Walsh experts only pls

[mike777]

For walsh experts only pls:

 

Asssume:

1c=1d

?

 

Using your expert level judgement but playing Walsh any technically balanced(non54) shaped hands you rebid one spade with? If so what would be a minimum hand type? Would you always or almost always rebid 1s with xx in hearts but non 54 shape with 4 clubs and 4 spades??

[the hog]

I am hardly a "Walsh expert", though I have played this and MAFIA quite a lot, so I guess that qualifies me to answer.

 

Firstly your question is not about Walsh so much as about rebid style by opener.

 

For me the sequence 1C 1D 1S guarantees 5+C and 4S (or 5+/5 in the blacks with a hand good enough to compete to 4S). I can understand if some players do this on a 4234 shape with xx in H to ensure that 1NT is not wrongsided, however I personally do not agree with this and prefer to show the essential nature of my hand type, hence a 1NT rebid promises a balanced hand regardless of xx or not.

 

Playing Walsh responder will NOT have a 4 card M for the 1D bid UNLESS he has a good hand, (invit+), so I guess this is where you are coming from with your allusion to Walsh. Walsh or no Walsh, opener's rebids make no difference to me.

 

Playing MAFIA adds another dimension again.

[mike777]

Yes please assume for this thread 1d bidder will not have a 4 card major except with a full game force hand.

 

If it matters assume opener has a dead minimum hand.

[kenrexford]

I am frightened to answer this question, as it seems that I would be claiming to be a Walsh Expert, and I never took the certification course.

 

However, I'll assume that with 4144 everyone would open 1♦.

 

This makes 1♠ almost guarantee five clubs for me. The exception might be a severe concentration of values hand. Assuming a minimum, perhaps KQ10x-xx-xxx-KQJx or Axxx-xx-Jxx-KQJx.

 

I could also imagine a rare tactical call. Something like AQx-x-xxxx-KQxxx.

 

This actually brings up a thought that I have had for a while. I'm not sure, but I have often wondered whether a major call here might be used fairly effectively as a COV bid to show club length and not necessarily a true four-card suit. In other words, hands like AQx-xxx-xx-AQJxx. You would need an "escape" of 3♣ after a raise, perhaps, and maybe some other fixes.

[Edmunte1]

You cannot tell that someone is Walsh expert :angry:. 1♠ call just shows 5+ clubs and 4 spades. If you don't want to wrongside 1nt with xx in ♥ don't play Walsh.

[helene_t]

Agree with Edmunte. Allways rebid 1NT with balanced hands. Partner may take false preference on a doubleton clubs if you don't.

 

Partner has no more than 3 hearts. What's the odds that he has the king, then? What's the odds that opps will know to lead a heart against your 3NT, provided that RHO didn't overcall and you could easily have AKJT of hearts when you rebid 1NT?

 

I would be more in doubt if the question was about semi-balanced hands like QJxx-AQ-Jx-Kxxxx or unbalanced hands with the honors in the short suits, like QJxx-AQ-K-Jxxxx. With such extreme hands I would personally prefer to rebid 1NT, at least at matchpoints or with a passed partner, but make it slightly less extreme and it's something that should be discussed with partner.

[BillHiggin]

I must disclaim actual "Walsh expert" status, but I have devoted some considerable effort into investigating the techniques used by players that I would consider true Walsh experts (i.e. Benito Garozzo and others).

 

As best I can determine, Papi uses a less restrictive rule for rebidding 1M after 1C (p) 1D (p). He always rebids 1N with 2 or 3 clubs (the Italian style being to open 1C with 4-4-3-2). A 1M rebid promises 4+ clubs (rather than 5). With a 4 card major, 4+ clubs and a balanced hand, he chooses between 1M and 1N based on judgement and hand character. A quacky balanced hand will often rebid 1N. A hand that is "aces and spaces" will rebid the major. Many hands are neirther fish nor fowl, he just instinctively (or so it seems) makes the best choice! The xx holding in a major is merely one factor in the judgement process.

 

I strongly favor using some full version of xyz (by full version, I mean that two way checkback applies to 1C 1D 1M, 1C 1D 1N or 1m 1H 1S auctions as well as the more universal 1m 1M 1N ones - 1H 1S 1N is much less important). With that agreement, the strength limitations for a 1D response when holding a four card major can easily include invitational strength hands - with the caveat that the 1D bid must guarantee some checkback if opener rebids 1N.

 

Perhaps there will come a day when I feel my judgement to be good enough to claim "Walsh expert" status. I estimate that I will be approximately 160 years old on that day. I can hope.

[kenrexford]

I now have great authority.

I have been granted the rank of Worshipful Master of the Walsh Bidders Templar.

[Winstonm]

As a card-carrying non-expert on much of anything, I can only suggest what Marty Bergen explained about this sequence, in that the big benefit of Walsh is that after 1C-1D opener can show the equivalent of a weak-NT opening hand with a 1N rebid.

 

The extension to this is that suit rebids in this sequence show unbalanced hands.

[skjaeran]

I've played Walsh in combination with xyz for several years, before changing to T-Walsh some three years ago.

 

I recomend Walsh for those who haven't tried it.

 

Over 1♣ - 1♦, I've always rebid 1NT on all balanced 12-14 hands.

1♣ - 1♦ - 1M always promised an unbalanced hand (5+♣ or 4144/1444/4414).

 

Over 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT we rebid 2M to show an unbalanced GF, 4M + 5+♦. With a balanced hand (4M+4♦) we rebid 2♦ conv. GF.

[inquiry]

Playing Walsh, I would rebid 1♠ only on unbalanced hands or very strong hands unsuited for a jump shift.

 

I fully appreciate the advantage of 1♠ being (typically) unbalanced. I do play, upon occassion, a method suggested to me by Misho where specifically 1♣-1♦-1NT shows balanced 17-19. This system forces opener to rebid 1Major on many, many balanced hands, and some without a four card major (the major bid is alerted). In experimenting with this method, I have about come to the conclusion that the downside is way too much and I will probably give that treatment up soon.