Why Walsh ?

[bluecalm]

So assume I play standardish system with 5 card majors.

From what I understand most people open 1D with 4-4 in minors and bypass diamonds with 4M after 1C opening.

I just don't see the point.

Why not open it 1C and bid suits up the line ? (so any hand with 4M and 4diamonds bids 1D first).

This way we are not stuck with 1-3-4-5 distribution after 1S response with 4-3-5-1 or something, we don't lose diamonds. Bidding like:

1C - 1D

2D - pass is possible and we find the best partial.

 

What's more:

1C - 1NT promises 4-5 clubs now so:

 

1C - pass - 1NT - 2something

3C might be bid with just 4 clubs and be competitive.

 

So my question is, why Walsh, why not just bid suits up the line and profit ?

[mgoetze]

You're right, suits should be bid up the line.

 

1♦ = hearts

1♥ = spades

 

Minors are not so important.

[pooltuna]

bidding up the line is fine if all your auctions are non competitive. IMO basically Walsh was designed to help find major suit fits in competitive auctions

[Hanoi5]

The easy answer is that there is not much profit in playing in minors when the auction will be left at low levels. And if the auction will get us very high 'cause we have plenty strnegth for that, then we can bid diamonds.

[bd71]

A new-ish partner and I have been asking this same question, as he had not played Walsh before and I mostly played it unquestioningly. Here's my latest inventory:

 

 

PROS

1. Per pooltuna, you get your major in quickly if/when auctions turn competitive.

 

2. It enables a related treatment where opener rebids the appropriate level of NT on ALL balanced hands, even if he is bypassing a 4-card major. Not all agree that this treatment is best, but I very much like it. See prior discussion at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48475-automatic-nt-rebid-w-balanced-hand/page__p__579854__fromsearch__1#entry579854.

 

3. Even with full disclosure, opponents often have a harder time leading, especially against NT contracts.

 

 

CONS

1. You sometimes lose a diamond fit, so you don't play in the right place or don't compete to a high enough level because you're unaware. BUT, this is limited to somewhat narrow situations (opener is limited...typically 12-14 balanced, AND responder holds less-than-invitational strength, AND you don't have a 4-3 major fit that plays better (especially at matchpoints), AND NT doesn't play better (especially at matchpoints).

[gnasher]

I think the main reason is to allow opener to rebid 1NT on a balanced hand after 1♣-1♦.

[mikeh]

While rebidding 1N with all balanced hands after 1♣ 1♦ is very powerful, especially when combined with 2 way checkback, the corrollary is also extremely powerful: when the auction begins 1♣ 1♦ and opener bids 1M, responder knows that opener has a distributional hand.

 

This allows responder to choose the best partial when weak and to evaluate more accurately when strong.

 

As for opening 1♣ with 4-4 minors so as to not lose the diamond fit.....well, if we have only about half the strength and we have minors....in today's game I wouldn't worry too much about missing diamonds...our problem is going to be the opening lead against their major suit contract. Further, opening 1♣ can be very embarrassing.

 

Imagine opening 1♣ on xx Jxx AQxx AQxx. LHO overcalls 1♠ and partner makes a negative double. Do we bid our Jxx heart suit? Do we bid 1N with that well-known stopper 'xx'? Do we reverse into diamonds....a suit partner hasn't shown in the common style of negative doubles...or do we rebid our 4 card minor?

 

I know I won't convince those who open 1♣ with 4-4 anymore than they have any chance of convincing me not to open 1♦. But I can honestly say I have never been stuck in the auction after 1♦ and I have seen a number of players stuck after 1♣.

[manudude03]

A few more reasons for walsh:

 

1C-1S takes away the cheap 1H overcall where it might have gone 1C-1D-(1H).

1C-1D-1M can promise an unbalanced hand, easier to judge between say 2C and 1NT.

It allows for simpler game and slam auctions (1C-1D-1S-3S can be the start of a slam try etc when 4th suit forcing might muddy the water)

[gnasher]

While rebidding 1N with all balanced hands after 1♣ 1♦ is very powerful, especially when combined with 2 way checkback, the corrollary is also extremely powerful: when the auction begins 1♣ 1♦ and opener bids 1M, responder knows that opener has a distributional hand.

I meant that your corrollary was the primary benefit; I don't regard Checkback auctions with any special enthusiam.

 

Imagine opening 1♣ on xx Jxx AQxx AQxx. LHO overcalls 1♠ and partner makes a negative double. Do we bid our Jxx heart suit? Do we bid 1N with that well-known stopper 'xx'? Do we reverse into diamonds....a suit partner hasn't shown in the common style of negative doubles...or do we rebid our 4 card minor?

We rebid 1NT, so that 1♦...2♣ can promise an unbalanced hand.

[JLOGIC]

 

 

Imagine opening 1♣ on xx Jxx AQxx AQxx. LHO overcalls 1♠ and partner makes a negative double. Do we bid our Jxx heart suit? Do we bid 1N with that well-known stopper 'xx'? Do we reverse into diamonds....a suit partner hasn't shown in the common style of negative doubles...or do we rebid our 4 card minor?

 

 

No matter what minor I opened I would certainly bid 1N.

[JLOGIC]

The reason for playing walsh is that finding major suit fits early is important. 1C p 1D with a 4 card major is susceptible to preempting. 1C p 1D with a 4 card major is susceptible to information later leaking on routine 4M/3N hands. Bidding majors immediately is just important.

 

So, if you combine "bidding/showing majors is very important" with "the cheapest bid should not be the least common" you get transfer walsh. It is far more logical than either walsh or bidding up the line. First reply to this thread was freaking epic, nice work.

[cherdano]

Say you have a balanced 13 count with 4342 over partner's 1♣ opening. When partner doesn't have extras, you will be playing 4♠ or 3NT, and bidding 1♠ is the quickest way to find out which without unnecessarily giving out information about either of our shapes.

[EricK]

While I don't disagree with any of the arguments here (T-Walsh is definitely the way to go after 1♣ in a 5 card major context), don't all the arguments about how much more important majors are than minors, and the dangers of being pre-empted before finding our major fit, equally apply to the opening bid?

[bluecalm]

Hmm, it seems you guys are all convinced Walsh > up the line (with T-Walsh being better than both).

I spent some time reverse engineering Lauria - Versace system and I love it. They play the way I described in OP.

As 2 pairs playing this way won two recent Reisingers (LV and Sementa-Duboin) among other things it seems that it's playable at matchpoints too.

From hands I saw it seems to me that getting diamonds in the picture has more benefits than disadvantages and I can't recall one occurrence of them missing major fit in competitive auction.

 

have minors....in today's game I wouldn't worry too much about missing diamonds..

 

I think the point is being able to compete to 3 level which is often crucial.

 

Imagine opening 1♣ on xx Jxx AQxx AQxx. LHO overcalls 1♠ and partner makes a negative double. Do we bid our Jxx heart suit?

 

Well of course we don't bid 2 hearts. We bid 1NT like in any other system where balanced hands are in 1m opening. That's the bid no matter what we open imo. I really don't want to bid 2C, even if I opened 1D. Minor partial on 7 trumps is not my cup of tea. Also it's nice if bidding 2C after opening 1D shows 5-4, partner may want to compete.

At least after 1NT partner will happily bid 2H with 5 of them while after 2C 5-3 heart fit might be lost forever in favor of 4-3 minor partial :)

[EricK]

Well of course we don't bid 2 hearts. We bid 1NT like in any other system where balanced hands are in 1m opening. That's the bid no matter what we open imo. I really don't want to bid 2C, even if I opened 1D. Minor partial on 7 trumps is not my cup of tea. Also it's nice if bidding 2C after opening 1D shows 5-4, partner may want to compete.

Although even if you are 5-4, you will often be in a seven card minor suit fit!

[hrothgar]

Transfer Walsh seems intrinsically destructive.

 

I'm shocked that its allowed in Midchart events

(Without even the decency of providing a suggested defense)

[mgoetze]

Transfer Walsh seems intrinsically destructive.

 

I think you're confusing "destructive" with "has substantial bridge merit". But that's understandable given that you live in ACBL territory. ;)

[Flameous]

Transfers are evil, m'kay? B-)

[mgoetze]

Hmm, it seems you guys are all convinced Walsh > up the line (with T-Walsh being better than both).

I spent some time reverse engineering Lauria - Versace system and I love it. They play the way I described in OP.

As 2 pairs playing this way won two recent Reisingers (LV and Sementa-Duboin) among other things it seems that it's playable at matchpoints too.

From hands I saw it seems to me that getting diamonds in the picture has more benefits than disadvantages and I can't recall one occurrence of them missing major fit in competitive auction.

 

I think that studying the systems top Italian pairs play is misleading when considering the question of what the rest of us should play. You have to consider that they are miles ahead of us mere mortals in terms of really knowing their system well and having very detailed understandings about followups and competitive auctions.

 

Anecdotally, consider last year's European Champion's Cup. Italy was fielding a team of Sementa, Duboin, Bocchi, Madala and Ferraro. Why 5 people? Well, apparently Sementa doesn't like to get up early, so Duboin played the first session of each day with Ferraro. I broadcast one of these sessions on Vugraph, and IIRC they had 3 bidding disagreements in 12 boards.

 

Also, consider that these top Italian pairs have major disincentives to changing fundamental aspects of their system, and indeed even small disincentives to playing something different from what their competition plays (and keep in mind that, while winning international events is the cherry on their pie, winning events at home in Italy is their bread and butter). Even if, say, Lauria and Versace were both convinced that Transfer Walsh is the way of the future... switching would still be a pretty risky move for them.

 

Bocchi carried a book around with him, about 200 pages A4 paper, hardcover binding, and with "NORBERTO" written on the cover. I'm sure that tells us something about what he thinks of changing his system.

[bluecalm]

I think that studying the systems top Italian pairs play is misleading when considering the question of what the rest of us should play.

 

I don't like this attitude. Imo people use it all the time to justify what they are used to instead of following people who are the best.

 

You have to consider that they are miles ahead of us mere mortals in terms of really knowing their system well and having very detailed understandings about followups and competitive auctions.

 

I can start developing both playing system copied from theirs instead of some brand of standardish one with hundred of holes and strange stuff like strong reverses or jumps with 3-4card suits.

I spent significant time trying to understand systems of Meckwell, Greco-Hampson and top Italian pairs. My opinion for now is that not only are those systems more powerful but much more logical and easier to play than local "standards" (like standard in US or polish club in Poland). I would much prefer copying them than stuff popular among masses but inferior and less logical.

 

and indeed even small disincentives to playing something different from what their competition plays

 

That is very strange opinion considering that Fantunes developed something completely different than competition play, that Bocchi-Duboin experimented with a lot of strange stuff along their career and played T-Walsh and different opening structure than most people.

Also, if you were such vugraph addict as me you would know that LV changed a lot of stuff during the years. Two-way checkback, drury (they didn't play that before), structure after 2/1 are just 3 examples. It's not like they are not working/changing stuff.

They also refuse to play support double which really doesn't make much sense with wide range opening. If they wanted to play along the field they would play it as most people who parroted from precision player and adapted it to systems where it doesn't fit.

 

Bocchi carried a book around with him, about 200 pages A4 paper, hardcover binding, and with "NORBERTO" written on the cover. I'm sure that tells us something about what he thinks of changing his system.

 

My understanding from interviews with him and from what he actually plays is that he is working all the time on systems and try to play the best stuff not being afraid of changing things or playing very anti-field treatments (like various NT ranges etc.)

Those players introduced a lot of innovations which were very antifield like transfers in competition for example.

 

Anyway, are you suggesting they play inferior stuff, knowing it's inferior because competition in Italy play that ? I mean srsly ?

What about more natural explanation: Meckwell's, Lauria's and Bocchi's of this world know better and what they play is probably both best and most practical.

 

Now, LV bid suit's up the line and you will find T-Walsh in "Norberto" handbook so probably there is difference of opinion but if "bidding with teh field" was the argument they would surely switch to the one more popular, wouldn't they ?

[mgoetze]

I don't like this attitude. Imo people use it all the time to justify what they are used to instead of following people who are the best.

 

Fine... dislike all you want. I was very careful in how I phrased this statement and I don't quite see what you think it's "justifying" - I'm pretty sure I don't play only what I'm used to. I'm just saying that if two people who each have a full-time non-bridge job decide to play Fantunes bidding system, they should not expect to do as well with it as Fantoni-Nunes.

 

I can start developing both playing system copied from theirs instead of some brand of standardish one with hundred of holes and strange stuff like strong reverses or jumps with 3-4card suits.

I spent significant time trying to understand systems of Meckwell, Greco-Hampson and top Italian pairs. My opinion for now is that not only are those systems more powerful but much more logical and easier to play than local "standards" (like standard in US or polish club in Poland). I would much prefer copying them than stuff popular among masses but inferior and less logical.

 

If you think what people are suggesting on these forums has "hundreds of holes", I'm sure we would like to hear details. If you are just trying to make a strawman argument, suit yourself.

 

Anyway, are you suggesting they play inferior stuff, knowing it's inferior because competition in Italy play that ? I mean srsly ?

 

I am certainly suggesting that that would be a perfectly valid strategy. There are parts of the system where it matters more, and others where it matters less - continuations after a 2/1 which you mentioned certainly falling in the latter category.

 

Obviously F-N have a different philosophy on this and it works for them. But then they are only Italy's 4th best pair by Mrs. Lavazza's reckoning. ;)

 

What about more natural explanation: Meckwell's, Lauria's and Bocchi's of this world know better and what they play is probably both best and most practical.

 

As I was trying to suggest in my opening statement last post, what is most practical for them is not necessarily what is most practical for me.

 

I do think that Rodwell knows what is best, but he's not allowed to play it thanks to the effort Meckstroth puts in on the C&C Committee. Maybe it's because Balicki and Zmudzinski played it better than they could? ;)

 

Now, LV bid suit's up the line and you will find T-Walsh in "Norberto" handbook

 

And what do you think, is Norberto suffering greatly from all the diamond fits he's missing?

[awm]

I agree with bluecalm. My experience is that bidding up the line works much better than Walsh and slightly better than t-Walsh. I understand that people disagree with me on this, but I find the degree of utter scorn some seem to have for up the line bidding a bit incomprehensible.

[bluecalm]

Fine... dislike all you want. I was very careful in how I phrased this statement and I don't quite see what you think it's "justifying"

 

I mean that: "what is best for them is not the best for us mortals" is flawed argument.

You need to give some reasons why other solutions might be better for amateur players to make it valid.

 

If you think what people are suggesting on these forums has "hundreds of holes"

 

I think I wasn't clear. I mean if I have a choice of copying structure from the best players and from standard system (which has hundred of holes) I should pick the former.

I didn't want to suggest that Walsh has hundred of holes (although I do think it's inferior to both up-the-line bidding and to T-Walsh). I did want to suggest that "standard" with stuff like jumps with 3-4 card suits or "strong reverses" is as bad as bidding system could get and every pair would be better off switching to something decent (which might be precision, LV system or Polish club or w/e).

 

here are parts of the system where it matters more, and others where it matters less

 

Bocchi-Duboin played a lot of anti-field stuff. They surely wasn't afraid of it.

 

As I was trying to suggest in my opening statement last post, what is most practical for them is not necessarily what is most practical for me.

 

It sounded to me as you made an argument that it is in fact not the most practical for you (or us mortals) and not just "not necessarily so". If I am wrong about my interpretation then it's just general statement which doesn't say nothing about anything.

 

I do think that Rodwell knows what is best, but he's not allowed to play it thanks to the effort Meckstroth puts in on the C&C Committee. Maybe it's because Balicki and Zmudzinski played it better than they could

 

If you mean strong pass, it's almost surely not that good.

In Poland you can freely play it in team leagues which is arguably the most important competition in the country which many pairs treat very seriously and only few pairs do it and they usually get smashed.

 

And what do you think, is Norberto suffering greatly from all the diamond fits he's missing?

 

I didn't express opinion about T-Walsh.

I think it's good. It might be better than bidding up-the-line.

I just wanted to see why people play Walsh besides its being fashion.

From what I gather the anchor arguments are about losing major fit in competition and about not giving away information being more important than competing in diamonds/having less shapes in 1M responses.

[jmcw]

bidding up the line is fine if all your auctions are non competitive. IMO basically Walsh was designed to help find major suit fits in competitive auctions

 

 

I think the main reason is to allow opener to rebid 1NT on a balanced hand after 1♣-1♦.

 

 

A few more reasons for walsh:

 

1C-1S takes away the cheap 1H overcall where it might have gone 1C-1D-(1H).

1C-1D-1M can promise an unbalanced hand, easier to judge between say 2C and 1NT.

It allows for simpler game and slam auctions (1C-1D-1S-3S can be the start of a slam try etc when 4th suit forcing might muddy the water)

 

 

IMO these are real benefits, not some obscure once a year occurances.

I have noted several auctions over the past few months where I wished I had been playing Walsh.

So far, I have never noted a time when I had wished I wasn't.

[benlessard]

One of my first serious bidding book that ive read was http://www.amazon.ca/Better-Bidding-Bergen-Uncontested-Auctions/dp/0910791368. If i remember correctly the first chapter is about Walsh and that Bergen is making a pretty convincing point in favor of Walsh. So Im pretty sure Walsh is not a fad.