[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-28, 10:59, said:

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.

You should discount an idea because it is obsolete and there is something better. Not bidding a suit because it doesn't have an ace or king is an idea that has not stood the test of time, if it ever was a good idea. If you don't bid that suit, you will probably have to severely distort showing your distribution. Another "old" idea was don't open 1NT with a small doubleton. Great if you don't have a small doubleton, but you will probably have rebid problems if you don't open 1NT. Making a strong jump shift just because you have a bunch of points and a long suit is another old idea. The folly of that idea can be seen in results of the OP.

[Lovera]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-28, 10:59, said:

I don't think we should discount an idea simply because it is old - I have played the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with no problems.

It is true what you say. The system is good (Stayman is the author of 1NT opening - at that time with 16-18 points - actually refined and bidded in many modern ways). I too had applyed for slam approach for unbalanced hands the Asking Bid by E. Culbertson surely a powerfull convention. Already in system Stayman claimed that in Blackwood was to consider the King of trump as " fifth controll of first round" (the other direct method was Gerber but i used 4 ♣ of the italian Walter Avarelli instead - a good convention perhaps few known). The "old" good ideas don't have to forget because, if not more applyed, can be expression and source to intend as base for new conventions.

[sfi]

Lovera, on 2016-December-29, 01:50, said:

The system is good

It really isn't, and that is the essence of your problem. I don't say this lightly because I think most systems are reasonable, but forcing a 3H bid on this hand is simply bad. Bidding has moved on since Stayman wrote about it in the 1940's, and no good pair would give up all that bidding space on hands with slam interest.

For that matter, almost no bad pair would give up the bidding space either. You really are by yourself when you choose 3H, and predictably you got into trouble for exactly the reasons you might expect.

[nullve]

Lovera, on 2016-December-29, 01:50, said:

i used 4 ♣ of the italian Walter Avarelli instead - a good convention perhaps few known

http://www.infobridg...ni_Avarelli.htm

"This convention is extremely useful when the asking partner holds a void. In its original form it was used in well-defined and precise bidding situations as established by the bidding system."

[Vampyr]

Ah, right, is this called Roman Gerber?

[Lovera]

sfi, on 2016-December-29, 04:26, said:

It really isn't, and that is the essence of your problem. I don't say this lightly because I think most systems are reasonable, but forcing a 3H bid on this hand is simply bad. Bidding has moved on since Stayman wrote about it in the 1940's, and no good pair would give up all that bidding space on hands with slam interest.

For that matter, almost no bad pair would give up the bidding space either. You really are by yourself when you choose 3H, and predictably you got into trouble for exactly the reasons you might expect.

I have told that partner had to bid 1♣ but i had anyhow to jump in 2♥ because it needs to show 19/+ points and shape/suits as indicated. This bidding sure 11 (or worst 10) tricks with partner hand.

[Vampyr]

Lovera, on 2016-December-29, 13:17, said:

I have told that partner had to bid 1♣ but i had anyhow to jump in 2♥ because it needs to show 19/+ points and shape/suits as indicated. This bidding sure 11 (or worst 10) tricks with partner hand.

It is very old fashioned to open 1♣ with 5-5 in the blacks. These days the opponents are right in there, and it is easy to lose the spade suit. Partner's 1♠ was correct.

What you fail to understand is that you don't need to show 19+ points (or however many you had). Show 10+ and take it from there.

If partner had opened a minor, you could still have responded 1♥. Bid even if you felt you had to bid 2♥ you would not be at the three level. But you will find that minor-to-major jump shifts are much more commonly played as weak, since the bidding space is better used to obstruct the opponents' bidding, as well as providing a very clear picture of your hand to partner, who will be well placed to know what to do i the later auction.but SJS are OK if you play them as showing fairly specific hands, as above.

A general rule is that if you have a forcing bid available, you don't need a "more forcing" bid to show the same hand-type.

[Lovera]

nullve, on 2016-December-29, 06:52, said:

http://www.infobridg...ni_Avarelli.htm

"This convention is extremely useful when the asking partner holds a void. In its original form it was used in well-defined and precise bidding situations as established by the bidding system."

Although for King request i had (and used) other (more economic) answers (perhaps it is not correctly reported).

[johnu]

Lovera, on 2016-December-27, 01:32, said:

So, with a little thinking if raise spade or not preferring my suit, i bidded 5♥ and all passed. On opening lead of ♠ 8 i saw dummy with 5 spade to AK10, 5 club to KQ and xxx in diamond. Partner had 5 spade and 5 club and this case is an exception to rule having to bid 1♣ and with my 2♥ follow with spade (probably ending in 3 NT) as another pair did. In despite of all 5♥ there were (you can see that till 7th trick all is ok..but after yet (but i played it incorrectly). The four hands: http://tinyurl.com/h5f8zrd

Why didn't West ruff the 3rd club with a small trump?

[Lovera]

johnu, on 2016-December-29, 13:43, said:

Why didn't West ruff the 3rd club with a small trump?

Infact, -0.67 instead -2.20. Split all suits bad.

[Lovera]

nullve, on 2016-December-29, 06:52, said:

http://www.infobridg...ni_Avarelli.htm

"This convention is extremely useful when the asking partner holds a void. In its original form it was used in well-defined and precise bidding situations as established by the bidding system."

I have saw just now. Thanks, is an URL rich for informations and fine to watch.