jvage

Most people here (Norway) who use Transfer Walsh play a strong NT (15-17). Accepting the transfer shows 3 card or minimum with 4 cards, rebidding 1NT shows 11-14 with a doubleton (rarely, but more often than in a 1NT opening, a singleton). Some (including me) rebid 2NT with 18-19 and both 2 and 3 card (and play a system of new transfers after 2NT), some just accept the transfer with 3 card-support even with 18-19 balanced. This affects how often responder can pass, in the last case (s)he can only pass with a very weak hand. Compared to awm's suggestion this focuses more on establishing the degree of fit and less on stopping low with 18-19. I have played transfers also with a weak (11-14) NT. The only change in system has been that opener rebids 1NT (showing 15-17 balanced) with both 2 and 3 card-support. Jump-support still shows 4 card-support with some extra (either 15-17 or a distributional non-minimum 11-14), a simple accept shows an unbalanced hand with 3 card-support or minimum and 4 (the way I play you rebid 2NT with 18-19). The reason for this change is trying to avoid a general problem related to a weak NT. The change eliminates the problem when responder rebids 1NT after the transfer has been accepted (generally showing something like 6-11 and only a 4 card-suit) when opener got 15-17 balanced. If responder is minimum you want to stay low (often in 1NT), if responder is maximum game may be laydown. John

Here is what happened in practice: 1. Any encouraging move (4♣/4♦) will get you to the OK slam, partner had: KJT9xx KQx QJTx - I don't know what happens after 3NT (but you are very unlikely to get to slam), if you bid 4♠ you surely stop there. The diamondfinesse failed, but preemptor had a singleton ♠Q (partner would probably have played for a 3-1 split), so there was nothing to the play, 12 easy tricks. 2. This is the only board where I disagree with partners bidding. I bid 4♥ and partner had: Axx 98x - AKT8xxx He bid 5♦ and we ended in 6♠. This is an OK slam on anything but a diamondlead. Maybe I should have told LHO, who didn't ask, that partner promised 1. round diamond-control :) . When LHO lead the ♦A the slam was almost hopeless, in practice I went 2 down (most people failed even in 4♠). We both stretched here, who do you think overbid the most? From partner side, if I got clubsupport or the sixth spade the slam got reasonable play and may be laydown (he knows I have shown slaminterest with relatively few HCP). 3. As expected partner is very minimum (-, xxx, Qxx, QJ98xxx). RHO got AQxxx, xx, Qxxx, Tx, so doubling 4♠ was no safe plus, 12 tricks were easy. Both 5♣ and 5♦ got some play our way, but can be defeated. John

1. Here I agree with your bidding, since you did not bid 2♣ over 1♠ 4♣ can not be natural (maybe 3♠ was an alternative?). Partner should have bid 4♦ (or maybe 4♥ directly if cuebidding singelton in partners suit is not allowed) and then passed your 4♥ rebid. It is reasonable to get to the 5 level, and as it is 5♥ is far from hopeless. Even with both minor-suit aces wrong it is still makeable if opponents don't lead trumps early. 2. Here I strongly disagree with your bidding! 4♣ was a good bid, but then you have shown your hand (some may even say it was a stretch). I would have rebid 4♥ over partners 4♦ and leave the rest to partner (who may actually decide to bid on with his actual hand). If you bid 4NT (an overbid IMO) you should if possible continue with 5♦ over partners 5♣ (I assume showing 1 of 5 Key-Cards, inverted RKCB). This asks for the trump queen, when partner denies this (normally by 5♠) you should pass. If you didn't have this last option 4NT was an even bigger overbid, since you will be no wiser if partners shows 1 ace. John

Some comments to hand 3: Both partner and the current opponents are junior internationals. That means both 3♣ and 4♠ are sane, but may be agressive. There is an inference no-one has explicitly mentioned. You have a lot of high-cards, but there has still been a lot of vulnerable bidding before you. While 4♠ could have been bid on a balanced 12 count with 3 card support (see 1!), your high HCP-count (some posters have assigned partner with ♣AQJ and another Q, leaving only 15HCP for the opponents) makes this very unlikely. There must be some uneven distributions around. One should definitely not be surprised if opponents got 10 spades (partner got a void). This makes it much more likely that there are lots of tricks both ways. John

1. Embarassing, my first hand posted got 14 cards ;) I really had a doubleton heart (Axx, Ax, Axxx, J9xx). This may have affected the solution to the problem, since this is a stronger hand than several of those suggested. I think there are 2 points to this hand, the first is wether you should make a stronger move than 4♠. I think you should, but then the second is what move is most descriptive? Does 4♣ show some form of club-control and do you have any alternatives? With the only partner I have discussed this with 4♣ would show a control. My current partner belived 4♣ should not promise a control and was the best bid (as do most of the posters). I bid a not very pretty 4♦, would you take this as a fit-bid, splinter or cue? Since no-one suggested it it looks like I have to give partner 1-0 regardless :) 2. I took 4♦ as promising spadesupport. The question now was wether 4♥ shows extras, and if so, wether I have the goods. We all agree 3♠ was minimum, but with a partner marked with an opening (bidding at unfav) and some majors (since he got maximum 1 diamond) I think it is clear. Most posters seems to agree with this and my 4♥. 3. I think if the scoring was IMP's 5♣ (since partner is known to be short in spades, are 4NT or 5♦ alternatives?) would be clear. Since this was MP I decided to double, but did not have a good feeling about it. I wait a little before I reveal how these bids worked. In practice 1 worked very well and 2 ended in tragedy :) John

Hello, I am new to this forum. Here are some bidding problems from earlier this week, in all 3 partner disagreed with my choice. I am of course hoping to get more support here :) It's MP in an uneven field, but on these deals both partner and opponents are strong players. You have no agreements relevant to these problems and your basic system agreement was Polish Club (WJ2005). You are playing live with a fellow Norwegian, and have only agreed to try it for fun. Neither of you know the finer points of WJ2005 that may be relevant here :) 1. With no-one vulnerable you have: A93 A54 A542 J953 Partner opens 1♠ (5 card limited to 17hp) first to speak. RHO enters with a weak 3♣. What do you bid? 2. At unfavourable you have: KQT85 AJ6 6532 9 LHO Partner RHO You 1♦ 2♣ 3♦ 3♠ pass 4♦ Pass ? 3♦ was preemptive. Do you agree with 3♠ and what do you bid now? 3. All vulnerable, you have: J83 AJ9 AKT853 K LHO opens 1♠, partner bids a preemtive 3♣ and RHO bids 4♠. What do you do? John

It should be possible to compare the different alternatives. All 3 can either work directly (by establishing clubs) or by enabling a ♣/♥-squeeze. For simplicity I assume RHO will always play low with the ace (except with A, AT or if he got the queen) and that LHO would always play the 6 if possible (even if having the 4, not considering probabilities, restricted choice theory or signalling tendencies). I also assume Frances does not find any clues written in the ceiling and end up playing the king in her latest scenario, since this keeps the squeeze chances if LHO got QTx. 1. Playing the 7: Wins in 4 cases (LHO got AQT64, AQT6, QT64 and QT6), but no additional squeeze chances. 2. Playing the J: Wins directly in 4 cases (AQT64, AQT6, AQ6 and AQ64). Additional squeeze possibilities in 3 cases (QT64, QT6, Q64). 3. Playing the K: Wins directly in 1 case (AT64). If you plan to just play a small club next if the king wins and no Q falls (to rectify the count for a squeeze) a squeeze is possible in 3 cases (AT6, A64, A6). This simplified analysis indicates that playing the J is best and that the 7 is better than the K. But playing on Vugraph one may consider that playing the king is the fanciest play :) John