T-Walsh Problem

[pclayton]

Currently we are playing 1♣ (Balanced or clubs) - 1♠ as either diamonds or a balanced 5-9 count without a 4 card major. A direct 1N shows a balanced 10-12.

 

This usually works great and there are some nice system wins you get, but say you pick up something like:

 

♠AQxx

♥x

♦KQx

♣Qxxxx

 

What do you rebid after 1♣ - 1♠?

 

A rebid of 1N shows a balanced 11+ - 13.

Rebids of 2♦ / 2♠ are natural reverses.

 

Any suggestions?

 

I hate to say this, but if you don't play T-Walsh, or don't appreciate this 'problem', please just lurk. ;)

[cherdano]

I have never played this 1♠ response, but I would bid 1N here. At least, we aren't missing a 5-4 diamond fit.

 

Btw, I wouldn't explain 1N as balanced 11-13. There are many more semi-balanced hands where you have to rebid 1N, some of them quite a bit stronger (I don't think you want to reverse with 15 opposite a likely 5-9), and you should make it an agreement that these are allowed.

[pclayton]

True, 1N really is just minimum, but eliminates some unbalanced minimums.

 

While we are on the subject, how would you rebid with a 4405?

[Fluffy]

Our standard response with that shape is 2♣. If clubs are too ugly for you I guess 1NT is second best.

[MickyB]

1N I guess.

 

Not sure about the methods - 1C:1NT works fine when played as very wide ranging - 11-13 bal passes, 17-19 bal bids on, 14-16 unbal can rebid 2♣, even on five cards, safe in the knowledge that responder will have 3+clubs. After 1C:1N, 2C, 2D/H/S/N would be fragments showing the upper end of the 1NT range.

[awm]

It's never been all that clear to me what the big advantage is supposed to be to playing 1♣-1NT as a stronger and narrower range than 1♦-1NT, despite the fact that even the maximum 1♣-1NT hand is too light for game opposite a maximum weak notrump. Here it seems like you lose the ability to show a diamond suit, which is especially bad since most people playing T-Walsh seem to open 1♣ as much as possible, including for example (32)44 hands. It's nice to be able to find your nine-card diamond fits sometimes, you know? Here if 1♠ showed "5+ diamonds or extras" and 1NT was something like 6-11, you could happily rebid 2♦ (not showing extras, just a raise of partner's likely 5-card diamond suit) over 1♠ or rebid 2♣ over 1NT (the 1NT bid is either 3343 or else promises 4♣, so you will always have a fit).

 

Anyways, given the methods I think 2♣ is least of evils. Partner will usually have either 3♣ or 6♦ (hopefully partner will rebid 2♦ with six diamonds and short clubs here).

[keylime]

I liked 1NT here because the club suit is anemic and it gives pard a chance to correct to 2♦ if needed. Granted it's offshape, but I don't want to play 2♣ on a 6-1/6-0 fit.

[han]

1NT seems obvious.

 

Harald has been playing such methods for a long time I believe, he might be able to shine some light on these questions.

[glen]

The opponents have at least a nine card ♥ fit. I would rebid 2♣, happy to play there, if we can, opposite 5-9 without 6♦s. If the opponents compete with 2♥, I next bid 2NT to get ♦s into play.

[jdonn]

I think it's normal in these methods to bid 2♣ on these hands, on the understanding partner now bids diamonds (2♦ to play, 3♦ inv., 2M forcing with diamonds) if he has them. Either he does that, or he passes in which case he is balanced. Certainly 2♣ rates to be better than 1NT when partner is balanced with no four card major, and when he has diamonds it usually wouldn't matter, although 2♣ is also better so partner can pass if 6-3 in the minors.

[kgr]

I play 1♠ here as either transfer to ♦ or transfer to 1NT

and 1NT as 6-9 HCP

Difference between 1♠ and 1NT (assuming weak hand) is mostly honours to protect.

With the example hand I bid 2♣.

[helene_t]

I used to play appr. the same system with one p. I would rebid 2♣ but I don't feel strongly about it. Would probably rebid 1N for tactical reasons when nonvul if p is a passed hand.

[gwnn]

I really hate that stiff ♥, 1NT will be a very bad contract if pd is 5-9 balanced - a major suit lead is almost automatic... 2♣ it has to be.

[Syl20]

2♣ - the system thinks for you, isn't He?

At worst (concerning the ♦ fit), partner is 3=3=5=2 and partner passes 2♣

Or it can be 3=3=6=1 and he will bid 2♦.

Anyway, partner will know that opener is unbalanced and this might be critical in case responder is strong with ♦ (btw it can also be balanced any strength in my version).

Sylvain