bluecalm

Well, if you construct this bet I can search for every hand in vugraph history where 4-3 major fit was played and compare real results to double dummy results :)

Looks like the easiest 1NT ever. You have proper strength, shape and you want to play NT from this hand to put the overcaller on lead (which is important for example if the spades are Jxx - A9.

I think double is ok. That was my firs thought but I am afraid it's often 5 spades and even if partner partner don't bid 3S with 3-5-3-2 minimum outright as I think he might he will think we are 5-2-3-3/5-2-4-2 or something after we correct 3D to 3H.

Yes, but some hands with long clubs could be overcalled with 2C and effectiveness of preempt once they open 1M is small (usually they get to their contract anyway and declaring is now much easier). I think this is a good point and surely cost of Ghestem but it's not big. It's also more preemptive, not much and it doesn't matter that much but it is. Yeah, but you can just as well overcall 1S instead of using Michaels, this way you are on 1 level and you didn't give them free information which benefits them every time and your side only if partner has 4-4 fits in minors (and this is what we should compare Ghestem to). My point is that while it's possible that the costs mentioned by you are too much ot make Ghestem > Michaels we have top-bottom cuebid which just dominates Michaels in every area.

In Poland at least when you say "2/4" (or polish word for those leads) you are expected to lead 9 from T9x+ and high from JTx+ and higher. When we say "rusinov" (or polish word for those leads) we mean T from JTx etc.

Playing a K and then small seems like the only line. I am sure I am missing something, otherwise it wouldn't be thread worthy.

As far as Polish 2/4 goes systemic lead from Hxxxxx+ is 4th and systemic lead from Tx is a T. Txxx+ is a bit problematic, most people automatically lead 2nd but you are not 100% safe here as some consider 4th as standard lead, especially vs NT.

Yeah I missed we are passed hand so we can't have natural diamonds (at least not diamonds that good to warrant natural 4D here). 2D - 3S - p - 4D should probably be natural and forcing though.

This is only matter of agreement imo and I think playing it as forcing is worse. You can double or bid 3S with SI, you need a bid with decent, shapeish hand (like 5-5 in reds or something) because 3D could be bid on any kind of junk. That said I prefer 3D on actual hand but make it x AQxxx xxxxx QT and it would be perfect 4D.

I think it's safe to assume 4D sets hearts (what else would that be?) so now it's time to pass imo.

Yep, I thought it's standard. I wouldn't mind playing it as any slam try though (then partner bids the nearest suit he wouldn't accept slam try in).

Either Ghestem or top/bottom cuebids are superior to michaels imo. You don't really gain much in bidding by showing 5-5 without specific 2nd suit but you give away a lot if they end up declaring.

dbl = 16+hcp 2C = weakier It allows you establish combined strength of hands easier (8+hcp is GF opposite such double). Italians play this way I think it's superior way (to support dbl) in wide range openings context.

1)dbl would be better than 2!C in natural bidding but I guess you play support doubles there so it wasn't an option; I wouldn't cue bid, 4D was non-forcing (apparently) and there is no way we want to invite a slam with out Kx of spades. The final contract looks fine though, so just tough luck 2) -4S instead of 3S -4H instead of 4S, W has very strong hand and it's clear they have hearts by now so 4H should means the same thing as in: 2H - 3S - pass - 4H

I go with 3H. It would be more difficult at imps, at mp's even if we have 25pc the game hasn't been made yet with xx of clubs and diamonds honors being almost certainly off side. On the other hand it's entirely possible we are going down 2 in 3H if partner has Qxx AQxxx xxx xx or any other weakish auto 1H opening in this colors.

Sounds like the thing to do regardless if it's T-Walsh, Walsh or up the line bidding imo. Including 18-19 bal hands in both 1D and 1C is design mistake imo. It's better to have 1D unbal if strong, especially in competition but also, as you said, in constructive bidding. It's also better to start those hands with 1C and gain from all transfers and what not to follow. I am really surprised it's not standard, especially among T-Walsh crowd (which I suppose invest more time in work on their systems).

Yeah, swap and use 2S as relay with 3+card support and 2NT as relay denying 3card support (similar to 1S - 2m - 2H - 2S/2N). That's Italian way, works great imo. 1H - 2C 2S - 2N is now relay and continuations are usual: -3c = 4clubs -3d = 3exactly 3clubs (then relay for 6th heart) -3h = 6hearts, 11-14 -3S = 6hearts, 15+ Another advantage of this style is that you don't have to jump around and clog the auction with 6+H and 15+hcp thus direct jumps to 3H/3S might be used for other hands (LV use them for 5M-5C but you may use it for 7+M for example).

Interesting stuff, thanks for the link. I tried some staymans like that recently but with mixed results I still wonder if passing with 4-4-3-2 after 2D might indeed better.

Yeah, sorry for that. A T, to distinguish it from T9x+. The only configurations which are uncomfortable for "2/4" rule are HTx when sometimes people feel the need to lead low and T8xx+/T9xx+ when sometimes you face the dilemma of leading 2nd (standard) or 4th (might be good especially vs nt).

Always t/o is sane imo but if you are willing to discuss some exceptions then I think double after club overcall and 1H/1D opening is interesting as it's impossible for you to have club shortness there. That being said even this double could be playing just as "points" so I would stick with always t/o to avoid complications.

My point is that it' better to lead a high card from 98x and from T9x and you are paying significant prize for leading low from those configurations. In 2/4 you systematically lead high (well, 2nd one but the trick tacking effect is the same). Low from xx is up to 9x, from Tx and higher we (polish people and others playing 2/4) lead a H. Notice that T9x isn't problematic because we lead a 9 from that. That, combined with above mentioned point, is why I referred to 98x and T9x as problem hands for 3/5 leads - you either don't give count information even by trick 2 or you have to make inferior play of leading low from those configurations. I think you mean 2/4 players. Yeah, that's true. I have little experience playing 3/5 so I completely forgot about 3 and 4 problem which is non-existent in 2/4 world. You keep mentioning Hx. We lead high from Hx, it's much much better to lead H in almost all situations regardless of the agreements. This play just takes more tricks on average. I really don't have any idea why you think anybody would lead low from Hx. The same goes for your last point.

You don't know count by the 2nd round with 98x and T9x because it still could be 9x or Tx while in 2/4 you lead 8 and 9 respectively and then follow with low making it clear you still have the 9 or T.

Ok, so in 3/5 problem holdings are T9x and 98x depending if you choose to lead a 9 from the latter. In 2/4 the only problem holding is JTx and higher (but again, it's a problem for 3/5 too). So it seems that 2/4 is better in this respect (confusing 2 and 3 less often). On the other hand 3/5 is better in a sense that it gives faster information and sometimes you know the count by the first round of the suit. This trade off looks like it favours 3/5 intuitively but I have no experience playing it so it's just a guess.

Also after 2/1 you have to accommodate 18-21 range without going beyond 4M too often. In polish club you have two ranges so all "reverse" bids after 2/1 are 15-17 in standard: 1S - 2C ??? Let's say you have strong one suited hand in spades here. If you jump there will be no way for responder to show his range and allow space for cuebids (because if he bids 4S with minimum you may still have 18-21 and if he bids 4D/4H cuebid every time then you don't know his range if you are in 15-17). If you bid conventional 2S (any one suited or something) then you need artifical follow ups to differ between 11-14, 15-17, 18+. Those things are done in serious 2/1 systems but people playing "vanilla" runs into trouble all the time, especially with popular but imo very weak style of raising 2/1 without extras: 1S - 2D 3D = should be extras or you are completely screwed at 3 level and responder still in 11-21 range. This is btw pretty amazing. The way to solve this is to either play "multireverse" (reverse = any 16+) or conventional 2NT (which only works in polish/dutch club style). This is necessary in 2/1 even more so than: 1C - 1M 2D relay in polish club which you can easily live without and which is much simpler to learn (you just respond by steps how many M card you have and what range). However somehow you always hear that in pc you need to learn artificial stuff while much more complicated convention absolutely needed in sane 2/1 is played by feel (let's fake a reverse here or jump there without any clear rules).

Paraphrasing previous poster: I don't know why you quoted me and then wrote this comment so I take it as you quoted a part you agree with... :) All those percentages are wrong. You can try build in BBO calculator to see this, it will show you exact combinations with % or you can calculate it by hand which should be easy if you follow my posts in this thread. EDIT: unless you mean after playing exactly two round of diamonds but not 3rd. Then the percentages are almost correct (it should be 10.71%, 26,78%, 35,7%) but we really should eliminate Jxx onside if we talk about what decision to make here.