bluecalm

My favorite toy tells me the game makes in 53% of cases opposite 12-13 balanced with 4♠ so it looks like you are right. It was bad evaluation from me.

I agree with that. Maybe there is better treatment somewhere but I doubt it matter much. In fact I find Last Train to be not necessary (not saying it doesn't help when proper hand comes up just saying it doesn't matter almost at all overall). Probably the worse your system design (less slam invites at lower level; things like splinters not in narrow range etc.) the more you need things like serious 3NT or LTTC.

Playing precision: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♠ - pass eactly 3-4-5-1 is the only shape I raise with 3 card support. I strongly believe in bidding 2♣ with 4+-4+ (or even 3-5) minors (especially if playing reverse flannery) and I strongly believe in 1NT response promising 2+cards. Playing something else I would probably stop in 3♠ as S hand may be worth a game try opposite 12-14 and real diamonds.

Yeah this is great. We have gen 1 bridgemates in Poland but all those are available in tournament websites as well.

According to natural principles it would show ♠ values. Something like : AQx Kxxxx Kxx xx, a hand which wants to play in 3NT but doesn't hold ♣ stopper. You can of course switch the meaning of 3♠ to ask for stopper. It seems like going backwards though as it's additional memory work and checking for ♣ stopper seems to be more important on this auction anyway (because it's more likely they will run 5 tricks in ♣ than in ♠).

Yeah but then you will often play in 4♥ on 7 trumps and if you stipulate that opener needs 3♥ to raise you will miss 6-2♥ games. This sucks but most people don't worry about it all.

3NT can't be bad. There are a lot of minimum hands where it's laydown (AKx x AQJxxx xxx) and they not bidding spades makes it less likely they will take 5tricks there. This sequence is one the many problems of standard american bidding. There is no way you ever find 5-3♥ after this start.

Nvm

Right. Now I see why this hand may be interesting.

Yeah, looks easy. Probably I am missing something. So you eliminate red suits and take ♣ finesse. Then it's a guess if it's better to play for ♣Tx or ♣Kx. This guess can be improved by observing their discards. Also if we knew the bidding we would know how likely it is that ♣ would be attractive from Tx or Txxxx is and infer something from W making other choice. Anyway, for now I am also await developments.

Simple game that bridge. I 100% agree.

If only you have this treatment for this one hand. I am afraid though it is more useful as 2 suiter with ♥.

Yeah for sure there are other reasonable treatments. Playing it as 6♥-4m has an advantage of being able to find 6-2♥ contract. I don't like playing it as "anything". How is partner supposed to react with say 3-2-5-3 if we can have either 0-5-4-4 or 1-5-2-5 or even 1-6-2-4 ? I see merits in playing it as "general t/o" so he just bids his distribution (5♣ with 4+♣, 5♦ with 5 of them) but then we can't bid it with 2 suiter (which I think isn't much of a loss). Actual hand would fit perfectly for such treatment.

I think it's reasonable to play 4NT as showing 6♥-4m here.

Yeah, after constructing some sample hands for partner it really looks like pulling works very often. While my initial instinct was very strong (Pass !) I am now reconsidering.

I am not a fan of Gerber but here it comes in handy. I am bidding slam opposite 2 aces and grand opposite 3. Also it would be nice if I could ask for specific kings before bidding grand as it will be below required % if partner doesn't have K♣ (and basically always laydown or close if he has it). Lacking this convention though I think bidding grand is profitable gamble.

I agree. Probably minor suit slam will be good if we find 5m in opener's hand. Unfortunately both 4-4 minor suit slam and especially 5-3 ♠ slam doesn't looks too good.

1. Yes, what else ? 2. Pass 3. Bid 5♣ 4. Always pass

I am passing even non-vul :( Good ad for treatment described by Brink where dbl of transfer bid is t/o for transferred suit.

It was rhetoric question. If we bid splinter we are announcing : -good values for game -shortness -4+ trumps Those enough makes playable slams opposite perfect minimums. It's quite important not to make splinters on too strong hands (like 18count opposite 1♠ opener). Here though it's not a problem as 1/1 response is 6+ or even weaker) and we are limited already opening 1♣.

Simple case of FPS imo (fancy play syndrome for people not familiar with that). E should have bid RKC and, then ask for kings and bid 7♠. 4♥ doesn't make any sense. Splinter bidder described his hand already and E has perfect hand. Last thing we should worry about is lack of stopper in unbid suit after strong hand splinters, xx is actually pretty good holding on this auction. Isn't it standard to bid splinters with hands which make playable slams opposite perfect minimum ? Seems like this hand fits perfectly. No. Last train is convention which purpose is to say : "Partner, I don't know if we have enough values for slam, I make this one last try instead of signing off". Here E has enough information already. How do you think we can check for ♥ stopper after 4♥ bid anyway ? What do you plan to do if W signs off in 4♠ ? If you bid on partner will be convinced you have ♥ stopper (and rightly so). Bad logic here. If I am facing a range of hands and most of them make 100% slam (or grand). Some of them 90% slam and tiny minority of them 50% slam (and actually opposite KJx of hearts it's much more than 50%, DUCY ?) I am of course bidding it. E is 100% to blame. I would also say it's very simple mistake. I can't imagine any good player defending E's bidding.

If you bid 3♥ with only "opening hands which could not act directly over 2♠) ie. something like: Axx KJxxx KJx xx you lose the purpose of lebensohl in my opinion as partner will be lost if he has normal t/o double with say 15hcp (as you are now 0-11 basically). I think those hands should just bid game. If partner has some shape those games will have some play.

The problem is that by "Walsh" most bridge players understand the scheme of bypassing diamonds if you have 4 card major. This treatment : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walsh_convention What you are referring to is much less known convention. This one: http://www.bridgehands.com/W/Walsh_Diamond_Responses.htm You should be aware that if you say "Walsh" 99% of bridge players will think you mean the first one as it's much more popular and always referred in literature as "Walsh responses " or simply "Walsh". Before flaming other posters who actually have a clue you should get in touch with bridge terminology.

Pick a slam. I don't think he needs to be 5-0-4-4. Just 5♠ - 4minor is enough if he is willing to play 6NT if we don't find a fit. I guess he can even bid that way with 5♠-3-3-2 and very strong hand if he doesn't want to lose ♠ slam.

Ok, I get it. I think you are crippling yourself by adopting this treatment. I fully understand that I may be wrong on this one as you are much better player than me :rolleyes: Thanks for explaining this way of playing to me. I will be more careful in assuming what is "expert standard" next time. EDIT: I may well add why I think playing t/o double here is superior. First I much prefer not having 18-20 balanced in my 1♦ opening because then responder can remove the double to 5♦ every time he is 5♠-4♦ even playing "standard" though t/o double still gains in the following ways: -we always get to play 4♠ if we have 8+♠ and majority of high cards which I believe is a good thing -we never get to play 4♠ on trumps 5-2 and almost never on trumps 6-1 The downside is that hands like : x AKx AJxxx AJxx have to pass and if partner doesn't re-open they play undoubled. I believe it's not that bad thing though because: -those hands are rare; we are much more likely to have 2♠ on this auction than 3+ decent ♥ -partner is very likely to reopen (imo) as most of his range consists of GF hands -we probably couldn't make anything anyway if partner doesn't reopen As I said above if 18-20 balanced is removed from 1♦ opening situation is even better as the way is open for 5♦ contract which is basically lost playing "standard". I think this is why Italians play that way and also many polish pairs open 1♣ with 5♦-3-3-2 and 18-20 (so if 1♦ opener doubles in subsequent bidding it promises extra distribution).