Playing walsh style

[mike777]

Playing YOUR walsh style, if partner opens one club and you have exactly 4d and 4 of a major, do you always start with the major regardless of hcp?

[mikeh]

yes

[blackshoe]

no. :-)

[jillybean]

No

[foo]

Playing YOUR walsh style, if partner opens 1♣ and you have exactly 4 ♦'s and 4 of a Major, do you always start with the major regardless of hcp?

I have one partnership that plays "Walsh" (Which Edgar Kaplan was playing in KS long before Richard Walsh played Bridge...) in the original "any responder less than GF by passes ♦'s to show a Major."

In this Partnership I'd be expected to respond 1♠ rather than 1♦ even with 4 ♠'s and 6 ♦'s unless I held a GF responding hand.

(Note that what consititutes a GF hand is very different with a 64 or 74 hand than it is with a 4432 or 4441 !)

 

I have another partnership that plays what I've come to call "Invitational Walsh"

In this style, I only by pass ♦'s to show a Major if I have a minimum responding hand.

(Same shape considerations.)

 

IMHO, and this =is= just my personal opinion, Inivitational Walsh is superior to the original GF Walsh.

[mike777]

Playing YOUR walsh style, if partner opens 1♣ and you have exactly 4 ♦'s and 4 of a Major, do you always start with the major regardless of hcp?

I have one partnership that plays "Walsh" (Which Edgar Kaplan was playing in KS long before Richard Walsh played Bridge...) in the original "any responder less than GF by passes ♦'s to show a Major."

In this Partnership I'd be expected to respond 1♠ rather than 1♦ even with 4 ♠'s and 6 ♦'s unless I held a GF responding hand.

(Note that what consititutes a GF hand is very different with a 64 or 74 hand than it is with a 4432 or 4441 !)

 

I have another partnership that plays what I've come to call "Invitational Walsh"

In this style, I only by pass ♦'s to show a Major if I have a minimum responding hand.

(Same shape considerations.)

 

IMHO, and this =is= just my personal opinion, Inivitational Walsh is superior to the original GF Walsh.

this was not my question or the issue here. I am not discussing g/f or inv walsh, please reread what I did exactly ask, ty.

[inquiry]

I don't always do anything. But what I nearly always respond in the four card major, regardless of my hcp. The reason is I expect our auction to go...

 

1C - 1D - 1NT, a lot of time when partner has one or even two four card majors, as long as his hcp are what they need to be.

 

I tend to prefer,

 

1C - 1H - 2H

 

or

 

1C - 1H - 1NT - 2D

 

to the higher auction

 

1C - 1D - 1NT - 2H

 

Especially since the second auction promises longer diamonds for me.

 

An exception would be a very weak four card major xxxx, and a reasonably strong balanced hand (game force, no slam interest opposite a weak nt hand), where I will treat my four card major as a three card one.

[kenrexford]

The answer is yes, but I'm thinking through on situation.

 

I'm wondering about 4144 or 4243 with slam interest. The hand that I may need for slam in many situations will be an unbalanced partner. I may, for instance, be able to rule out slam opposite a balanced 11-14 but know that slam is there opposite 18-19. Maybe I have 4243 with 15 HCP? Something like that.

 

So, I need partner to have his own unbalanced hand for slam to be on. If partner has a 4441 or 5431 with support for my major, We will probably have little difficulty, even after 1♦...2♠. But, when partner has 4♥/5♣, my 1♠ call will preempt him. If, instead, I bid 1♦, I may hear 1♥, allowing me a better auction toward 6♣.

 

1♠ may also cause problems if partner has 3415 pattern and raises. Now, I have real trouble focusing clubs low enough when that should be the right focus.

 

1♦ also have the merit, with this pattern, of a 1♣-P-1♦-P-2♦ auction, again for slam purposes.

 

So, after seeing this question and thinking about it, I think I will start bidding 1♦ with 4144/4243, and maybe even 4234 if discussed, when I have tweener slam interest as Responder.

[mike777]

Yes, you are hitting the nail on the head, that is sort of the issue.

Do you always bid one of the major with any hcp. That could mean 6 hcp or 22 hcp. My partners tell me Yes. Do not bother inventing hands or conventions for rare complicated BW problem hands. Just bid your basic system is their point and do not worry about missing that perfect 6D slam?

 

I expect there is another side to this debate, such as what Ken has started, ty.

I expect Ken to be part of the exclusion BW, last train(LTTC) school perhaps?

[kenrexford]

Yes, you are hitting the nail on the head, that is sort of the issue.

Do you always bid one of the major with any hcp. That could mean 6 hcp or 22 hcp. My partners tell me Yes. Do not bother inventing hands or conventions for rare complicated BW problem hands. Just bid your basic system is their point and do not worry about missing that perfect 6D slam?

 

I expect there is another side to this debate, such as what Ken has started, ty.

I expect Ken to be part of the exclusion BW, last train(LTTC) school perhaps?

The term "Walsh" is given to a particular style because a guy whose last name was Walsh came up with it or popularized it. To my knowledge, however, the breath of God did not come from his mouth, pronouncing for all time how people should bid hands. Theory develops.

 

I mean, take simple 1♣ as an opening, in a 2/1 GF or standard system, simply as to pattern of the minors when balanced.

 

I cannot even remember what 1♣ shows when playing 4-card majors, but I think it could be 3334, 4324, 4234 if only four-card. But, consider the permutations for playing 5-card majors, all that I've seen or played:

 

Better minor

Better minor, but always 1♣ if 3-3

Short club (open 1♣ only if 4432)

Really short club (1♦ also promises 5+)

Real diamond (only open 1♦ if 4441 or if diamonds are Qxxx or better)

Unbalanced diamond (only open 1♦ with 6+ or with a stiff or void on the outside)

Semi-unbalanced Diamond (can open 1♦ also with 2245/2254)

 

Each tweaking of 1♦ affects 1♣. Each tweaking of 1♣ and 1♦ has pros and cons. Each con has a problem with a solution. Each pro has a benefit with a way to maximize the use of that beneficial information. Thinking these things out takes years of time.

 

Why do we assume that Mr. Walsh got everything right?

[foo]

Playing YOUR walsh style, if partner opens 1♣ and you have exactly 4 ♦'s and 4 of a Major, do you always start with the major regardless of hcp?

I have one partnership that plays "Walsh" (Which Edgar Kaplan was playing in KS long before Richard Walsh played Bridge...) in the original "any responder less than GF by passes ♦'s to show a Major."

In this Partnership I'd be expected to respond 1♠ rather than 1♦ even with 4 ♠'s and 6 ♦'s unless I held a GF responding hand.

(Note that what consititutes a GF hand is very different with a 64 or 74 hand than it is with a 4432 or 4441 !)

 

I have another partnership that plays what I've come to call "Invitational Walsh"

In this style, I only by pass ♦'s to show a Major if I have a minimum responding hand.

(Same shape considerations.)

 

IMHO, and this =is= just my personal opinion, Inivitational Walsh is superior to the original GF Walsh.

this was not my question or the issue here. I am not discussing g/f or inv walsh, please reread what I did exactly ask, ty.

I thought I had answered:

 

I never ignore HCP in my bidding decisions.

 

Playing GF Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM unless I am GF

 

Playing Invitational Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM only with a minimum.

 

What part of that was unclear?

[kenrexford]

I thought I had answered:

 

I never ignore HCP in my bidding decisions.

 

Playing GF Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM unless I am GF

 

Playing Invitational Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM only with a minimum.

 

What part of that was unclear?

Yeah, but I still have the Jack of clubs. So, how can you claim?

[foo]

Yeah, but I still have the Jack of clubs.  So, how can you claim?

I think if we are discussing the play of "Jack off dummy", the more "appropriate" question is not =how= can I claim, but =what= I can claim...

 

You really must be a hoot in your law practice. B) What kind of attorney are you?

(I could go look it up, but I'm being lazy.)

[Fluffy]

I don't always do anything. But what I nearly always respond in the four card major, regardless of my hcp. The reason is I expect our auction to go...

I used to do that also.

 

now I switched to transfer walsh and bid always the major.

[asc]

1♣_1♦

1NT now usualy I don't say my ♥/♠ after 1♦-but if he have good hand with 5+♦ and 4+ major I'l hear it. YES my partner knows the action!

[whereagles]

Usually bid the major, unless you have like 16+ and hopes of a diamond slam.

[Finch]

No.

 

Systemically the 'normal' response is 1D, but exceptionally if we have no interest in playing in a diamond contract we are allowed to use our judgement. We are also allowed to use our judgement as we might determine which way up an eventual 4-4 major fit gets played.

 

For example,

 

AJxx

Q10x

KJxx

Qx

 

I would respond 1S, as I doubt I ever want to play in diamonds. This is about the maximum strength possible, as otherwise I am interested in a diamond slam.

 

but holding the same shape and HCP as

AKxx

xxx

AQxx

xx

 

I would respond 1D, both because we might want to play in diamonds if partner is 2-2-4-5 and secondly because our methods mean that after a 1NT rebid by partner he will end up declarer in 4S if we have a 4-4 fit.

 

(and obviously if we have no interest in playing in spades opposite a balanced hand we would respond 1D, though this is very rare, say

 

5432

KQx

AQ10x

KJ

 

I might respond 1D planning to raise a 1NT rebid to 3NT)

[helene_t]

Would opener rebid

1♣-1♥

1N

bypassing a four-card spades? If so, 1♥ is ok. If not, I'd rather start with 1♦ since I want to know if opener is balanced, not if he has four spades.

 

Would opener open 1♣ with 4-5 minors and minimum values? If so I'd start with 1♦ to give him an easy rebid and find the diamond fit immediately.

 

Would opener open 1♣ with 4-4 minors? If so I can arrange for me to declare a diamond slam by bidding 1♦ and (maybe) for him to declare by bidding 1M. Anyway, I will eventually get to know that he has 4 diamonds and that he's balanced, and I'm not sure if it matters which of the two I discover first.

[pclayton]

WITH 4 diamonds and 4 major I always skip diamonds even with a good hand. The logic is the same as having 4M and 4C and responding to 1D. You wouldnt bid 2C just to tell pard you have a good hand immediately.

 

We can always back into a 44 diamond fit if one exists, but if I reverse with 4D / 4M how will pard ever know I had only 4D?

[mikeh]

Usually bid the major, unless you have like 16+ and hopes of a diamond slam.

Walsh uses a 1♦ opening with non-notrump-opening-range balanced 4=4 minor hands, so bidding 1♦ in response to 1♣, in order to cater to a ♦ slam is a very tiny target. If opener is shapely, it is usually possible to get back to ♦s eventually when either hand has the significant extras needed for slam. Opener, obviously can reverse with a good-enough hand, and responder will usually get a chance to use 4SF or 2-way checkback etc if opener makes a minimum rebid denying a major fit.

 

In my view, the common walsh style (certainly the only one I have seen used) is that one bypasses 4 card diamond suits to bid a 4 card major regardless of hand strength (assuming one has the values to bid at all).

 

 

I have never experienced a problem with this approach. As said above, both partners have tools available to back into a 4=4 fit, and I far, far prefer that the sequence of 1♦ then showing or asking for a 4 card major confirm that responder has shape.

 

I find that a lot of players, in these fora as in life, focus almost exclusively on their need to find out about partner's hand rather than to view bidding as a truly equal responsibility. I am NOT suggesting that all those who disagree with me are of that ilk... clearly that is far from true... but some do present that way.

 

Let me add: I fully appreciate that many of the more formidable and knowledgable posters not only disagree with many of my opinions but are at least as well-attuned to partnership bidding as I am.

 

By reserving 1♦ then major for 5=4 or better shape, I am preparing to bid in a way that may be of assistance to partner when partner has a shapely or extra-value hand. If I choose, in a walsh context, to bid 1♦ on 4=4, I am planning to be in sole command of any slam-going or choice-of-games sequence, because I am not adequately (or, in walsh, accurately) showing my shape.

 

Now, obviously, in non-walsh methods, these comments are almost certainly inapplicable.... if your method is based, usually or always, on up-the-line responding, then bypassing 1♦ to bid 1♥ is as anti-systemic and as control-grabbing, in your method, as is bidding 1♦ on 4-4 in walsh.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't play walsh but with 4-4 and a hand that might be interested in slam I will bid 1D. I also open 1C with 4-4 and 4-5 in the minors usually (sorry mike!)

[mikeh]

I don't play walsh but with 4-4 and a hand that might be interested in slam I will bid 1D. I also open 1C with 4-4 and 4-5 in the minors usually (sorry mike!)

Don't be sorry, Justin... playing that style is punishment enough B) B) :) :D :)

[skjaeran]

I always bypass 1♦ to show my major suit if I'm below GF strenght.

With GF strenght I might bypass 1♦ if I'd need a ♦ reverse from partner to look for a ♦ slam.

On other hands I might bid 1♦ holding a 4cM if it's essential to know about a balanced 11-14 (where I won't explore for slam) or an ubalanced hand with opener.

 

So below GF strenght always bypass, with GF+ strenght sometimes bypass.

 

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

[whereagles]

If opener is shapely, it is usually possible to get back to ♦s eventually when either hand has the significant extras needed for slam.

Maybe. But I prefer to bid 1♦ straight away and avoid clouding the issue... you never know when pard is going to reverse into a 3-card diamond suit ;), after which there's no telling what can happen :unsure:

[Fluffy]

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

what bid do you use for strong balanced hands?