T-Walsh version

[kgr]

I now play

5cM, 4c♦ and T-Walsh where

1♣-1♦

- 1♥ shows 3c♥

- 2♥ shows 4c♥ and weak

- 1NT is minimum with no 4c♠ and no 3c♥

======

New partner wants to play:

5cM, 1♦ opening is unbalanced and 1♣ contains weak NT; with T-Walsh:

1♣-1♦:

- 1♥: 2 or 3♥ and weak NT

- 2♥: 4c♥ and weak

- 1NT: 18-19 HCP

======

Do you have preference for one of those?

(I thought versions of T-walsh were already discussed before, but I can't find it).

[Fluffy]

1♥ showing 2?, never heard of that, I know some people who play 1♥ could be either 3 or 4. But I prefer to keep things simple and let 1♥ be only 3 cards.

 

About the bal/unbal minor openings, its up to you, some people play 1♦ 5+ (or 4441), others just play it best minor. I like yo open 1♣ on 3343 but 1♦ on 4432, just do whatever fits you.

[helene_t]

Version 2 is useful if you want to respond very light (so that you can't stand a 2NT rebid), and also it frees the 2NT rebid for other purposes and leaves more room for slam exploration if opener has 18-19. Obviously you need a check-back mechanism to discover 3-card support.

 

Version 1 obviously finds 8-card fits and avoid 7-card fits if the choice is between 1NT and 2♥.

 

I am used to version 1 and quite happy with it, I know Han and Arend play 2. Maybe there is a case for 1 if you mainly play MP and 2 if you mainly play IMP.

 

Btw, does 2 imply that opener accepts the transfer with the weak NT and 4♠2♥ ?

[Trinidad]

I now play

5cM, 4c♦ and T-Walsh where

1♣-1♦

- 1♥ shows 3c♥

- 2♥ shows 4c♥ and weak

- 1NT is minimum with no 4c♠ and no 3c♥

======

New partner wants to play:

5cM, 1♦ opening is unbalanced and 1♣ contains weak NT; with T-Walsh:

1♣-1♦:

- 1♥: 2 or 3♥ and weak NT

- 2♥: 4c♥ and weak

- 1NT: 18-19 HCP

======

Do you have preference for one of those?

(I thought versions of T-walsh were already discussed before, but I can't find it).

The second system is popular in Sweden. You could take a look at:

http://www.syskon.nu/system/002_fallenius_welland_2-1.pdf

 

I played it with one of my partners when I was living in Sweden. The purpose is to clarify immediately whether you have a weak NT hand (accepting the transfer) or a real club suit (not accepting).

 

The only bid that is ambiguous is 2♥. Depending on your style, it can show:

 

I)

any minimum hand with four support

 

II)

- a minimum unbalanced hand with four support (reevaluating to about 13-14 since it is unbalanced)

or

- a maximum weak NT hand with four support (also evaluated as about 13-14)

 

In case II) minimum weak NT hands (worth about 11-12) will rebid 1♥, just like weak NT hands that don't contain support.

 

Rik

[paulg]

I've always played version 2 and provided a brief write-up last year.

 

We would complete the transfer to 1♥ with a weak 1NT and 4 spades. We play that 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ is non-forcing and that 1♣-1♦-1♠ shows a club-spade two-suited hand.

 

Paul

[MickyB]

Btw, does 2 imply that opener accepts the transfer with the weak NT and 4♠2♥ ?

Yup, one of the positives of playing it is that you solve the "I want to show a balanced hand but I don't want to miss a 4-4 spade fit" problem. I played 1C:1D, 1H:1S as a puppet to 1NT and 1C:1D, 1H:1NT as NF 4-4 majors.

 

IMO playing that completing the transfer shows 11-13 (or 12-14) balanced is much simpler, you've most of the continuations in place already.

[kgr]

Maybe there is a case for 1 if you mainly play MP and 2 if you mainly play IMP.

I don't see why.

For me it even looks like you could open or respond with weaker hands with version 2?

 

Does anybody play version 2 with weak 3rd hand openers and what is accepting the transfer in that case? Is it 10-14 or 10-12 and you respond something else with 13-14?

[helene_t]

Not sure if I would like to play T-Walsh after a 3rd/4th seat opening if the agreement is to open very light.

[OleBerg]

I have taken a radically different approach to openers second bid after T-Walsh.

 

I assumed that, if we get to make our third bid in peace, the opponents will almost never enter.

 

The one step gained should not, I feel, be used exclusively to show the length in partners major suit (although it should deny four card support.) When the step benefits a larger part of the system, the number of possible sequences go up for many hands, enabling systematic responses on 4 hcp when you have a major, and 5 hcp when you respond 1♠ or 1nt.

 

Here goes:

 

1♣ - 1♦

1♥ = Transfer to spades. Show four spades (and 4+ clubs). Unlimited.

1♠ = Transfer to NT, shows the two missing ranges.

1NT = Transfer to Clubs. Shows a club opener. Unlimited.

2♣ = Transfer to Diamonds. Shows 5+Clubs, 4+Diamonds. Shows values for reverse but is unlimited.

2♦ = 2½♥. Whether this can be done with 3-card support, is a matter of taste.

2♥ = Normal raise of hearts.

2♠+ = 4-card support in gearts, and various good hands. Except for 3♣, showing 6+♣ and 3 hearts.

 

Openers second bid is simple:

 

If you would have passed the bid opener is transferring to, you complete the transfer. If not, you bid what yu normally would have bid.

 

Bidding after 1♣ - 1♥ is analoguos. So is bidding after 1♦ - 1M, 1NT+.

 

Having played this for four years, the only major disadvantage I've discovered is, that when you rebid 1NT, showing clubs, you are often wrongsiding 3NT.

 

The advantages are:

 

- More accurate support-structure.

- Systematic 4 hcp responses.

- Better constructive bidding on strong hands.

 

An example:

 

♠ AJ2

♥ K6

♦ AQ5

♣ A86543

 

After

 

1♣ - 1♥

 

you are stuck for a bid. 3♣ is unpleasant on an empty suit, and 2♦ distorts the system.

 

Playing these methods, you can start with 1NT, transfer to clubs, and show your strength later. (If partner bids 2♣, for instance, you can follow up with 2♦.)

 

Also if your hand is to good for a 3♣ bid, like:

 

♠ AQ3

♥ K6

♦ A6

♣ AQ98765

 

you can start with a transfer to clubs, and the bid on.

 

 

These methods require quite a few agreements, some of which are not "of the shelf".

 

 

To easy the burden on memory, I am at the moment testing another idé for openers second bid:

 

All hands are put in one of the three well known brackets:

 

- Minimum. (Roughly 11-14 points.)

- Midimum. (Roughly 15-17 points.)

- Maximum. (Roughly 18+ points.)

 

It is required to play 12-14 NT's.

 

And quite simple:

 

If opener rebids responders suit (1♣-1♦, 1♥ or 1♣-1♥, 1♠), it shows any Midimum.

 

This is quite simple, and it makes a lot of other bids more "pure". Often you don't have to strain on your 15-17 or, facing an opener, fearing partner may have 15-16 and have had an awkward rebid. (And the 1NT rebid shows 18-19.)

 

This second method doesn't require much to implement.

[OleBerg]

Not sure if I would like to play T-Walsh after a 3rd/4th seat opening if the agreement is to open very light.

Why?

 

(Honest question.)

[jdonn]

Version 1 is what I have played. However I have a sneaky feeling version 2 is better, because I really like having the artificial 2NT rebid available without having to jump through hoops to show 18-19. Actually my real problem is that bidding 1NT on that hand is a waste of space, I really don't need all that room over it. Maybe there is a way to allow more hands into the 1NT rebid but still keep it nonforcing.

[helene_t]

Not sure if I would like to play T-Walsh after a 3rd/4th seat opening if the agreement is to open very light.

Why?

 

(Honest question.)

Because I don't want p to bid 2NT as his next turn and the way to avoid that is to pass the response.

[awm]

Version 1 is what I have played. However I have a sneaky feeling version 2 is better, because I really like having the artificial 2NT rebid available without having to jump through hoops to show 18-19. Actually my real problem is that bidding 1NT on that hand is a waste of space, I really don't need all that room over it. Maybe there is a way to allow more hands into the 1NT rebid but still keep it nonforcing.

An idea might be to widen the range of the 1NT rebid. You have room to invite now (rather than having to choose game/no game right off like over a 2NT rebid). The second style of methods also seems conducive to responding very light, so you're not going to miss games by passing 1♣ with hands where you'd raise a 2NT opening to game.

 

Such methods help with slam bidding opposite both the "18-19" and "20-21" notrump hands, and free up the 2NT opening as a preempt.

[OleBerg]

Version 1 is what I have played. However I have a sneaky feeling version 2 is better, because I really like having the artificial 2NT rebid available without having to jump through hoops to show 18-19. Actually my real problem is that bidding 1NT on that hand is a waste of space, I really don't need all that room over it. Maybe there is a way to allow more hands into the 1NT rebid but still keep it nonforcing.

An idea might be to widen the range of the 1NT rebid. You have room to invite now (rather than having to choose game/no game right off like over a 2NT rebid). The second style of methods also seems conducive to responding very light, so you're not going to miss games by passing 1♣ with hands where you'd raise a 2NT opening to game.

 

Such methods help with slam bidding opposite both the "18-19" and "20-21" notrump hands, and free up the 2NT opening as a preempt.

I am considering the very same, putting 20-21 NT into 1♣.

 

But that would make 1NT forcing, and you might wanna stay there with 18-19 facing 4. Still, if responder bids up the line on the forcing NT with a weak hand, you could still play in a suit at the two-level. Responder could then force to game with 2NT.

 

I have still to decide however, whether to free the 2NT opening, or the 2♣ -2♦, 2NT -sequence.

 

The latter could be useful for showing 5+m, 4M strong openings, but obviously a 2NT preempt, with, say, the minors, would be much more frequent.

 

Any thoughts?

[jdonn]

Version 1 is what I have played. However I have a sneaky feeling version 2 is better, because I really like having the artificial 2NT rebid available without having to jump through hoops to show 18-19. Actually my real problem is that bidding 1NT on that hand is a waste of space, I really don't need all that room over it. Maybe there is a way to allow more hands into the 1NT rebid but still keep it nonforcing.

An idea might be to widen the range of the 1NT rebid. You have room to invite now (rather than having to choose game/no game right off like over a 2NT rebid). The second style of methods also seems conducive to responding very light, so you're not going to miss games by passing 1♣ with hands where you'd raise a 2NT opening to game.

 

Such methods help with slam bidding opposite both the "18-19" and "20-21" notrump hands, and free up the 2NT opening as a preempt.

I think this would work better with a weak notrump. Say 1NT opening 12-14 (or 11-14, whatever). Then you accept the transfer to show 2-3 with say 15-18. A wide range like that is probably doable since you are at such a low level, below 1NT. Then the 1NT rebid is 19-21. I'm not really bothered that that is essentially forcing since at least it starts at 19 instead of 18. Then you get your 2NT rebid artificial, and your 2NT opening as a preempt.

 

I think I'm talking myself into this in fact. Of course there is more to worry about, such as what to do with 20-21 when the auction goes differently since that's a hand you can't have in standard.

[Echognome]

I personally play 2 where a 1NT rebid shows 17-19.

 

I agree with Josh that sometimes it feels wasteful to use such a low level bid for a fairly infrequent hand type. However, I can't really think of a way to increase the number of hand types, and, at the same time, keep 1NT non-forcing.

 

I also want to mention that play the 2nd type of system, you will occasionally run into difficult hands that don't really fit the system. For example, suppose you hold:

 

♠Qxx

♥A

♦KQxx

♣Qxxxx

 

If you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you just don't have a good rebid. We choose to bid 1♥ and note that completing the transfer show 2-3 hearts, but also 1 heart is possible on some infrequent hands. The alternative is that you can play that you have to open these hands with 1♦, but I don't care much for that solution.

[skjaeran]

I personally play 2 where a 1NT rebid shows 17-19.

 

I agree with Josh that sometimes it feels wasteful to use such a low level bid for a fairly infrequent hand type. However, I can't really think of a way to increase the number of hand types, and, at the same time, keep 1NT non-forcing.

 

I also want to mention that play the 2nd type of system, you will occasionally run into difficult hands that don't really fit the system. For example, suppose you hold:

 

♠Qxx

♥A

♦KQxx

♣Qxxxx

 

If you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you just don't have a good rebid. We choose to bid 1♥ and note that completing the transfer show 2-3 hearts, but also 1 heart is possible on some infrequent hands. The alternative is that you can play that you have to open these hands with 1♦, but I don't care much for that solution.

We play that completing the transfer shows 3-card (and some 4-card hands). We rebid 1NT with this hand, showing 2-3 spades and 1-2 hearts.

[Echognome]

We play that completing the transfer shows 3-card (and some 4-card hands). We rebid 1NT with this hand, showing 2-3 spades and 1-2 hearts.

Hence why I said "playing the 2nd type of system."

 

;)

[jdonn]

I personally play 2 where a 1NT rebid shows 17-19.

 

I agree with Josh that sometimes it feels wasteful to use such a low level bid for a fairly infrequent hand type. However, I can't really think of a way to increase the number of hand types, and, at the same time, keep 1NT non-forcing.

 

I also want to mention that play the 2nd type of system, you will occasionally run into difficult hands that don't really fit the system. For example, suppose you hold:

 

♠Qxx

♥A

♦KQxx

♣Qxxxx

 

If you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦, you just don't have a good rebid. We choose to bid 1♥ and note that completing the transfer show 2-3 hearts, but also 1 heart is possible on some infrequent hands. The alternative is that you can play that you have to open these hands with 1♦, but I don't care much for that solution.

Two points.

 

It's not the lack of frequency of 1NT that bothers me. It's the wasted space of having a two point range at such a low level where invites and lot's of exploration below 3NT really are not needed. I definitely prefer 17-19 to 18-19 as long as it fits into the rest of the system, because it widens the range not because it increases the frequency.

 

The other point is I agree with you about accepting the transfer holding a singleton in the proper range on an otherwise balanced type of hand, essentially on the same hands I would now rebid 1NT on.

[Fluffy]

OleBerg, your transfer again system has an important flaw IMO: One of the advantages of the transfer walsh is that opener plays most hands, by transfering back you are putting most of the plays on responder (more than the ones he would play on a normal system with when he is weak).

 

That is a price you might be willing to pay, I don't know if its worth it because I never tried your way. When I am stuck for a bid when I am strong I just blast 2NT and think later :).

[OleBerg]

OleBerg, your transfer again system has an important flaw IMO: One of the advantages of the transfer walsh is that opener plays most hands, by transfering back you are putting most of the plays on responder (more than the ones he would play on a normal system with when he is weak).

 

That is a price you might be willing to pay, I don't know if its worth it because I never tried your way. When I am stuck for a bid when I am strong I just blast 2NT and think later :).

It doesn't happen that often.

 

When you transfer back to your opening suit, you have already bid the suit once. And most the times responder doesn't complete the transfer, we have gadgets to get the contract rightsided.

 

Also, on many game deals, the opener need not be the strong hand.

 

Quick example:

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠ ("Transfer to NT, 15-19")

 

Now:

 

3♠ = Transfer to 3NT.

3NT = To play.

 

So in this particular sequence, we will rightside more often than others. (Assuming we are able to evaluate our hands.)

 

It is not that uncommon, that when bidding or inviting game, the first time the suit is actually bid, is the final contract. And we have had the option of making of making either hand declarer.

 

The "wrongsiding" often happens at low levels, where it is not that important.

[Finch]

I strongly prefer (roughly) version 2, which is roughly what I play. The 1NT rebid on a strong hand is great, but also good is the artificial 2NT rebid.

 

We've only just started playing T-Walsh and are keeping it simple, so 1C - 1D -

1H = a weak NT or an unbalanced hand with 3 hearts

2H = min with 3 hearts

2NT = game forcing with clubs or various heart raises

 

1C - 1D - 1H - 1S is non-forcing scramble

 

We have kept most of our current methods after the 'old' 1C - 1H - 1NT where we used to play 2C as a relay to 2D and transfers, so now 1C - 1D - 1H - 2C is a relay to 2D, breakable on an unbalanced hand with 3 trumps.

 

We play different methods in competition. We still play transfers after an overcall (e.g. 1C x xx = diamonds, 1D = hearts etc) but now completion shows 3-card support and 1NT is weak. The difference is that responder has made a free bid, so there is less danger in rebidding 2NT and more benefit in showing the level of the fit at once.

[gnasher]

It's not the lack of frequency of 1NT that bothers me. It's the wasted space of having a two point range at such a low level where invites and lot's of exploration below 3NT really are not needed. I definitely prefer 17-19 to 18-19 as long as it fits into the rest of the system, because it widens the range not because it increases the frequency.

Why not play the 1NT rebid as 18-20, and increase the strength of your 2NT opening to 21-22? The auction after a 2NT opening is often imprecise, so reducing its frequency is a good thing.

[paulg]

It's not the lack of frequency of 1NT that bothers me. It's the wasted space of having a two point range at such a low level where invites and lot's of exploration below 3NT really are not needed. I definitely prefer 17-19 to 18-19 as long as it fits into the rest of the system, because it widens the range not because it increases the frequency.

Why not play the 1NT rebid as 18-20, and increase the strength of your 2NT opening to 21-22? The auction after a 2NT opening is often imprecise, so reducing its frequency is a good thing.

One issue is how you show this hand after the 1♠ response. Many still rebid 2NT here and the wider range is a little unwieldy.

 

p

[OleBerg]

It's not the lack of frequency of 1NT that bothers me. It's the wasted space of having a two point range at such a low level where invites and lot's of exploration below 3NT really are not needed. I definitely prefer 17-19 to 18-19 as long as it fits into the rest of the system, because it widens the range not because it increases the frequency.

Why not play the 1NT rebid as 18-20, and increase the strength of your 2NT opening to 21-22? The auction after a 2NT opening is often imprecise, so reducing its frequency is a good thing.

One issue is how you show this hand after the 1♠ response. Many still rebid 2NT here and the wider range is a little unwieldy.

 

p

You don't need to have the same rebid-ranges after 1♠. It is entirely reasonable to play:

 

1♣ - 1♦/♥

1NT = 15-16

 

and

 

1♣ - 1♠

1NT = 15-17