T-Walsh

[pclayton]

I like the way a lot of the sequences flow in Transfer Walsh.

 

Can someone provide a link to a comprehensive summary of the system?

 

Thanks.

[Sigi_BC84]

http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/twalsh.html

[Echognome]

I will let Mike plug his use in Siege.

 

I used to play transfers after our nebulous club in our strong diamond system. To me this was a big improvement over the precision 1♦. Since we could have either a natural club, a natural diamond, or a balanced hand in our opening, our needs were slightly different.

 

But, let's consider a standard natural system. I would say that a 1♣ opening is going to be one of 3 hand types: a weak NT, a really strong NT, or a natural unbalanced club opening. (if playing weak NT, then there will be different NT ranges)

 

After looking over many hands, I preferred the following structure after 1♣ and a 1♦ or 1♥ bid.

 

Completing the transfer was done on any weak NT or natural club opening without 4 card support.

 

1♠ over 1♦ showed 4 spades and 5 clubs unbalanced.

 

1NT over 1♦ or 1♥ showed the big balanced hand without 4 card support.

 

2♣ is a super-reject, showing a good club suit and 0-1 cards in the transfer suit.

 

2♦ is a natural reverse.

 

2 of the transfer suit shows a super-accept with a weak NT.

 

2NT shows a super-accept with the big balanced hand.

 

3♣ is a fit jump showing 5 clubs and 4 card support.

 

There are more agreements to be had, but I will start with those suggestions.

[MickyB]

Matt, how dare you assume that I would take this as an opportunity to plug Siege :ph34r:

 

I've played (at least) 3 different meanings for completing the transfer, and my preference is for it to show a minimum, either balanced/5422 with 2-3 card support, or unbalanced with 3 card support. I think the only differences between my rebids and Matt's is that I will rebid 2C with 6 clubs and 2 cards in partner's suit, and my completion of the transfer is more limited.

 

After 1♣:1♦, 1♥ -

 

Pass = 5♥332

1♠ = enquiry, are you the bal or unbal hand type?

-----1N = bal

----------Normal checkback structure applies, with 2♥ showing 5♥4♠ NF

-----2♣ = unbal with 3♥

----------2♦ enquiry

1N = 4-4 majors, NF

2♣ = 5♥4-5♣, NF

2♦ = 5♥4-5♦, NF

2♥ = 5+♥, usually 6. Prepared to hear a raise from a max hand with 3 card support (especially if unbal).

 

After 1♣:1♥, 1♠ -

 

Pass = 5♠, not suitable for a 2♠ bid

1N = to play opposite balanced hand, unbalanced hand will pull to 2♣

2♠ = 5+♠, prepared to hear a raise from a max hand with 3 card support (especially if unbal)

Others = normal structure over a 1NT rebid

 

Siege opens 1♣ on all balanced hands. This allows you to put hands with 4♦5♣ into the 1♦ opening, which makes 1♣:1♦, 2♣ promise 6 cards and the only "problem shape" after 1♣:1♥ is 1=4=3=5. You can show both suits on nearly all unbalanced hands and have 1♣:1red, 2♦ free for artificial purposes - I use it as a good/bad raise, which means we can distinguish between balanced and unbalanced raises and stay at a low level opposite what could be a very light responding hand. Click the link below for more.

[joshs]

I like the way a lot of the sequences flow in Transfer Walsh.

 

Can someone provide a link to a comprehensive summary of the system?

 

Thanks.

There are lots of versions of x-fer walsh. Marc Umeno and my system (Supernatural) has one treatment (available at Dan Neill's web site, I think).

There are lots of possibilities for what hands go into the complete the x-fer bid...

[Syl20]

1♠ = enquiry, are you the bal or unbal hand type?

-----1N = bal

----------Normal checkback structure applies, with 2♥ showing 5♥4♠ NF

-----2♣ = unbal with 3♥

----------2♦ enquiry

Hi,

What continuations do you use after the beginning of auction:

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠

2♣-2♦ ?

Thanks

[MickyB]

Don't know, haven't actually worked this bit out yet ;)

 

Can't be too hard though - natural continuations, with 2♠ and 2♥ showing minima with and without 4 spades, 3♦ a 4306, others natural and GF would work.

[han]

A somewhat related question: is T-Walsh legal in ACBL land at the different levels? What about other countries?

 

I also like T-Walsh, and I think that it works well in conjunction with 14-16 NT. I hate to rebid 2NT with a balanced 17-count. With Arend I open 1C with all 17-19 balanced hands (without a 5-card major), but open better minor with a minimal balanced hand.

 

At first glance this looks far inferior to what MickyB/Siege does. I believe he never opens 1D with a balanced hand, which has obvious advantages. At first it looks like we lose a lot: our 1D opening can be made with 3 and our 1C opening can be made with 2. However, we only open 1C with 2 when we have 17+ pts, and we open it with 3 far less often then Mike does. A consequence is that we can safely raise clubs with 4 in many situation, for instance after 1C-(2H), having Kxx xx Qxxx Kxxx. In this situation we lose little w.r.t. standard bidding: either partner will try for or bid game, or partner would have opened 1C in standard too.

 

Playing Siege, you would be very uncomfortable bidding 3C. Not only will partner have 2 or 3 clubs far more often, your best spot is fairly likely 3D. It would be interesting to hear what kind of agreements he has to deal with this issue.

[glen]

T-Walsh is ACBL legal at Mid-Chart+, and with clubs that permit it. This is reasonable given the bulk of ACBL membership is out of their comfort zone on most artificial bidding, even when the bids show a suit by proxy.

 

In my opinion, having 11-13 and 17-19 balanced and natural ♣s into 1♣ overloads the opening, whether or not the balanced hand types promise 3+♣s or not. This overloading can be handled by the response structure if there is no interference, but is flawed when the opponents get into the auction.

 

One resolution (of many alternatives) is to concentrate most of the 11-13 in one of the minor openings, and most of the 17-19 in another. For example:

 

1♣: 11-13 Bal with 4/5♣s or 17-19 balanced without a five card suit except possibly ♣s, or natural ♣s unbalanced.

1♦: 11-13 Bal with 3+♦s or 4=4=2=3 exactly, or 17-19 Bal with 5♦s, or natural ♦s unbalanced.

 

Over 1♣, 1♦=4+♥s, 1♥=4+♠s, 1♠=4+♦s, 2♣=4+♣s and less than a game invite, 2♦=♣s and game invite or better, 2♥=5+♠s and 4+♥s less than game invite, 2♠=5♠s & 4♥s game invite. 1NT can be used to ask, often a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

 

Over 1♦, if opener jump rebids 2NT (17-19 with 5♦s), use 3X as transfer, so responder can transfer to ♦s or major to signoff.

 

In placing the balanced hand types, system designers have a considerable number of choices, and a partnership should strive to find what works for them.

[joshs]

Marc and I open natural minors with 11-13.

 

So the 1C opening is:

a. A normal Std American 1C opening (although maybe 1 point light)

or

b. 17-19 balanced without a 5 card major

 

The idea is that we are better placed in competative auctions this way, even if it gives a little less definition to the 1D opening.

 

This also frees up 1C-1red-2N and 1D-1M-2N to be a ART forcing call handlingling problematic hands with a 6 card minor (so we don't have to make fake JS's for instance).

[Echognome]

A somewhat related question: is T-Walsh legal in ACBL land at the different levels? What about other countries?

In the EBU it is currently allowed at level 3 which is closest to our GCC.

 

As of August, it will be even easier as the new law reads:

 

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4

 

11 D 8 Continuation

 

All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention.

 

An interesting change in the laws in my opinion and I think a welcome one.

[david_c]

In my opinion, having 11-13 and 17-19 balanced and natural ♣s into 1♣ overloads the opening, whether or not the balanced hand types promise 3+♣s or not.  This overloading can be handled by the response structure if there is no interference, but is flawed when the opponents get into the auction. 

Now that's an interesting comment.

 

I don't see the problem really. In my opinion the 11-13 balanced and 17-19 balanced hand types hardly interact at all - they are easily distinguished in both competitive and non-competitive auctions. So having them both in the same opening bid doesn't worry me.

 

On the other hand, the sort of thing which does overload an opening bid is:

 

(i) Including both weak balanced hands and weak unbalanced hands. (This makes it hard to find your fits, particularly part-score fits when opener doesn't have enough shape and/or strength to make another bid.)

 

(ii) Including both strong balanced and medium/strong unbalanced hands. (This makes opener's subsequent double poorly defined.)

 

Glen's suggestion doesn't solve either of these problems: the 1♦ opening has problem (i) and the 1♣ opening has problem (ii). Whereas a system like Siege has both problems with 1♣ and none with 1♦. Seems to me like a wash.

[MickyB]

That makes a lot of sense, David. In the same way that having strong bal and strong unbal hands in the same bid overloads a double in competitive auctions, having weak bal and weak unbal hands in the same bid overloads a pass.

 

Btw, I think Siege sometimes gets around the problems of an ill-defined double - by never opening 1♣ with a minor 2 suiter, some doubles obviously cannot be pure takeout, hence are just defined as "values" - usually balanced.