help wanted

[Winstonm]

Your argument about having to work out whether 1or 2♠ is 4SF is a true straw man argument. You are arguing that we have to use an inferior method (2♠) and that that renders your poor sequence more attractive. I prefer to use an integrated method that builds on the walsh principles and thus I get to use 2♥ as non-forcing, showing (usually) 3 chunky ♥, no ♠ stop, a ruffing value (usually in ♣) and a non-rebiddable ♦ suit.... and I get to play 2♥ when it is correct and to position notrump appropriately. Where is the flaw?

 

1C-1D-1H-1S

 

Opener: KQxx, AJxx, x, KQ10x.

 

2S-3S Game force showing real spades at the 3 level I assume?

 

However, if 1S instead is natural and game force:

 

Opener's options (others exist with agreement): 2S minimum suitable for slam, 3S (max, good trump), 4D (max, splinter). 4S mini unsuitable for slam.

 

The other case:

1C-1D-1H-2H: 3-card support and non-forcing. Allows 1N to show spade stop.

Guess you have to bid 1S with: xxx, KQ, Jxxxx, Kxx or rebid that dandy diamond suit?

Isn't it simpler to just bid 1N?

 

The other I think is troublesome here:

1C-1D-1H-1S

2S-3H (Are we cuebidding for spades or playing hearts?)

 

 

 

When 1C-1D-1H-2H if played as forcing saves a level and trumps are fixed - plus you can now use 3H and 4H to differentiate hand types.

 

Also, when you know 1S is natural opener has an easier bid with:

KQx, AJxx, x, KJxxx. Opener can raise to 2S. Overall, I think it makes more sense to allow opener to bid 2S on this hand than to worry about whether a 9-count has a spade stop for a 1N bid. And it really gets impractical to waste this whole useage on such a rare hand: you can pass 1H if real weak, so now the only hand 2H shows is in the range of 8-10 with 3 hearts and no spade stop - not to mention you now have to untangle for game tries if the raise is really 3 or is it 4?

 

A lot of work for little return it seems.

 

I do not see enough advantage for the 2H non-forcing approach to incorporate an artificial sequence when one is not necessary.

[starfruit]

1 problem that when I'm playing walsh is this sequence :

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♠) - ?

 

What should X show?

1)The other major

2)Support double for ♦

3)Extra values, can't bid NT

 

The first time it came out, I tried X intending it to be support X since if partner does have 4♥ he'll clarify later. Well maybe I'm too optimistic since LHO gets in with 3♠ and after partner shows his 4♥ the last place for a positive score, 3NT, is out of sight. ;) (he do have a ♠ stop, but he thought I'm showing ♥s)

Since then I've been playing X as showing the other major but I'm not sure what is best.

[Walddk]

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

 

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

 

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

 

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

 

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

 

Roland

[mike777]

1 problem that when I'm playing walsh is this sequence :

 

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♠) - ?

 

What should X show?

1)The other major

2)Support double for ♦

3)Extra values, can't bid NT

 

The first time it came out, I tried X intending it to be support X since if partner does have 4♥ he'll clarify later. Well maybe I'm too optimistic since LHO gets in with 3♠ and after partner shows his 4♥ the last place for a positive score, 3NT, is out of sight. ;)  (he do have a ♠ stop, but he thought I'm showing ♥s)

Since then I've been playing X as showing the other major but I'm not sure what is best.

As usual it is best to discuss this in terms of your whole system.

I play x here as support x...promising 3D.

[mike777]

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

 

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

 

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

 

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

 

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

 

Roland

Not sure if Walsh will ever catch on in Europe but he has lived in Europe for decades. ;)

 

If Europe opens 44 with one club than I can guess they will not open 1d with 4d5c :)

 

It may be helpful to say what the logic is for one style over another rather than say one is simply better than the other because a great player says so. :)

 

I can say I play Walsh because it is the style I learned when I came back to bridge and I feel comfortable with it and the logic. I do not make any claims it is better in theory compared to bidding up the line.

 

I open 1d with 44 or 45 hands almost always, in a Walsh context. I know many forum posters disagree strongly but I have not seen a convincing argument to change or favor another style.

[Walddk]

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

 

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

 

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

 

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

 

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

 

Roland

Not sure if Walsh will ever catch on in Europe but he has lived in Europe for decades. ;)

 

If Europe opens 44 with one club than I can guess they will not open 1d with 4d5c :)

I don't understand your point regarding Garozzo. Yes, he lived in Europe for decades, but he has been living in Florida for a long time now, and he is still not a subscriber to the Walsh principle.

 

You are right about 4-5 in the minors. Europeans who play a natural system do not open 1♦ with longer clubs, and I suspect that the majority of Americans don't either. Precision? That's obviously different when 1♦ - 1MA ; 2♣ can be 5-4 or 4-5. I don't like it, and that is one of the reasons why I don't play Precision.

 

Roland

[mike777]

The "he" in my sentence refers to Walsh and was meant to be humorous and factual. ;) Not Garozzo. :)

 

And yes I open 1d very often with 45 shape so I can rebid 2clubs. That way my rebid of my minor suit openings are very often 6 cards in length.