1C = transfer walsh, what is your 1D open?

[fromageGB]

This question is intended for those who play (maybe sometimes, in only some partnerships) transfer walsh In the context of a natural system such as 2 over 1. I'd be interested in seeing what the general methods are when deciding between a 1C open and a 1D open. Can you just "bolt on" transfer responses to 1C to whatever you did before with the minors, so that your 1D bid does not change?

 

I was asked this by people thinking of adopting transfer walsh. On my part, I quickly changed the 1D open so that this shows either a long suit (6 card in my case) or a hand with a shortage (singleton or void outside diamonds), and as a consequence diamonds may be longer than clubs, but I am sure many play it with no change to the diamond open. What is usual? What would you recommend?

[paulg]

We play that 1♣ is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

 

This means that 1♦ openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1♦ promises five diamonds.

 

I think that those who play transfer responses to 1♣ but still open 1♦ with balanced hands with four diamonds are missing an opportunity, unless they are looking to split the notrump ranges like I believe mickyb does.

[Finch]

I posted 'other'. We open as follows:

 

- With a strong NT, open 1NT

- With a weak NT, open 1D with 4 diamonds and fewer than 5 clubs unless either (i) the hand is 3343 (sub)minimum, or (ii) the diamond suit is so bad we don't want partner to compete in the suit, or (iii) 3rd hand we tend to open the suit we want led

- With a super-strong NT, open 1C on all hands including those with 5 diamonds

 

This is non-standard, but we like this because:

- When you have a weak NT the auction is more likely to be competitive, and we want partner to be able to raise & compete in diamonds if we have a fit even if opener has a weak NT. The club suit is sadly defunct either way, but we should at least find a diamond fit if there is one

- When you have a very strong hand you are more likely to have an unopposed auction, and more likely to have a slam on; the additional space you get from the T-Walsh sequences gains a great deal. You also have more benefit from transferring the declarership to opener.

- You can play 1D - 1M - 2NT as artificial; removing 18-19 balanced from the 1D openings helps in a lot of sequences.

 

The most common 'spit' agreement I know of is the reverse of this, opening 1C on all weak NTs and opening 1D on the strong hands, but I think this is the wrong way round.

[Finch]

Can you just "bolt on" transfer responses to 1C to whatever you did before with the minors, so that your 1D bid does not change?

 

Yes. That is how we started. As we got more used to playing T-Walsh the system started to evolve.

[kenrexford]

I love unbalanced diamond, and I would define it as a hand I would not open 1NT (if the range for 1NT was appropriate). Thus, a 6-card diamond suit might still give cause for a 1♣ opening, and I might also open 1♣ with a stiff King, as examples.

 

 

So, with ♠K ♥AQxx ♦Axxx ♣10xxx, for example, I'd open 1♣. For that matter, I'd open 1♣ with that same hand but with the club being the stiff King and the spades being 10-x-x-x.

[mgoetze]

We play that 1♣ is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

 

This means that 1♦ openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1♦ promises five diamonds.

I agree, except that in my current version 1♦ can also be 1444. 4144 and 4414 are opened 1♣.

[Zelandakh]

4144 and 4414 are opened 1♣.

Michael, how do you deal with the 4144 hands in NT range after the auction: 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (P) (or whatever the equivalent of this is in your methods)?

[mgoetze]

Michael, how do you deal with the 4144 hands in NT range after the auction: 1♣ - (1♠) - X - (P) (or whatever the equivalent of this is in your methods)?

Never had that come up yet... I would just go for the smallest lie, usually 1NT or 2♦. Of course it's not impossible to have a pass here either.

[Quantumcat]

We play that 1♣ is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

 

This means that 1♦ openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1♦ promises five diamonds.

 

I think that those who play transfer responses to 1♣ but still open 1♦ with balanced hands with four diamonds are missing an opportunity, unless they are looking to split the notrump ranges like I believe mickyb does.

 

In my old system, I used to do the same, but 1♣ was weak balanced, and 1♦ was strong balanced. i.e. if 1NT was 15-17, 1♣ was 12-14 if bal and 1♦ is 18-19 if bal. Then, responder is free to raise to 2♦ assuming a 5-card suit is opposite as long as they are at least a little bit constructive (i.e. 5-HCP minimum) so can make 2NT opposite 18 balanced HCP. I think Gumby & Lazer came up with the split ranges first, they have been playing it for years and years, but for them, 1♦ is their weak balanced and 1♣ their strong. Not sure why.

[Gerben42]

I also chose "other":

 

With 14 - 16 NT, open 1NT

With 11 - 13 or 17 - 18 NT: With 4♦ at least QTxx open 1♦. Worse ♦ suits open 1♣.

With 19 - 20 NT: Open 1♦ only on 5♦332

 

1♦ is allowed on hands with 4 good ♦ and 5 bad ♣ (less than reverse)

 

4=4=4=1 distribution is the only way to open on a bad 4-card ♦ suit.

[PhilKing]

 

The most common 'spit' agreement I know of is the reverse of this, opening 1C on all weak NTs and opening 1D on the strong hands, but I think this is the wrong way round.

 

It developed this way as a matter of chance. Originally, I played 2 split-range systems. The one you describe for teams events (with Steel and Rosen from about 1996) and another related system with Garvey and McIntosh from 1995 for pairs play. The Pairs system was slightly more off the wall: 1H/1S/1NT on all weak no trumps with a 1NT opening denying a major (cooperative double over interference after 1H/S/NT), 1C nat or 15-17 bal and 1d nat or 18-20 bal.

 

Since it's obviously unplayable to play 1D 15-17 in case partner is inconsiderate enough to respond 1NT, the 1D response had to show the 18-20, and it seemed natural to retain this usage when playing the other system.

 

As it happens, opening 1C on 12-14 balanced works very well with transfers, giving accuracy you simply can't achieve after opening 1D. After (say) 1c-1d(4+H) we now play 2H as a terrible raise (usually min weak NT with 4 or 5431 types with 11-13 and 3 card support. Responder can now snap-pass with 11 points and 4 hearts. Better raises bid 1H (many hand types) and then clarify on the next round: partner generally bids 1S (breakable puppet), then 1NT = 12-14 bal, 2D 14-16 unbal with 3H (5431 or 63, enabling responder to move aggressively with a club fit and 8+), 2H decent 4 card raise (over which responder drives game on any 11 or shapely 9+). So there are THREE ways of raising to 2H, thus little need to ever try for game at the three level.

[bluecalm]

- With a strong NT, open 1NT

- With a weak NT, open 1D with 4 diamonds and fewer than 5 clubs unless either (i) the hand is 3343 (sub)minimum, or (ii) the diamond suit is so bad we don't want partner to compete in the suit, or (iii) 3rd hand we tend to open the suit we want led

- With a super-strong NT, open 1C on all hands including those with 5 diamonds

 

Sounds like the thing to do regardless if it's T-Walsh, Walsh or up the line bidding imo.

Including 18-19 bal hands in both 1D and 1C is design mistake imo. It's better to have 1D unbal if strong, especially in competition but also, as you said, in constructive bidding. It's also better to start those hands with 1C and gain from all transfers and what not to follow.

 

I am really surprised it's not standard, especially among T-Walsh crowd (which I suppose invest more time in work on their systems).

[fromageGB]

Sounds like the thing to do regardless if it's T-Walsh, Walsh or up the line bidding imo.

Including 18-19 bal hands in both 1D and 1C is design mistake imo. It's better to have 1D unbal if strong, especially in competition but also, as you said, in constructive bidding. It's also better to start those hands with 1C and gain from all transfers and what not to follow.

 

I am really surprised it's not standard, especially among T-Walsh crowd (which I suppose invest more time in work on their systems).

Certainly I agree with you that it's better to put the unbalanced strong hand into 1♦, but I am surprised you are surprised on the last sentence. With a weak NT I think it better to put the unbalanced hands into 1♦, and bid a 1♣ that says nothing about the comparative length in the minors, to get the same benefits of major suit definition. Guaranteeing the 1♦ open as unbalanced or long, at all strengths, has advantages too.