KingCovert

North is just being petulant. East believes 2♠ to be natural, and it's not stated here, but quite possibly unlimited, and that 4♣ is a cue-bid. a) Irrelevant b) If west even has any UI, it wasn't abused? Absolutely every call from West there was mandatory given their actual agreements. Both 3♠ and 4♦ are surely forcing. 5♦ by East states no significant preference, I can't imagine how West could ever justify a 5♠ bid. Only in the wishful thinking of North is that even a candidate. c) Why would East not cue-bid that diamond suit? If East's hand is opposite the AK♣ (surprise, surprise), and a 4♣ cue-bid is a good start here, It's a great hand. If West can be unlimited here, why would East choose to sign off on this hand? Is North really so asinine as to suggest that if East had the J♠ that they now have better justification for cue-bidding diamonds? Obviously it's a horrible result for NS, but, honestly, leading a heart here is pretty sinful. Can't say they didn't deserve this result.

As an interesting possibilty, In the sequence 1NT-2H-2S-3D: 3H - Which side-suit are you worried about? 3S - Clubs 3N - Hearts 4D - Both Of course, this falls apart in the sequence 1NT-2D-2H-3D. Since, 3S is the cheapest sidesuit, and well, we don't have 2 bids after it to define the suit. You could do something like 3H is artificial asking for the clarification above, and 3S agrees the major suit. That would be interesting, not sure that it would be any good though. I'm just spit-balling without consideration. I'd probably prefer the idea of re-transfer and other agreements on top of it.

In an attempt to be more constructive, how about this? 1♦ = 0-7, 3334/3343 or a hand with a 5+card suit. 1♥ = 0-7, 3-♥, 4♠ 1♠ = 0-7, 4♥, 3-♠ 1NT = 0-7, 4♥, 4♠ Let's put some more power back into Opener's hand, and let's clarify Responder's major suit holdings when holding negative values. It's really important when designing strong club responses not to turn the strong hand into a passenger. The only time you really want to consider doing that is when responder is so shapely (5-5, 6-5, 7-4) that they definitively know what suits should be played.

I wrote a horrible post replying to this... Let me try again. I understand that frequency is valuable, but, I do think you place too much value upon it. What's significantly more valuable is assessing the necessary continuations in a sequence in order to make that sequence effective. When structuring your system, you can only consider frequency after determining and then guaranteeing the required utility of your bids. So, with this perspective in mind, I think you place too much focus on frequency. Many of the bids in this particular structure, for example, are just ineffective. While this might sound harsh, I'd never entertain playing this set of agreements as constructed, it's woefully insufficient when responder doesn't have fit with Opener. This creates problematic holes/burdens. Yet, you've already started talking about a frequency analysis of this system. That's a major case of cart-before-the-horse syndrome.

Okay, totally reasonable. Well, I have a lot of thoughts on this system, but, I'll just start with this question. 2♦ is GF, 5+♥. 2♥ is GF, 5+♠. What happens when opener has a void in your major? Strong hands do tend to be rather balanced, it's a byproduct of having a lot of face-cards in your hand and there not being so many face-cards in any one suit. But, extreme shortness in your long suit can still occur. After my partner asked me this simple question, I'm pretty much resolved to the idea that positive bids that show a single suit at the 2-level is losing bridge. You consume so much bidding room on a bid that doesn't fully describe your shape and doesn't actually set trump. Imagine the auction: 1♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♠ (presumably showing 6+♠?) This auction is a nightmare. Here you are with your void in spades, and you may not make a game above 3NT. Maybe responder has slam-ish values, but should responder continue in a horrible misfit? Even if you have slam-ish values, where will the cuebids come from? So, as a point of discussion, does anyone agree that this is a problem? If you subscribe to the claim that consuming so much bidding room to very ineffectively describe your shape isn't a great idea (it's not horrible, but not great IMO), what changes should be made?

Can I ask? What is the goal of this thread? It's kind of confusing to me. Are we seeking to improve this system?

Where I'm from: the common agreement amongst half decent players is to play 4-way transfers, 2♠ is a transfer to clubs, and 1NT-2♠-2NT is a super-accept. I'd imagine that if this was their agreement, then even though they had no agreement on 3♣, then possibly: Opener believed 3♣ must be forcing. Opener responded with surely the most positive cuebid of 3♦. Opener received a response of 3NT, which is unsurprising given that Opener is holding all the outside aces. Opener therefore believed that they must surely have to continue over 3NT. I can't say what Opener was actually thinking, but, if 2♠ is a 4-way transfer, I'd find passing 3NT to be the MOST unethical action. Especially after a long pause.

If you believe that 3♣ is a slam try, and your 3♦ bid is a cuebid. 3NT seems to deny a major suit ace. Not exactly a shock to Opener... (They're holding all 3 outside aces) Standard treatment is that 3♣ is a slam try over a 15-17 NT. But then... North's explanation is unfortunate. I think the problem is, North can't be certain it's not a slam try? Arguably, North did the ethical thing in continuing.

3♠ is clear, isn't it? What you're looking for is a cuebid of diamonds/hearts, and then you want to cue-bid your ace of clubs. It sounds like your partner is going to have the hand that will raise slam given your description.

You make it sound like investing bids in negative responses is a bad thing? I'm really not sure why you think that, but I'd challenge you to re-evaluate that position. My agreement with my long term partner is that 1D is the only positive response, it is Game-Forcing. Every other bid up until 2NT has a defined meaning to show shape and a negative response, as well as a couple gadgets built into the follow-up bids of these negative responses. If you try to define a set of agreements designed largely around positive responses, here's what's going to happen to you: 1) You're going to consume a LOT of bidding room making a positive response that VAGUELY describes responder's hand. 2) There will inevitably be holes in your set of agreements, or there will be unclear sequences. 3) When responder has a negative response, you won't have nearly enough information to ascertain whether or not to compete over what will most likely be rather solid interference with real values. Interference is far more negligible/exploitable when you know you have the majority of the strength. I'm not saying it can't be done, but, from experience I'm rather convinced at this point that a large array of positive responses is usually inefficient. I'm hoping that this will give you some pause before continuing a discussion that begins with [2-3 bids] "is just a huge investment in negative hands". No, it's really not.

I'll just re-state this point, because I don't think you're really considering it enough when saying it's the worst hand you'd make the 1♠ call with, the hand is 4333. If that hand had a doubleton in either red suit, that saves a trick, and well, declarer only went -1 on the hand. You don't call 1♠ if you take away a spade, and the odds that you have a 2-1 club fit on this auction are significantly lower than the odds that either red suit could be doubleton. Is 4♠ really such a poor bid in context? Either 1♠ shows more values, or more shape. I think you undersell how much play 4♠ usually has on this auction. The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that 1♠ is just horrible.

I don't think I can add much more to this than others have. But, I will differ and say that the worst call on this auction is 1S. That's not a 5 HCP hand... It's more like a 3 HCP hand. 4333 hands are not worth their HCP. I sympathize with the fact that East is holding an ace, but to compete over interference holding an 11 LTC hand is horrible bridge. 4S is also a really bad call, but it'll have some play a lot of the time opposite a hand that actually has its 1S call. With a hand so bad, do you ever have a suit preference? Those 4 spades don't guarantee a fit and the reality is: Your preferred strain is the strain partner tells you is best when they rebid. At which point, you can pass. Because that West hand should do nothing but pass the entire auction.

You really need to do a better job of writing this post. South's diamond suit is KD52. That D really matters. I don't know which slam I want to play here Why is the title Walsh Bidding? Do you want a standard 2/1 auction or a Transfer Walsh auction?

Here were my thoughts: 1) After looking at dummy, what is South holding? 2) If the singleton club is led, then, 3 clubs. 3) They didn't bid 4♠, so, I don't think spades are breaking 5-4. 2 spades? Would they sit for 4♥ with 3 spades? 4) If south only has 2 spades, then North has a stack, why only call 2♠? 5) So, 3 clubs, 2-3 spades, That leaves 7-8 cards in hearts and diamonds. I think if you properly consider these points, you'd risk losing the finesse to North, who can't give themselves a ruff. Sometimes North will hold A♠, K♥, and A♦. Especially at matchpoints where there is play for 11 tricks when the finesse works. I think the odds that South doesn't have either Ace is high enough to risk this. I mean, either North is bidding 2♠ on like 7 spades, or South was too scared to call 4♠ on their 3-4 card spade suit. Certainly suggests either way that North is holding the aces, and that South is holding the potentially useless K♥, in my mind at least.

Oh yeah, it definitely doesn't make, I was just trying to allude to the fact that 4♠ would have made at the other table, if it was played, given the defense it received there. (5♠X-1 was the result) Well, I think South is rather rational to be silent here. There isn't any real danger of 1♠ being passed out. The real question is, how are the spades distributed? If RHO has 5, and you have 4, and LHO has 1, don't you really like the prospect of defending 1NTx? Is there any particular reason why NS has any more than 19-20 HCP on the auction? I feel like a lot of these auctions go 1NT by LHO with 4 hearts and 5 clubs, hearts are breaking 4441 around the table (since partner didn't bid 1H), and this looks pretty ugly for EW on most auctions. It just so happens that this deal has an East hand with 7-5 in the majors, but that's hardly probable on this auction so far. Most the time on this auction, opponents have absolutely no fit (from South's perspective), or at least not a good one, and if a 2H bid comes from West, the only question is going to be, "How high do opponents get before I put the double card on the table?" If opponents happen to find a huge heart fit, well, pretty sure your hand just grows up immensely at that point. The more hearts they have, the more cards in the minors North has. The only problem here is, who is on lead, and is West void in spades? You don't really *want* to allow them to find a heart fit... But, truthfully though, there is no call you can make to prevent them from finding a heart fit if West is holding 5 hearts and is willing to bid them. I mean, what are the candidate bids? Some amount of diamonds I assume. Surely not 5♦. 4♦ makes no sense. Does 3♦ ever prevent West from bidding 3♥ with some 7 HCP hand and 5 hearts on such an auction? EDIT: I guess 2♠ is an option?

Actually, it entirely depends on agreements how much of this bidding makes sense. The 1D call by North is probably mandatory with that hand. It's a long diamond suit with the ability to correct to clubs over a 1S response. If 1C doesn't deny a diamond holding (perhaps ACOL?) then it's just correct. When partner does bid 1H, your hand grows up into a game forcing hand. No question about that. I don't agree with 1S, I think enough has been said about that already, but to not bid 4S over 1NT is just dumb. 1NT better never contain a void, it is usually a doubleton, but singleton is all we need. That East hand is not really constructive as others have said. But you've found your best fit with the 1NT call, and the only call now is 4S. Probably would have gone undoubled. Opponents may be brave enough to play 5D. Hard to say. If South had the spade void, I'd definitely say 4S wouldn't buy the contract. But... South is sitting on that spade suit, and they're the one with the conceiled diamonds. The temptation to defend is probably too strong. Apparently, even though it's against that strongest pair, 4S is going to make too.

At the risk of being flippant, what else do you really want to do? As for why he took this line... He probably took the line for all the reasons in my first post in this thread. Spades need to be 8-2, and West can't have a minor suit entry or the hand is hopeless. Diamonds blocks and without the doubleton QH, North has no entries. So, it's time to end play East in Clubs or Hearts

Yeah. Exactly how I feel. This is pretty much why the break has to be 8-2. Who introduces a new suit without an honour while holding 5-6 HCP, an outside ace, and primary support?

Ah yes! That makes sense. As an aside, you'd really have to figure that spades are in fact breaking 8-2. East hasn't raised them. If they had a hand suitable to free bid hearts with 3+ spades. I don't think the contract would be 3NT. If you can't double with confidence, 4S sure does sound good. Except for the whole honourless heart suit of course...

And how do you cash the diamonds? Edit: Or do you really expect to trick West after discarding the Q/J/T of Diamonds?

If this hand has any hope, your opponents are more insane than South on this hand. If West has 8 spades, the K of diamonds and a doubleton Q of hearts then, maybe this hand has some hope... Why East would free bid hearts with a 6-card suit headed by the 9 with like 6 HCP is beyond me though. Although, I guess I can see why West would sit for it. I'm with Mikeh on this, if you look at South's hand and think No-Trump... Well, yeah. C'mon. Duck the spade, win the continuation, cash a heart, finesse and unblock the diamond suit. Cash the remaining heart trick, dropping the queen and exit in clubs. It probably doesn't matter which club you exit. East will be endplayed into establishing your clubs or leading into the heart entry. Note: If east has the Ace of clubs, they won't allow a club entry. And you have no other possible entries from South. And if west has it.. You're dead. And if that doesn't work, West is taking spades and you're dead.

Not that it's really all that relevant to the actual question, but, surely you would choose to play hearts if the double had been alerted and explained? Really can't do much worse than the 6-1 fit you'd play in, but you can do a LOT better.

Probably cash all the clubs, and play diamonds somewhat rationally. 8♦ to the Jack, might have to duck the 2nd round hoping for some sort of doubleton in East. The goal is to try to repeatedly endplay opponents. The heart honours are probably split, and I imagine that they're behaving 4-3. Especially if clubs behave. Sounds that way since East didn't overcall 1♠ with 2♥. But, who knows? EDIT: Actually, our heart holding is far too spotty for East to ever overcall. :( I'd really need to see a few cards as I'm playing the hand, but small club to cash the QJ would definitely be where I start. As for the auction, I wouldn't have bid 2♣ if I were playing 2/1. Are you? I'd probably have bid 1NT. This leaves new minor forcing for the 4-4 heart fit, and, if partner has clubs, I'm content to play 1NT. Assuming your partner would raise 2NT in said auction, well, up to you. I'd pass though.

Actually, building this is very trivial. When double dummy solvers determine the result, they assume the best line of play against the line being tested. (Oversimplying very heavily here) Instead, this is easily tested by checking if ALL lines of play result in all the tricks being won by the same player. If any line of play has a different outcome, you've identified that the outcome is uncertain.

This really requires more information about the opponents leads. This is a principle of restricted choice situation. Why did they lead a diamond? What is the situation in the round suits for a diamond lead to be right? My partner and I consider the 10 to be an honour, and will lead small from a suit headed by the 10. Is this their agreement? This really matters, because, this really screams of a singleton lead. If it's a singleton lead, what honours can West hold here that wouldn't preclude the singleton lead? Surely not AK of clubs for example. After considering this, do we really think it's alright to take the spade finesse? Maybe we can get opponents to crash their club honours? A♠ and out a spade could be right! If the spade finesse loses, the hand that might have diamond shortness is on lead again, and can't give themselves the ruff, but they can cross in either round suit potentially for a ruff. So, I'm tempted to play East for the singleton K♠. This would be a very different situation if I had any intermediates in spades at all.... but... I don't. And then... sometimes... Spades break 2-2, and the diamond lead was from TXXX. :( I'm probably not taking the finesse, and playing small to the A♠. It gives me some hope of shockingly poor defense in the event of a 4-0 spade break.