Whats the point of walsh ?

[Flame]

Its nice to play conventions but whats the point of bidding 1M with 4M and 5♦.

I dont find the point and only suffer from rebid problems with 5D4M 10-11 while i have plenty of space if i begin with 1D instad of 1M.

Im thinking of chaning to

bid 1M with 4-4 M diamond unless GF

bid 1M with 4M 5D unless 10 hcp

this mean with 10-11 and 4M i will bid 1M if i have 4 diamonds but 1D if i have 5 diamonds.

The rebids will be eaiser. we play 2 way checkbacks so

1C-1D-1NT

2M will show 4-4 GF

with 10-11 5D 4M we'll bid 2C and then 2M

with 5D4M GF we'll bid 2D GF checkback

what do you think ?

[Finch]

This is what I play*, so you won't get any arguments from me.

 

*as responder's first bid, that is

[MickyB]

Yup, a definite improvement. Might even be worth responding 1D on 4-4 and invitational values.

[temp3600]

Possible problematic sequences :

 

1♣    (pass) 1♦  (1♠)

pass   (3♠)    ?

 

1♣    (pass) 1♦  (4♥)

pass (pass)  ?

[Finch]

If I have four cards in the other major, 5 diamonds and 10+ HCP I double both of these auctions for take-out. I actually feel happier than if I'd responded 1M, because I've managed to bid my longest suit before the auction got competitive.

[mike777]

Its nice to play conventions but whats the point of bidding 1M with 4M and 5♦.

I dont find the point and only suffer from rebid problems with 5D4M 10-11 while i have plenty of space if i begin with 1D instad of 1M.

Im thinking of chaning to

bid 1M with 4-4 M diamond unless GF

bid 1M with 4M 5D unless 10 hcp

this mean with 10-11 and 4M i will bid 1M if i have 4 diamonds but 1D if i have 5 diamonds.

The rebids will be eaiser. we play 2 way checkbacks so

1C-1D-1NT

2M will show 4-4 GF

with 10-11 5D 4M we'll bid 2C and then 2M

with 5D4M GF we'll bid 2D GF checkback

what do you think ?

With 10-11 hcp and 5D and 4Major, just bid your major and pass 1nt wtp? Partner could not rebid 2clubs and choose to not give you a 3 card support raise. Keep in mind partner will open 1nt very often with 2=4=2=5 shape and 14-16 hcp. So we expect 1nt to be 11-13 very often.

 

With Walsh you may get an advantage of hidden suit.

[mikeh]

If you open 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors (an approach some excellent players endorse) then your suggestion is probably preferable to walsh. However, if (like me and many others) you open 1♦ with 4=4, then walsh is an excellent structure for several reasons.

 

The true benefit of walsh is within the context of an integrated system. For example, playing walsh, opener bypasses a major to rebid 1N with all balanced hands of appropriate shape.

 

This has enormous advantages, both when responder passes or when responder raises.

 

The defenders (and opening leader in particular) have no immediate clue to opener's shape. I have had many, many hands on which the lead has been into my 4 card major: giving me a tempo and a trick.

 

If responder passes 1N, 4th chair has a much more dangerous balance decision, becaue I could be sitting there with 4 useful cards in his major.

 

This type of advantage is often overlooked when just considering walsh, but it is very powerful.

 

Walsh players can get back to the long ♦ fit after opener's common 1N rebid over a major response. (I play that opener rebids 1N over 1♥ with a 4 card ♠ suit and the appropriate balanced strength,,, once in a while you play 1N rather than 2♠... on the whole these missed ♠ fit hands represent a net loss, but the gains when responder lacks ♠ offset that, while we can always find the fit if responder has gf or invitational values). After 1♣ 1M 1N 2♣ puppets to 2♦: and, let's face it, with most 5422 or even 5432 hands, responder would prefer to play 1N rather than 2♦.

 

Walsh gains as well, should 4th chair intervene: After 1♣ (P) 1♦, 4th chair may have an easy 1♥. Had responder bid 1♠, 4th chair may be unable (or ill-advised) to bid 2♥. And, of course, the immediate major response may allow the partnership to find their fit before 4th chair can preempt them out of it (1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) ?)

 

I would not like walsh if not playing 2♣ puppet to 2♦ over 1N rebids and 2♦ gf over 1N rebids (often referred to, confusingly, as two way new minor), but if using that approach, walsh is a very good, well-integrated method.

 

Consider another, lesser advantage: if responder has less than gf values, and opener a good hand, responder may become declarer in a 4=4 major game, with a hidden longer ♦ side suit. Once again, defence becomes tougher than when declarer has bid out his pattern.

 

And ♦ (when responder lacks gf values) is a suit that is rarely costly to lose. I really do not understand the concern with 10-11 4M 5♦ hands. Are you ever proposing to play in ♦ (unless you open 1♣ with 4=4)? There will be hands on which the answer is yes (say, opener is 2=2=4=5), but on a practical level, such are so infrequent that you can have all of my such hands for the price of a used subway token.

[mike777]

Ditto.

 

I only add that with many 2=2=4=5 hands one will open 1nt again with 14-16 or open 1d planning on rebidding 2clubs or simply rebid 2clubs over one of a major response all depending on Hcp location.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't play walsh either but Mikeh's arguments are definitely the plusses of it.

[Kalvan14]

I play Walsh, w/o checkback. Obviously, I open 1♦ everytime I have 4/+ cards (including 4♣-4♦ and 5♣-4 ♦).

The advantage are pre-emption (the classic 1♣-1♠), and making balancing more difficult after 1♣-1♦-1N.

 

Frankly, I do not remember unduly suffering caused by the loss of the ♦suit

[Fluffy]

Advantages are 3:

 

Play 1NT/3NT on the right hand.

 

Find the major suit fit quick.

 

Find responder's unbalanced shape at the 1 level.

[Winstonm]

MikeH's answers are elegant and I cannot hope to duplicate either his knowledge, experience, or skill level - but I too use walsh and have found it to be of use.

 

I use a simplistic approach - first encouraged by Marty Bergen I believe - in that in any 1 over 1 over 1 auction that 2C is the only 4th bid that is forcing and is used on invitional or stronger hands. This means that all other bids are natural and canape' like. For example, 1C-1H-1N-3D is natural and invitational, wheras 2D would be natural and weak. Other sequences are up to the partnership to determine - I would think that 1C-1H-1S-2D would be invitational strength as it is bid without a known or likely fit. Weak hands can pass or bid 1N.

 

No system is perfect, but Walsh sure does solve opener's rebid problems.

 

KJ9x, AJ9x, xx, KJx. 1C-1D-1N....what's the problem?

 

Winston

[MickyB]

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

[Winstonm]

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his  hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

I think you are right. Misunderstood.

 

For me, I don't see the problem with 1C-1S-1N-2D as natural and invitational and 1C-1S-1N-3D as weak 4/6. With other hands it's usualy right to pass 1N. Obviously I'm not a fan of so-called 2-way checkback.

 

For GF 44 majors: In our methods partner will rebid 1S with 4 over 1H so it is not a problem - we sacrifice the unbalanced meaing of this bid to reduce the artificiality that is needed when bidding 1N over 1H with 4S and a balanced hand.

 

Winston.

[Kalvan14]

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

I did not misunderstan Flame's question.

I just feel that the pre-emptive value of Walsh should not be discarded even for invitational hands.

This said, it is not a sin to bid up the line, nor going the other way around and anticipate 1M with a GF hand (MAFIA). It's a matter of partnership style.

[Chamaco]

If you open 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors (an approach some excellent players endorse) then your suggestion is probably preferable to walsh. However, if (like me and many others) you open 1♦ with 4=4, then walsh is an excellent structure for several reasons.

 

The true benefit of walsh is within the context of an integrated system. For example, playing walsh, opener bypasses a major to rebid 1N with all balanced hands of appropriate shape.

Ditto.

 

Playing Walsh, opener can safely rebid 1NT, hiding a possible other major.

1NT gets to played from the right side, responder can better evaluate the potential of the hand, opps often don't know opener's distribution, etc etc.

[Flame]

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.

But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.

I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.

I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.

also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

[Chamaco]

Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid,

 

That's similar to the way I used to play Walsh, except that I'd bid diamonds only with a genuine GF, and not with an invitational-only hand :-)

 

 

But I certainly won't argue the statement that T-walsh is more efficient :-)

[Al_U_Card]

Another "advantage" about not bidding 1 ♦ up-the-line is that when you do, the ambiguity of your possible holding is reduced. Pard knows that you either have a GF type hand or that you have bid ♦ despite the knowledge that he may not have any......

[mike777]

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.

But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.

I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.

I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.

also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

I think your last sentence says it all. You believe after partner opens one club there are many hands that belong in 3NT when responder has 9-11 hcp and D. I do not! I think there are very very few hands.

 

If in your style you end up frequently in 3nt with that responder hand, Walsh may not be for you.

 

For me if partner opens 1club and I have 9-11 hcp this will be a part score battle or on rare occasions partner will have a big hand and getting to 3nt is not a problem. Why? Because partner will seldom have 14-19 HCP and a balanced hand and often not a semi-balanced hand. As MikeH said it depends on your intergrated system.

[Flame]

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.

But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.

I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.

I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.

also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

I think your last sentence says it all. You believe after partner opens one club there are many hands that belong in 3NT when responder has 9-11 hcp and D. I do not! I think there are very very few hands.

 

If in your style you end up frequently in 3nt with that responder hand, Walsh may not be for you.

 

For me if partner opens 1club and I have 9-11 hcp this will be a part score battle or on rare occasions partner will have a big hand and getting to 3nt is not a problem. Why? Because partner will seldom have 14-19 HCP and a balanced hand and often not a semi-balanced hand. As MikeH said it depends on your intergrated system.

This is something i wanted to tell you many time,adjust, adjust yorself.

Syac and 2/1 opening defined as 12+ hcp your opening is 9 or something, thats ok but you should always adjust, this mean if i say 9-11 u should read it as 11-13 or something like that.

Dont lose the point because of this non sense range.

[Finch]

Mikeh made a lot of good points, but I would like to give the other side for some of them.

 

For example, playing walsh, opener bypasses a major to rebid 1N with all balanced hands of appropriate shape.  This has enormous advantages, both when responder passes or when responder raises.

 

This is a slight red herring. The style being advocated is not pure up-the-line, but to respond 1D with 5D+4M and a hand that will move over partner's 1NT rebid. So the discussion about the defence to 1NT is irrelevant.

 

The integrated system point raises its head here: if you raise a 1M response to 2M on weak NT (ish) hands with 3-card support (with an outside low doubleton) then you also give information away bidding 1m-1M-2M-3NT (or enquiry-3NT).

 

Similarly, you may do better as responder showing your 4-card major after 1C-1D-1NT rather than using some form of checkback/NMF so that opener's distribution remains concealed.

 

Walsh gains as well, should 4th chair intervene: After 1♣ (P) 1♦, 4th chair may have an easy 1♥. Had responder bid 1♠, 4th chair may be unable (or ill-advised) to bid 2♥.

True. This is an advantage of responding 1M.

In fact, it's also an argument for opening 1M with a 4-card major, a 5-card minor and a minimum hand.... we've just re-invented the Soloway/Hamman opening bid style!

 

Consider another, lesser advantage: if responder has less than gf values, and opener a good hand, responder may become declarer in a 4=4 major game, with a hidden longer ♦ side suit. Once again, defence becomes tougher than when declarer has bid out his pattern.

 

True. But against that, if opener has a unbalanced good hand, slam bidding is much better if responder can describe his shape. 6M should be easier to bid when opener knows responder has 5 diamonds, 4 of the fitted major and 10+ points early in the auction, than when responder has bid 1M on the first round and could have virtually any shape.

 

On the rare occasions when opener has a strong hand with 3 diamonds, or a diamond reverse, you are probably going to miss your diamond slam.

 

And ♦ (when responder lacks gf values) is a suit that is rarely costly to lose.

 

True in an uncontested auction. Not true when the opponents start bidding.

As I think I mentioned before, if the auction starts

 

1C - P - 1x - 1S

P - 3S - ?

 

and I have a 1453 distribution, I'm considerably happier if I resonded 1D than if I responded 1H because when I double I have already bid my longest suit, and partner isn't going to be guessing.

 

To summarise: every time you quote an advantage from concealing your distribution from the defence, there is a corresponding disadvantage in your constructive bidding. This is the 'do you open 1NT with a 5CM/5422/5431' discussion in different clothes.

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances: I was not attempting to pesuade anyone that the walsh style is cost-free, nor that it is necessarily the 'best' method. The original poster expressed the view that he or she simply did not understand what benefits flowed from walsh at all, and I was addressing that issue.

 

What counts is that your method, whatever it may be, is an integrated whole: not merely a collection of conventions or agreements adopted with insufficent regard for how they interact.

 

I also agree that perhaps the real original complaint related only to the bypass of 1♦ with 4M 5♦, invitational values. In that specific case, I can readily see using the approach that one bids 1♦ and then shows the major and invitational values over 1N.

 

However, and a point I did not make earlier: what if partner does not rebid 1N?

 

1♣ 1♦ 2♣:

 

what does responder bid with no ♠ stopper and, say, 2=4=5=2?

 

One can use 2♥ as only a one round force, but I prefer the effect of using such a reverse (into a major) as a full gf. Thus, this is a problem auction for me if responder could be 4=5 in the reds with invitational values. I would need to adjust this auction if I were to abandon my style of walsh.

 

I do not have the same problem after 1♣ 1M 2♣, because (and I appreciate that this is 'kludge' or system tweak) I use 2♦ here as a 1 round artificial force.

 

I also like 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ as full gf (with or without ♠), and I would need to adjust this if responder could be 4=5 with invitational values.

 

My reference to this is not an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of walsh, as I play it, but to further illustrate the importance of anticipating how auctions may develop, and the problems that your approach may create or solve. There are, obviously, other approaches: using a reverse by responder as merely a 1 round force is one such, but then, you need to tinker with your true gf sequences.

[mike777]

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.

But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.

I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.

I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.

also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

I think your last sentence says it all. You believe after partner opens one club there are many hands that belong in 3NT when responder has 9-11 hcp and D. I do not! I think there are very very few hands.

 

If in your style you end up frequently in 3nt with that responder hand, Walsh may not be for you.

 

For me if partner opens 1club and I have 9-11 hcp this will be a part score battle or on rare occasions partner will have a big hand and getting to 3nt is not a problem. Why? Because partner will seldom have 14-19 HCP and a balanced hand and often not a semi-balanced hand. As MikeH said it depends on your intergrated system.

This is something i wanted to tell you many time,adjust, adjust yorself.

Syac and 2/1 opening defined as 12+ hcp your opening is 9 or something, thats ok but you should always adjust, this mean if i say 9-11 u should read it as 11-13 or something like that.

Dont lose the point because of this non sense range.

OK but as I said I did adjust, with 11-13 hcp, XYZ or 2 way checkback kicks in? As I have said before the problem hand is long minor and invite hands. You must choose to live with this problem. Most of the time, bid XYZ or 2NT or the opp bid 60% of the time and you just bid natural.

 

Again what is the problem you are trying to solve by bidding 1D with these hands?

Walsh g/f is far from perfect but I really think the problem hands are rare.

 

I think everyone knows by now the most common problem hand with walsh g/f and forcing nt is the long minor and invite hand. Live with it or do not play Walsh.

[Flame]

mike777 as you say the problem hand is invite with long diamond, and i asked the forum what you think of bidding 1D with that hand.

Got some good replys and i thanks everyone.