nullve

Gazzilli Deleted

Well, 1♦-1♠; 3♣-4♣ is a draw by stalemate.

1) Depends on agreements (duh!), but it doesn't meet the rule of 20, so I don't think it's a book opening bid in standard 2/1. But then "book" 2/1 may be a bit too conservative for most tournament players. 2) Responder has to pass on very weak hands, obviously. And it seems a bit silly to double with, say, 9 hcp, 1444 if Opener is expected to rebid 2♠ with 12-14, 5S(332). (But I've seen it on Vugraph!) 3) If 1♠ is the correct opening bid with (11)12-14 hcp, 5S(332) [not necessarily true in systems where 1♣ is "natural or balanced", for instance], then a decision has to be made (once and for all) whether Opener should rebid a) 2red or b) 2♠ with that hand type. If a), then I think Responder has to play Opener for 4 hearts anyway, so I don't really see how 4♥ can be avoided. If b), then I guess Responder will suggest 3N over 2♠. 4),5) See 3).

2♥, also with AQx ----- AKJxxxx Axx, for the reasons miamijd gave.

The GCC doesn't allow T-Walsh, but you're allowed to play e.g. 1♣(nat. or any 11-13/17-19 bal.)-?: 1♦ = 4+ S, may have longer H unless GF or unless you play Flannery by Responder ...1♥ = 3 S or 11-13 bal. w/ 2 S ...1♠ = 4+ H ...1N = 17-19 bal., 2-3 S ...(...) 1♥ = 4+ H, less than 4 S unless GF ...1♠ = 3 H or 11-13 bal. w/ 2 H ...1N = 17-19 bal., 2-3 H ...(...) 1♠ = ART GF (also played by Welland-Auken) 1N = NAT NF (1♦ is basically helene_t's "Spade Walsh". The whole scheme of responses was probably first suggested by awm; the 1♠ rebid over 1♣-1♥ probably by mickyb (or awm.)) So far so good, but unless the 1♦ and 1♥ responses promise positive values (which they don't have to in Swedish T-Walsh), you may want to play special continations over 1♣-1♦; 1♥ and 1♣-1♥; 1♠. (E.g. XYZ doesn't work so well when Responder is forced to bid again with subpositive values.) A couple of good alternatives: I: Play "Dutch Doubleton", i.e. 1♣(nat. or any 11-13/17-19 bal.)-?: 1♦ = nat. or negative ...1♥+ = Polish Club-style 1M = "7+, 4+ M" (GF opposite 17-19 bal.) (...) II: 1♣(nat. or any 11-13/17-19 bal.)-1M(4+ M, may be very weak); ?: 2♦ = "delayed Mexican"1: a) "17-19 bal." (incl. 16-18, 2245), 2-3 M b) "16-18", 3M4D5+C2 ...E.g.: ...P = subpositive, 4M(4)5+D ...2M = to play ...2OM = puppet to 2N ...+ a way to stop in 3♣ when Responder is subpositive w/ 4M5+C 2N = "D reverse", but not "16-18", 3M4D5+C2 other: standard 1 at least what I call it 2 in case Responder is very weak with 5+ M

What happened is that 5♠ promised 2 or 5 key-cards (as well as the trump Q) and the robot understandably thought you had 5. You see, the problem with opening 2♣ just because you have 10 or more tricks in own hand is that partner may never be able to figure out how little his hand is actually contributing. For that reason I like to play that the 2♣ opening must satisfy the rule of 31, corresponding e.g. to 22 hcp in a 5134 hand and to 19 hcp in a 6016 hand. Then I would have had to open 1♠ on your hand, and the auction might have gone 1♠-2♠ 5♥-5♠ (Exclusion RKCB; 0 KC outside H) P.

Partner will hopefully use LoTT and pass the double in both cases.

Common to all versions of Transfer Walsh (or T-Walsh) over a standardish 1♣ opening, including 1♣ as "natural or balanced", is that, 1♦ = 4+ H 1♥ = 4+ S. Over these transfer responses (1M-1) there are two main variations: Variation I (which I think of as "Swedish" because it probably originated with Swedish nationals Nilsland-Wirgren): 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: 1M = 3 M or 12-14* bal. w/ 2 M 1N = 18-19 bal., 2-3 M 2N: freed up! Variation II (which I tbink of as "Dutch" because Dutchman Henk Uijterwaal seems to have invented it) 1♣-[1M-1]; ?: 1M = 3 M 1N = 12-14 bal., 2 M. 2N = 18-19 bal., 2 M I'm not sure which variation is the most popular worldwide, but my guess is that the Swedish varation is the most popular in the US (at midchart or higher level) and Sweden, at least. (In Norway, noone else seems to play it, but the Dutch variation is extremely popular at higher levels.) * or 11-13 if you play a 14-16 NT

The Welland-Auken trick, 2♣(18-19 bal. or GF)-?: 2♦ = 5+ H or waiting ...2♥ = Kokish: 18-19 bal. / 5+ H, GF ......P = WK, 5+ H (assumes Opener has 18-19 bal.!) ......(...) ...2♠+ = same as 2♠+ over 2♣-2♦ in standard 2♥ = 5+ S ...2♠ = 18-19 bal. ...(...) (...), here with 18-19 bal. instead of 20-21 bal. (as in their system), is also worth mentioning.

http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2011worldteams-netherlands/bermudabowl/italy/bocchi-madala.pdf Fun system!

Given West's shape, would anyone really balance with a much weaker hand or pass with a much stronger hand?

No, 1♠ was a mistake. (Or maybe our agreement to play it as NF was.)

[hv=pc=n&w=sa83ha8dq97cqj862&e=skq72hqj93d8cak73&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c(nat. or bal.)p1d(4+ H)p1h(also with 11-13 bal., 2-3 H)p]266|200[/hv] We had the outstanding auction 1♣-1♦ 1♥-1♠* 1N-3N P. * taken as, and at some point agreed to be, NF

1. ♦A (can probably not stand a club shift) 2. ♥ -> A 3. ♠Q aiming for 4+3+1+1=9.

Opener: the first player to make a call other than Pass Overcaller (or Intervenor or Aggressor): Opener's left hand opponent Responder: Opener's partner Advancer: Overcaller's partner

2♠ unless Micro-Gerber is available.

Maybe 5♣ is wrong, but there must still be exceptions to the rule 'If you've shown your hand and partner bids 3N, you must pass.' (Consider childish examples such as a 3♥ opening showing 37 hcp.)

I'm having trouble coming up with a raise structure over 1m that makes sense, given that Opener might have a 5c or longer major on the side.

You read the ♠10 as ♠1 and ♠0?

It might not solve all problems with RFR-type hands, but you can rebid 1♠ with 3+ S (a la Nightmare) and still have ridiculous amounts of space. Should be part of standard IMO. (I know you played the 1♠ rebid as 4+ C a couple of years ago.)

I voted 5♣ because * I expect it to be easier to make 11 tricks in 5♣ than 9 tricks in 3N; * I doubt we can bid 6♣ with any confidence on the rare occasions when it's right. (Well, maybe partner will be able to raise 5♣ to 6.)

If the WBF meant to define 'average hand' in terms of hcp + distributional points, then why didn't they do that? The point was that if defining 'average hand' in terms of Lee points would make your 2♦ opening non-BS, then it would also make it possible for an opening like 1♠ = 0-10 hcp, 8+ Lee points, 5+ S, to be part of a non-HUM system.

Based on what I suggested in a similar thread: 1♦-1♠ = 4+ S, not RFR-type 1♦-1♠; ?: (With "11-19" interpreted as rules of 20-28 and MIN := rules of 20-22 MED := rules of 23-25 MAX := rules of 26-28) 1N = MIN, 2- S / MED, 04(54), 13(54), 1444 or 14531 ...P = 5-S3-D, < inv ...2♣ = to play opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED ......P = MIN, 4+ C ......2♦ = MIN, 6+D3-C ......2♥+ = MED ...2♦ = to play opposite MIN, 4+D4+C, GF opposite MED ......P = MIN ......2♥+ = MED ...2♥ = inv, 6+ S / any GF ......2♠ = MIN (NF) ......2N+ = MED (GF) ...2♠ = 6+ S, weak ...(...) 2♣ = 3 S / * / MAX (any MAX?) ...2♦ = "7+", relay (GF opposite MAX) ......2♥ = MED, 3 S / ? ......2♠ = MIN, 3 S ......2N+ = MAX ...2♥+ = "4-6" ...E.g.: ...2♥ = "4-6", 4 S ......2♠ = 3 S ......2N+ = MAX, either 2- S or 4+ S ...2♠+ = "4-6", 5+2 S 2♦ = MED, 2-S6+D4-C 2♥ = MED, 4+ S / * / ? 2♠ = MIN, 4+ S 2N+ = * (...) * MED, 5D5C hands have to go somewhere. 1 Idea: MED hands shouldn't be too unbal. if Responder chooses to pass. 2 It helps if 2♠ shows exactly 5 S, e.g. because of the failure to make (the equivalent of) a WJS. One design goal has been to avoid 2N/unlawful 3M contracts as far as possible.

A very clear pass. (Also with ♠Kxx ♥432 ♦KJx ♣AQxx because of LoTT.)