jmcw

Indeed 3♥ should be a splinter, cannot imagine it being anything else. Thats the bid I would make, and I'm passing 3NT.

[hv=d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1dd1s2h3cp3d3h4dpp4h5dppd]133|100[/hv] matchpoints r vs w. Care to comment on what N might hold?

You will have more hands with scattered values 7+, and a willingness to compete than pure penalty. If you have a penalty X, you can pass and "hope" partner can re-open. So playing X as take out gives lots more flexibility and caters to the much more common occurances. I expect most advanced players will have a similar agreement.

I'm always going to at least 4♠, and I don't think 1♠ will end the auction if I bid it. Double then 4♠ = 10 1♠ = 8 4♠ = 2 I would bid 4♠ with much less, so I rated that quite low.

If P values are in the minors and/or trumps then game prospects are improved. OTOH if his values are in ♥, game success will not be improved. Making a short try seems best since partner will likely reject when he has wasted values in ♥ and accept when his values are elsewhere. However, as some have noted, a jump to game seems best, the opps will have less info and you will likely have a decent shot to make. As North, I would reject HS,LS tries in minors, accept short in ♥.

The opponents failed to alert. How can you determine from the facts provided that no damage has been done?. For example maybe West would X 3♣ given a correct explaination!, or maybe even raise ♥ at some stage?. In the given auction what would North's repeated ♣ bids show...an 8 card suit and no interest in partner's?

Never feels quite right to raise with a void! but this is worth considering. If P ♠ are good enough for 1 loser then it rolls, or even 2 losers and a cover card. I will raise because I cannot be beat off the top, the opening lead may even provide the 10 trick.

The short answer is yes. I expect P to have precisely 4♠ and at least 6 points. Based on P minimum type hand I would not expect to take 10 tricks. I much prefer pass. If P holds the balance of power he will probably X, then I have another problem..bid or pass?...likely pass. I simply don't understand how the available information leads you to conclude that 10 tricks should be expected.

Care to explain why you expect to make?

So in your system, holding KJ Qxxx x AQJxxx or KJx Qxxx xxx AQJ 1♣ P 1♦ 1♠ X>> showing 4 ♥ Walsh allows a rebid of 2♣ and 1NT since I know P has less than 4♥.

Mostly,1 or 2 players "quit" and the results are not posted until time runs out. I would prefer if the inactive players were just booted after say 5 minutes away from the computer.

Many references are made to sims. I take this to mean that a computer program exists that can compile statistical information based on input "constraints" as applied to bridge. Presumably, data related to distribution, hcp, is fed in and out pops the results. I would appreciate more info on this topic. Ease of use?, cost?, how might the results be applied? etc. Tx.

I think there is considerable advantage playing Walsh. As responder with less than GF values lets say 6 to 12 points. Kx Axxx Qxxx(x) xx(x) Over 1♣ you bid a 4 card M (♥) regardless of your ♦ length, this immediately locates a Major suit fit if one exists. On my example consider what might happen if you respond 1♦. Lefty now sticks in a 1♠ overcall!, its not too difficult to see that your side may never discover your 8 card ♥ fit. Now, respond 1♥ and lefty makes the same 1♠ overcall, partner can show 4card support or X to show 3. Kx Ax Qxxxx xxxx Another plus for walsh is when the auction starts: 1♣>>1♦ Opener assumes you have no 4 card M and will rebid 1NT with all balanced hands even with 1 or 2 4card M QTxx KJxx Kx AJT However, with an unbalanced type QTxx KJx x AKxxx 1♣>>1♦ 1♠ Opener knows you have less than 4 ♠, so this sequence will always announce the unbalanced nature of his hand. No such assertion can be made if you bid up the line. Responder will not know whether you have 3,4,5,or more ♣ on an auction that starts 1♣>>1♦ 1♠. FWIW, I play Walsh with my most serious partner's and bid up the line with a couple of others. IMO Walsh is far more effective.

I guess forums allow opportunity to "correct" my first post without the director being called. I must admit the hand is not GF so a simple jump raise to 3♥

Playing Walsh over a 1♣ opening bid. When holding less than GF strength you bypass longer ♦ suit to bid 1M. With GF values AND longer ♦ you respond 1♦ and make the natural reverse bid of 2M. I would treat this hand as GF, unless you open rubbish 11 counts. 12 op 12 plays quite well in 3NT and if you have 4 ♥ we'll get to game there.

Consider biding again...no way ever.

Playing 2/1 1. I play this to show a somewhat minimum opening with no useful values (controls) in the unbids. 2. 3 card support, minimum values and likely nuthin much in the reds. 3. This sequence doesn't exist for me. Seems like an anti-system bid.

I must hold my ♥ and ♠ losers to 1 each. I'm playing for ♠ to be 2/2 or 3/1 stiff honor, and then guess ♥ correctly. Win the ♣, play the K♦ and follow with A♠ and a ♠ ASAP. If I have to make an early decision in ♥ I play the op who does not have the A♦ for ♥A.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj2hj32dak32caj92&w=s3hk7654dj4ct8543&n=sat54ht98d9876cq7&e=skq9876haqdqt5ck6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sdp2d2s3dppp]399|300[/hv] On a ♠ lead. You win pull 2 rounds of trumps and exit a ♠. East can do no better than cash a ♦, 2 ♥ and out a ♠, pitching you losing ♥. Now you hook ♣ and eventually ruff the last ♠. I think this sets up a ♥/♣ squeeze on West. Perhaps others will confirm.

I think you could say similar for most subject matter that is debated openly by the well informed and the less so. As you suggest I participate with a view to improvement and better understanding on topics of particular interest me. I'm no expert, but I think there are enough expert opinions expressed in this forum that it remains a helpful tool in my development as a player. Only thing I don't like is the cheap shots and rude comments that show up from time to time.

No intent to suggest it was strange. I actually think it has genuine merit.

Interesting solution. Now we have a cuebid to show no real support and no stopper. Would that be an "inverted cue".

Yes it is close. I bid 2NT mainly because it seems quite natural to do so. Partner will have another shot to describe his hand and we should be fairly well placed to decide btw 4♥ and 3NT. I think partner will be more constrained if I X, he may well pass thinking I have ♠ tricks and short ♥. The downside is obvious though, 2♠ goes down and nuthin makes.

Oops. 2NT