Is walsh still walsh or is it standard

[luke warm]

i guess i've been playing the walsh style so long that an auction such as

 

1c (p) 1d/h (p) 1nt

 

where opener holds one or both majors is standard for me... with a pickup, it might not occur to me to bid up the line.. as far as responder bypassing diamonds with a weakish hand, i see no downside to that... after 1z by opener just bid 2c and pass opener's 2d rebid

[mike777]

i guess i've been playing the walsh style so long that an auction such as

 

1c (p) 1d/h (p) 1nt

 

where opener holds one or both majors is standard for me... with a pickup, it might not occur to me to bid up the line.. as far as responder bypassing diamonds with a weakish hand, i see no downside to that... after 1z by opener just bid 2c and pass opener's 2d rebid

 

If you are playing with a p/u I bet this auction is undiscussed.

 

Well keep in mind many play showing 3 card major is a priority over auto puppet to 2d over 2c. This leaves you playing in 4-3 major fit at 2 or 3 level playing this style with some weak hands.

 

1c=1h

1s/1nt=2c

2h or 3h now with a minimum or maximim in some styles.

[benlessard]

The biggest upside of walsh is that

 

1c--1d--1h--

suggest an unbalanced hand with 5clubs+4H or 4414

 

 

not playing walsh how would you respond holding

 

 

jxx

xx

aqxxx

xxx

 

 

bidding 1nt with ♠jxx when its the unbid suit seems poor.

 

rebidding 2♦ is nonsense.

 

supporting in 2♣... seems like the least of evil until partner hand is

 

 

xxxx

AQxx

xx

AKx

 

and you play a super great contract of 2c in a 3-3 fit.

 

 

A good and easy read on the subject is Better bidding with Bergen uncontested auction. one of the early chapter is about Walsh over 1♣.

 

 

 

Ben

[Fluffy]

I think walsh is included in french standard, and I would consider any expert to play it on 2/1.

[joker_gib]

I am very much opposed to up the line bidding, but I would bid up the line if playing with an unknown partner with who I have had no discussion. If playing in any of my established partnerships, I rebid 1N with both.

Ditto

[joker_gib]

I think walsh is included in french standard

I don't think so but I can be wrong

 

Alain

[Badmonster]

The confusing thing is what I see at the table, or at least, what I -think- I see, which is this: Most people will bypass 1d. But when responder does bid 1d most openers do not bypass a 4cm with a balanced hand.

 

This is what I think it is the norm. Is it? And what on earth is it called?

[joshs]

The confusing thing is what I see at the table, or at least, what I -think- I see, which is this: Most people will bypass 1d. But when responder does bid 1d most openers do not bypass a 4cm with a balanced hand.

 

This is what I think it is the norm. Is it? And what on earth is it called?

 

In Bridge World Standard, Washington Standard, and most flexible bidding systems, responders will bypass 1D a decent amount of the time, but bidding 1D doesn't carry the implication that they have no major. I call this treatment "standard". :P

 

Seriously, If you have xxx KQxx Jxxx xx, I think you should bid 1H over 1C no matter what method you play. I have nothing against diamonds, but there is not much point in bidding a weak 4 card diamond suit when you have a decent major to mention. If the opps bid spades you will be glad that you already bid hearts. Switch the red suits so you have xxx Jxxx KQxx xx. and now a 1D response is completely sensible. You prefer a diamond lead, and dont want to play a 4-3 heart fit. If hearts get lost in a competative auction you may survive anyway.

[luke warm]

The confusing thing is what I see at the table, or at least, what I -think- I see, which is this: Most people will bypass 1d. But when responder does bid 1d most openers do not bypass a 4cm with a balanced hand.

 

This is what I think it is the norm. Is it? And what on earth is it called?

i don't know what the norm is, but i don't understand opener bidding a major after responder bids 1D.. reponder either has no 4cM else will find it on the 2nd bid (if strong enough)... that's one of the points of walsh, for opener to hide a 4 card major (or both), knowing responder doesn't have or or has an 11+ hand and will bid again if he does have one

[mike777]

The confusing thing is what I see at the table, or at least, what I -think- I see, which is this: Most people will bypass 1d. But when responder does bid 1d most openers do not bypass a 4cm with a balanced hand.

 

This is what I think it is the norm. Is it? And what on earth is it called?

It just means they are not playing Walsh or do not know it.

Walsh has thought out follow up calls and definitions.

 

 

Many just play "I do not bid up the Line but have no follow up discussions or meanings to my calls"...:).

 

Think along the same lines as playing stayman or jacoby transfers but with no discussion on how you ace ask or show a strong second suit.

[Gerben42]

I respond 1♦ to 1♣ on 5♦ 4M but not on 4♦ 4M unless GF. Also with ♥KQxx ♦Jxxxx I will still respond 1♥ since I will count my ♦s as being just four cards.

 

No skipping of a major as opener. Maybe this is what you mean? This convention is called "common sense".

[luke warm]

common sense has a lot going for it...but so does walsh :D

[Gerben42]

but so does walsh

 

Oh dear... Let's clear out this myth. Walsh is only okay in two situations

 

1. You play a system in which 1♣ - 1♦ is some kind of catchall, like Polish Club. Notice that by taking out the Precision 2♣ hands you reduce possible problems later on. Even so, this "majors always first" style is one of the weaknesses of the Polish Club.

 

2. You play Transfer Walsh.

 

Otherwise, no thanks. By responding 1♥ on hands like x KJxx KJxxxx xx you play some kind of anti-bridge in my opinion.

[luke warm]

well i'm not dogmatic about it... i like walsh for (it seems) the reason(s) you dislike it... as responder, i prefer knowing that opener is unbalanced or balanced by his rebids... as opener i prefer knowing responder's relative strength/shape as soon as possible

 

for me, the hand in question is not a problem playing walsh... bid 1h and then 2c over 1nt... when opener bids 2d, raise to 3, showing an invitational hand with 4 hearts and 5+ diamonds (if you judge the hand to be worth it).. same if opener bids 1S

 

but like i said, i'm not arguing that one treatment is superior to another... i don't have the skill or experience... i'm only giving my preference and the reasons for it

[joshs]

but so does walsh

 

Oh dear... Let's clear out this myth. Walsh is only okay in two situations

 

1. You play a system in which 1♣ - 1♦ is some kind of catchall, like Polish Club. Notice that by taking out the Precision 2♣ hands you reduce possible problems later on. Even so, this "majors always first" style is one of the weaknesses of the Polish Club.

 

2. You play Transfer Walsh.

 

Otherwise, no thanks. By responding 1♥ on hands like x KJxx KJxxxx xx you play some kind of anti-bridge in my opinion.

Maybe, but I also think that opener rebidding 1H (after 1C-1D) on AQx Qxxx Qxx Axx is also anti bridge, but sure works well here over your 4-6 hand.

 

Keep in mind, the main benefit of the walsh style is that opener's rebid can describe his hand type (balanced, unbalanced) instead of having neither player describing their hand type. When you play walsh and start with 1H on the 4-6 hand you often can back into 2D later (playing good methods).

 

Weak 4-6's are always a problem. What do you do with KJxx x KJxxxx xx over a 1H opening bid? You respond 1S of course, and if that does not find a fit you just hope to find an adequite part score when partner rebids 2C....

 

The reason you bid 1S and not 1N or a weak 3D, is it gives you the best chance of getting to game. In the walsh sequence, there are additional benefits as well, since as I mentioned, it gives better definition to openers rebid.