Playing walsh style

[helene_t]

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?

In T-Walsh, 1♠ is a transfer to notrump and is unlimited. So you can bid strong balanced hands with diamonds and no major this way. Whether 1♠ also includes strong unbalanced hands with long diamonds and a 4-card major depends on style. We bid via 1NT (artificial!) to show a four-card major and via 1♠ to show a feature.

 

But with a four-card diamond and a four-card major, I think everybody starts with a transfer to the major. Then the diamond fit can be found with subsequent relays.

[skjaeran]

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?

Over 1♣ we respond 1♠ with 6-9 "balanced" or GF hands with ♦'s (with or without 4cM). With 44 in M+♦ we transfer to the major.

1NT=10-12 balanced

2NT=13+ balanced (excluding hands that bid 3NT)

3NT=15-17 3334/3343

[Fluffy]

1NT 10-12, I like the idea a lot, will tell daddy. We were playing a kind of support for clubs that used to wrongside 1NT.

[foo]

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?

Over 1♣ we respond 1♠ with 6-9 "balanced" or GF hands with ♦'s (with or without 4cM). With 44 in M+♦ we transfer to the major.

1NT=10-12 balanced

2NT=13+ balanced (excluding hands that bid 3NT)

3NT=15-17 3334/3343

I've found a slight twist to this improves it.

 

1♣-2N also shows 18+ (don't worry, it doesn't come up often)

and

1♣-1♦! becomes a PLOB usually (~95-% of the time actually) showing ♦'s and rarely being made with a hand with ♣'s that is too weak for 1♣-1N

This is alerted as "rarely, but may be, short in ♦'s"

 

I've also seen the 1C-1N range be dropped to 9-11, and 1♣-2N= 12-14.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes, no doubt T-walsh is much superior to regular bidding both in theory and in practice. If you are a bidding theoritician you cringe at the thought of almost never bidding the first step in order to bid the 2nd/3rd steps, and thus having the first step be by far the most defined and least frequent. Why not rearrange the steps?

[han]

When playing Walsh I always respond 1M with 4-4.

 

Cherdano and I play T-Walsh, at least half of us are very happy with it.

[cherdano]

Cherdano and I play T-Walsh, at least half of us are very happy with it.

I can independently confirm this.