Debate in T-Walsh

[jvage]

I generally play what has become almost standard (at least among experts) in Norway, a 1♥ acceptance shows 3 or minimum with 4. Responder generally keeps the bidding open with a hand that could make game opposite an 18-19NT. Advantages:

1. Simplicity. Some of the suggested alternatives involve a lot of artificial continuations, discovering the degree of fit early often makes the continuations easier. Since you know about the degree of fit you don't need complicated methods to discover if partner got (1)/2/3-card-support. You only need a simple XYZ (or similar)-structure. It is also easier when, like me, you play a similar system with several different partners, ranging from relatively inexperienced to national champions. A practical consequence is also that you can more often bid the final contract directly, revealing less about the hands (like jumping to 3NT/4♥ with 12-14 and 4/5 hearts respectively).

2. Easier constructive sequences. One example is that rebidding an unsupported suit (via XYZ if invitational or stronger) generally shows 6+. Another (surprisingly frequent) is that with a 4-4 fit you can often avoid the 3-level when opener is minimum (11-12 facing around 11).

3. 1NT will be played by the stronger hand with 11-14 and a doubleton facing a weak hand (even more important after 1♣ - ♥).

 

When I saw this list I could not resist turning the arguments around :)

 

 

Of the two options, I prefer complete = weak NT.

 

1. 1C:1R, 1M is harder to penalise than 1C:1R, 1NT
   
2. No more decisions about whether to pull 1NT to 2M on a five-card suit
   
3. Occasionally you'll be allowed to score +80
   
4. You can find 4-4 spade fits on weak hands after 1C:1D, 1H
   
5. Much better auctions when opener is strong balanced
   
6. 2NT rebid is free for 6C3M [admittedly playing 1C:1D, 1H as three cards will solve this hand too]
   

 

1. Having played this for several years I have never been penalised here. Both opponents have already passed at least once (also the reason why we do not have to jump with 4-card support), reducing the risk for penaltydoubles and other interference.

2. Why would you pull? If it is because you want to play in a known 5-2 fit you can still do. To me the difference seems to be that we know we do not have a 5-3 fit (in your system responder may have to guess between 1NT/2M after the transfer is accepted).

3. So do we. The main difference seems to be that we occasionally play on 4-3 while you play on 5-2.

4. So can we, but with weak hands we would generally end in a 5-3 heart-fit instead of a 4-4 spade-fit, which may play better or worse.

5. Yes, you have an advantage with 18-19. But the cost is lumping much more hands into 1♥, instead of splitting these more common hands into 3 sub-categories (1♥/1♠/1NT).

6. As you say 6C3M fit very well with "my" structure. 18-19 hands must bid one level higher, but are better defined (no 3+ hearts).

 

John

[fromageGB]

...

1 Simplicity?

I wouldn't have thought that xyz was any simpler than stayman and transfers over a strong 1NT rebid, or an invitational+ 2♣/♦ (confirming 5 in the shown major and showing or denying 4 in the other major) over a weaker 1M completion.

 

2 Constructive easier?

By not showing strength in the initial opener rebid, you make it more complex for opener to show strength later. And it makes the completion forcing on responder to bid again he has a 7 count. (Fewer +80s, more -50s :) ) Playing a weak completion also enables you to play in 2M with a 6 card suit - we play a raise of the completion is a 6 card suit 9-12 count. Again, with a 4-4 fit and game invitation declined we also play in 2M.

 

3 1NT by the stronger hand?

Assuming a weak hand with a single 4 card major, then - not knowing your exact sequences - I can't see much difference. If responder has hearts we can bid 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT, so this has the same result. When responder has spades you will also (presumably) play 1NT by responder when opener has 3 card support, except on the rare occasions responder has a less than 7 count and you choose play in a 4-3 fit. Unless, of course responder keeps the bidding open (in case opener is strong, as you say) by bidding 2M and deliberately playing at the 2 level in 2M with only a 4-3 fit and a possible combined 19 count. Not my choice.

 

2(Different 2) Pull?

There is no actual pull, as responder passes the completion with a less than invitational hand. Whether you know there is a 2 or a 3 card fit has no bearing; in my experience a 5-2 fit with a 5 card suit in the weak hand is better played in that suit by the stronger hand than 1NT by the stronger hand. As of course is a 5-3 fit.

 

It probably comes down to preference, but having played both ways, I find it better defined to show strength rather than length with opener's first rebid.

[MickyB]

I generally play what has become almost standard (at least among experts) in Norway, a 1♥ acceptance shows 3 or minimum with 4. Responder generally keeps the bidding open with a hand that could make game opposite an 18-19NT. Advantages:

1. Simplicity. Some of the suggested alternatives involve a lot of artificial continuations, discovering the degree of fit early often makes the continuations easier. Since you know about the degree of fit you don't need complicated methods to discover if partner got (1)/2/3-card-support. You only need a simple XYZ (or similar)-structure. It is also easier when, like me, you play a similar system with several different partners, ranging from relatively inexperienced to national champions. A practical consequence is also that you can more often bid the final contract directly, revealing less about the hands (like jumping to 3NT/4♥ with 12-14 and 4/5 hearts respectively).

2. Easier constructive sequences. One example is that rebidding an unsupported suit (via XYZ if invitational or stronger) generally shows 6+. Another (surprisingly frequent) is that with a 4-4 fit you can often avoid the 3-level when opener is minimum (11-12 facing around 11).

3. 1NT will be played by the stronger hand with 11-14 and a doubleton facing a weak hand (even more important after 1♣ - ♥).

 

When I saw this list I could not resist turning the arguments around :)

 

 

 

 

1. Having played this for several years I have never been penalised here. Both opponents have already passed at least once (also the reason why we do not have to jump with 4-card support), reducing the risk for penaltydoubles and other interference.

2. Why would you pull? If it is because you want to play in a known 5-2 fit you can still do. To me the difference seems to be that we know we do not have a 5-3 fit (in your system responder may have to guess between 1NT/2M after the transfer is accepted).

3. So do we. The main difference seems to be that we occasionally play on 4-3 while you play on 5-2.

4. So can we, but with weak hands we would generally end in a 5-3 heart-fit instead of a 4-4 spade-fit, which may play better or worse.

5. Yes, you have an advantage with 18-19. But the cost is lumping much more hands into 1♥, instead of splitting these more common hands into 3 sub-categories (1♥/1♠/1NT).

6. As you say 6C3M fit very well with "my" structure. 18-19 hands must bid one level higher, but are better defined (no 3+ hearts).

 

John

 

1. I'm surprised. Second seat can have a decent hand with some club length.

2. The "pulling 1NT" thing was in comparison with standard methods.

3. If completing the transfer shows any hand with three trumps, surely you can't pass it very often. We'll play 5-3s at the one-level when you would be risking missing game by passing on your six-count.

4. What I meant was, we can show a balanced hand with our rebid and still find our 4-4 spade fit. Your 1C:1D!, 1S can presumably be 4234, ours promises 4S5C.

5. This seems like a non-argument. You think that rebidding 1H on a 4333 12-count and a 1336 19-count is better than showing the general nature of our hand with our rebid?

 

Describing your methods as simpler seems bizarre too. We need to agree one thing in addition to standard agreements [what 1C:1D, 1H:1S means]. You need to have a full set of agreements in a non-standard situation [i have three-card support and otherwise am saying nothing about my hand].

 

Anyway, this isn't actually what I play. The closest equivalent would be -

 

Complete = 12-14 NT

1NT = C+D unbalanced

2D = 18-19 NT

 

2C response to 1C = 5S4H NF

 

which feels nice in a Better Minor context; but if you open all balanced hands 1C then you should probably canapé most 4D5C hands anyway.

[gnasher]

We'll play 5-3s at the one-level

Have your opponents ever actually allowed you to do that?

[MickyB]

Yup.

[JLOGIC]

I have played both ways, and am really happy with both. I don't think you can go wrong. Personally I probably slightly prefer completing shows 3.

[JLOGIC]

I recommend

 

1♣-1♦-1♥ = (a) 11-13 balanced, 2-3 hearts OR (b) 11-15 unbalanced, exactly 3 hearts

1♣-1♦-1NT = 17-19 balanced, 2-3 hearts

 

 

 

This has been improved upon previously in these forums

 

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ = 0-3 spades weak, or any invite

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT/2♣-pass = weak

1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT/2♣-anybid = invitational

1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT = 4 spades, non-forcing

 

Learned this from jlall.

 

Yes before I played strong club I spent a lot of time creating notes for a T-Walsh system, and I definitely remember making it something like this. It's a pretty obvious switch of spades/NT. I played transfers with Ish in Seattle and he played completing showed 3 fwiw.

[benlessard]

Over our strong club (15+ often bal) we play this.

 

1C--??

1D= H or points

1H= S weak or GF

1S = no m weak or both m GF

 

1C--1D--??

 

with a minimum balanced or 19-20 and at least 3H we bid 1H otherwise we bid 1S that can be 3

with medium balance 17-18 we bid 1NT

with 19-20 and 4 card support we bid 2H.

 

responder is expect to take another bid with 6-8 or pass 1H with 0-5.

 

1C-1D-1H-1S = GF bal or inv range check

1C-1D-1H-1NT = inv with 4/5 S

1C-1D-1H-2x = transfer inv in the suit (may have no hearts) or H+transferred suit GF.

 

Once you have the guarranted 4-3 heart fit all responder 2nd bids can be invitationnal or GF. So even in a natural 1C opening i believe completing showing 3 has great advantages.

[Cthulhu D]

Partly inspired by this thread, I've been trying something similar where transfers shows the weak NT, but I've had problems with the a minimum 1=4=4=4 handshape. Opening it 1C is fine, but then partner tried a transfer into spades and I was left without a rational bid. Accepting the transfer would show the weak NT so that's out, and 2C and 2D promise hands that I just don't have, maybe I need to be allowed to complete the transfer or bid 2C here?

 

What's people's solutions to this issue? The obvious is open it 1D, and it's not a problem with 4=1=4=4 or similar.

[Zelandakh]

The obvious is open it 1D

 

This. A few pairs play an otherwise natural system with 5551 but you have to go through some hoops and it just does not seem to be worth it.

[Cthulhu D]

Cheers - Any names so I can check out a CC online? Might just go for the 1=4=4=4 option though to simplify the responses though.

[fromageGB]

Partly inspired by this thread, I've been trying something similar where transfers shows the weak NT, but I've had problems with the a minimum 1=4=4=4 handshape. Opening it 1C is fine, but then partner tried a transfer into spades and I was left without a rational bid. Accepting the transfer would show the weak NT so that's out, and 2C and 2D promise hands that I just don't have, maybe I need to be allowed to complete the transfer or bid 2C here?

 

What's people's solutions to this issue? The obvious is open it 1D, and it's not a problem with 4=1=4=4 or similar.

It does solve problems if your 1♦ open shows any hand with 6+ diamonds, or any hand with a singleton or void outside diamonds. That way with 1♣ 1M you will ALWAYS have at least 2 cards in support.

 

1♦ can handle a 1444 shape as easily as a 4144 - see the sister current thread on the 1♦ open. If you want a natural treatment with transfer completion showing a weak NT, email me and I'll send my notes if they can be of any help.

[fromageGB]

This. A few pairs play an otherwise natural system with 5551 but you have to go through some hoops and it just does not seem to be worth it.

My system would be stuck on this distribution. I'm happy with the 55 in the majors, but then I don't have a follow-up bid that can show 5 diamonds.

[Cthulhu D]

My system would be stuck on this distribution. I'm happy with the 55 in the majors, but then I don't have a follow-up bid that can show 5 diamonds.

 

Pretty sure he means the lengths promised by 1S, 1H, 1D and 1C are 5, 5, 5 and 1 respectively.