a common dialect of T-Walsh is the version played by Brogeland-Lindqvist, which looks something like 1♣-?: 1M-1 = "4+ M" ...1M = 3 M or a bad MIN 4c raise (2♣+ = XYZ over this) ...2M = a good MIN 4c raise ...others: same as over 1♣-1M in standard, but tends to deny (exactly) 3 M 1♠ = "4+ D" OR "6-10 BAL w/o a major" 1N = "11-12 BAL" (= NAT INV opposite 11-14 BAL) 2♣ = inverted You also risk missing a 5-3 fit after 1m-1♥; 1♠ when Responder is weak, e.g. with 13 hcp, 4342 opposite 8 hcp, 2524.

There are probably hundreds of threads on BBF about this 1♠ or 1N over 1m-1♥ dilemma. Both choices lead to unsolvable problems. Most (all?) of these problems go away if you play T-Walsh (which should be standard even in North America now that the GCC is history).

So West had I seem to recall that the robots (basic ones?) were pretty decent at applying LoTT, but recent experiences (mostly with advanced robots) suggest they have forgotten all about it.

Maybe: [hv=pc=n&s=sq9765hakjtd3cqj8&n=sak8hdaqjt62ckt73&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp1sp3cp3hp3sp4hp4sp4np6hp6sppp]266|200[/hv] 3♣ = NAT, GF opposite a positive hand (and not a hand that just wanted to improve the contract (1♦) such as ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Jxxx) 3♥ = FSF 3♠ = 3 S 4♥ = cue agreeing S as trumps and showing slam interest. Does not promise a heart control if a jump to 4N would have been quantitative (and not RKC). 4♠ = MIN (in context) 4N = RKC(♠) 6♥ = odd # of key cards, heart void 6♠ = contract

The full deal: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~~M2937,~~M2935,~~M2936|md|2ST8HAKJTDAJ7652CJ,SQJ952H93DCAK7652,S763HQ865DK94CQT3,SAK4H742DQT83C984|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|1N|an|2-4%20!C;%202-4%20!D;%202-3%20!H;%202-3%20!S;%206-10%20HCP;%207+%20total%20points%20|mb|2H|an|rebiddable%20!H;%2013-18%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3H|an|3+%20!H;%208-10%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|SQ|pc|S3|pc|S4|pc|S8|pc|S5|pc|S6|pc|SK|pc|ST|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|H3|pc|D4|pc|S2|pc|S7|pc|SA|pc|HT|pc|HA|pc|H9|pc|H5|pc|H4|pc|HK|pc|C7|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|HJ|pc|C6|pc|HQ|pc|H2|pc|DK|pc|D8|pc|D5|pc|C5|mc|10|]400|300[/hv]

Happy: Yes Next: 7♣ (and get a very good score on average; 3N was such a huge underbid)

The deal is from an ACBL Robot Duplicate (18 boards) - Matchpoints tournament I played in and the opening lead was actually not the ♣K but the ♠Q. Can you place the remaininng East-West honour cards (♠A,♠K,♠J,♦Q,♦T,♣A,♣K)?

A more Z Club-like system, also with an ART (but now Boring Club-like) 1N opening: P = normal or 12-14 BAL* ...P = normal but with 0-7 ...1♣+: must cover 8-11 (quasi)BAL. ...E.g. something like: ...1♣ = Z Club 1♣ OR 8-11 (quasi)BAL** ...2♣ = Z Club 2♣*** ...others: as in Z Club 1N = Z Club 2♣ ...P: possible ...2♣ = ART? ...(...) 2♣: freed up others = ? Or a canapé version of this to enable 1♠-2♣(P/C). * I'm still experimenting with a similar pass opening in my own 2/1-like system, but with < 14 if BAL. It seems to work great in competition (nullve-nullve vs. nullve-nullve) and may even have a more preemptive effective on average (due to frequent preempts in third seat) than if 11-13 BAL is in 1♣. The biggest problem has been to come up with a 3rd/4th seat system that doesnt't look much worse than the one in 1st/2nd seat. ** But treated more like a Swedish Club-like 1♣ opening. (It helps that partner is a passed hand.) *** Should be easier to handle now that partner is a passed hand. --- EDIT: If 1N = like a Z Club (Polish) 2♣ opening, but canapé, then one possibility is 1N-?: P: possible 2♣ = P/C ...P = 3-S3-H6+C ...2M = 5+M4+C 2♦+: as in the "minimally modified" transfer structure (post #3)

[hv=pc=n&s=st8hakjtdaj7652cj&n=s763hq865dk94cqt3&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1cp1n2hp3hppp]266|200[/hv] You reach 3♥ after a crazy 2♥ overcall and West leads the ♣K. How many cards do you think West has in each suit?

Did I boast? Ok, maybe a little. :) But my main purpose in posting this was to make others (including the GiB programmers) aware of this egregious bug. Non-native English speaker here, but maybe 'game' as in "game the robots"?

From last BBO Forums Sunday Daylong: [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|nullve,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|4SQ93H64DAQT93CA42,SA765HAJ5D52CQJ53,S8HKQT92D874CKT97,SKJT42H873DKJ6C86|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%206|mb|P|mb|1N|an|notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2D!|an|Jacoby%20transfer%20--%205+%20!H|mb|P|mb|2H|an|Transfer%20completed%20to%20H%20--%202-5%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202-5%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3C|an|New%20suit%20--%204+%20!C;%205+%20!H;%2010+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3N|an|No%20good%20support%20in%20C.%20No%203rd%20H%20--%202-4%20!C;%202-5%20!D;%202%20!H;%202-5%20!S;%2015-17%20HCP;%2018-%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D5|pc|D4|pc|DK|pc|DA|pc|H4|pc|H5|pc|HQ|pc|H3|pc|D8|pc|D6|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|D7|pc|DJ|pc|DQ|pc|C5|pc|DT|pc|S7|pc|H2|pc|S2|pc|D9|pc|S6|pc|C7|pc|C8|pc|H6|pc|HJ|pc|HK|pc|H8|pc|CK|pc|C6|pc|C2|pc|C3|pc|CT|pc|S4|pc|CA|pc|CQ|pc|C4|pc|CJ|pc|C9|pc|H7|pc|S5|pc|S8|pc|SK|pc|S3|pc|SJ|pc|SQ|pc|SA|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|HT|pc|ST|pc|S9|]400|300[/hv] Not rising with the ♥A at trick 2 turned out to be fatal for the defence. Had GiB(W) chosen to part with the ♥J instead of a spade on the fourth diamond, this could have been the position before the last diamond is played: [hv=pc=n&s=sq93h6d9ca42&w=sa765hadcqj3&n=s8hkt9dckt97&e=skjt42h8dc86&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1np2dp2hp3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Thank you! So like Precision (and Blue Club) but unlike Z Club, Fab Roman doesn't have a good solution when Responder has invitational values and a 5c major. ---- The above minimally modified transfer structure (meant to be used over the canapé version of Z Club's 2♣ opening) is really unplayable since Responder will frequently need to bid but have no bid available on hands where he would have an easy pass opposite the non-canapé version. E.g. hands such as Kxxx Txx AJxx 9x or (even, at MPs) Kxxx Tx AJxx 9xx. To solve this very basic problem it might be a good idea to treat the canapé version as a kind of Multi and use the 2♥ response as P/C. Or maybe as "P/C or INV w/ 5+ H", as some do after a more standard Multi. The latter option frees up space after 2♣-2♦ that could be used to accomodate some or all of the ("transfer to spades" type) hands that are currently in 2♥. Another try (work in progress):

Obvious first try (based on https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/52777-old-style-precision-2c/page__view__findpost__p__633108): Edit: It should have occured to me that this modified structure will work poorly on most hands where Responder has positive-but-less-than-inviational values, 2-5 S, 2-5 H and 3-4 C. Will post more about it later. Martin Johnson's Fab Roman system contains a canapé 2♣ opening, but I can't find a good link to the system anymore.