What does Transfer Walsh do here?

[32519]

Playing Transfer Walsh, what is South's second bid here?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak52hak63d3ck943&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1d(Transfer%20Walsh)p]133|200[/hv]

South has a nice hand here with the top two hearts?

[manudude03]

I would bid 3D, it probably won't matter too much if partner plays it.

[Finch]

Depends on your agreements. Just saying you play "Transfer Walsh" doesn't define the system.

[32519]

I would bid 3D, it probably won't matter too much if partner plays it.

Not sure if 3♦ should be 3♥ here.

 

Check out this link on Transfer Walsh. Here is an extract:

 

"With four-card support, it is normal to accept the transfer at the 1 level holding a minimum hand, giving a jump overcall (for example 2♥ after a 1♦ response) with a maximum. One can jump even higher, to 3 or even 4 according to the strength of the hand, but only holding the mentioned four-card support. With three-card support the transfer is always completed at the 1 level, with less than three-card support another natural response is given."

 

Manudude03 seems to be following the higher level of accepting the transfer. Anyone prepared to accept the transfer on level-4 as the article suggests is possible?

[mike777]

It might help to tell us what transfer walsh is ..how it works ...and why we should care?

 

 

I do understand that transfer walsh is the bbo flavor of the year.

[bluecalm]

Playing Transfer Walsh, what is South's second bid here?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak52hak63d3ck943&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1d(Transfer%20Walsh)p]133|200[/hv]

South has a nice hand here with the top two hearts?

 

Bid the same thing you would after 1C - 1H in standard

[johnu]

It might help to tell us what transfer walsh is ..how it works ...and why we should care?

 

 

I do understand that transfer walsh is the bbo flavor of the year.

 

There is a link in the post before your post.

[mike777]

There is a link in the post before your post.

 

 

I read it ...does not help...can you?

 

I concede I fully concede that tfr walsh and really transfer bidding is really the next big thing to discuss here on the forums

 

many of you touch on it the past year...but not in full debate mode :)

 

 

many of us don't know the basics

[aguahombre]

Bid the same thing you would after 1C - 1H in standard

That makes too much sense, so it must be wrong.

[the hog]

Bid the same thing you would after 1C - 1H in standard

 

This

[Trinidad]

Not sure if 3♦ should be 3♥ here.

 

Check out this link on Transfer Walsh. Here is an extract:

 

"With four-card support, it is normal to accept the transfer at the 1 level holding a minimum hand, giving a jump overcall (for example 2♥ after a 1♦ response) with a maximum. One can jump even higher, to 3 or even 4 according to the strength of the hand, but only holding the mentioned four-card support. With three-card support the transfer is always completed at the 1 level, with less than three-card support another natural response is given."

 

Manudude03 seems to be following the higher level of accepting the transfer. Anyone prepared to accept the transfer on level-4 as the article suggests is possible?

I am afraid this information on Wikipedia is incorrect.

 

Rebidding after Transfer Walsh with 4 card support is -in principle- very easy: You just make the bid that you would have made if you wouldn't have used Transfer Walsh (and partner would have bid 1♥ instead of 1♦).

 

So, the principle is that with a minimum and four card support, you bid 2♥ (and absolutely not 1♥). With a medium, you bid 3♥, and a with a maximum you bid 4♥.

 

There are two basic styles on what accepting the transfer at the one level shows:

 

The Scandinavian style (published by Anders Wirgren and Mats Nilsland) is that it shows a weak NT without 4 card support (a 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT). But I don't think you are working with that style.

 

The Central European style (published by Henk Uijterwaal) is that accepting the transfer at the one level shows three card support (any strength).

There are variations to this style where accepting the transfer at the one level can contain hands with four card support, but only when they are maximum, never when they are minimum.

This approach is possible since accepting the transfer at the one level is absolutely forcing. It means that you don't need to jump to 4♥ with balanced GF hands with four card support. This will enable you to sort out whether 3NT might be a better contract (despite the 4-4 fit) and it makes slam exploration easier.

However, if at first you stick to the principle that you raise as if responder would have bid his major naturally, you will quickly learn to play (and appreciate) Transfer Walsh.

 

Rik

[rhm]

Without any agreement I would want to splinter.

If 3♦ shows this hand fine.

If not 4♦ can hardly be misinterpreted.

If you tell me 4♥ has no play because the meager values partner has are in diamonds, something like ♠x ♥Jxxx ♦QJxxx ♣Qxx, I am aware and I do not care.

It is at least as likely that the red suits are reversed, with which partner would not accept any invitations.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

wow that wikipedia article is horrible. Someone volunteers to revise it?

[rhm]

wow that wikipedia article is horrible. Someone volunteers to revise it?

Can you let us in what is so horrible about this short summary?

Is it omitting your personal pet gadget?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

No it is just so badly written. If it wasn't because I know everything that is in the article already, I wouldn't understand one word. OK maybe one. But not much more than that.

[Trinidad]

Can you let us in what is so horrible about this short summary?

Is it omitting your personal pet gadget?

 

Rainer Herrmann

As Helene said, it is poorly written. As I said, it is incorrect.

 

Those two together make it pretty close to "horrible".

 

Rik

[helene_t]

With Shogi I used to accept the transfer with 3-card support but also with some 14-17 hands with 4-card support that are unsuitable for a splinter - we didn't always open 1NT with (24)25 and you could have a sec Ace or King with which you don't want to splinter. But I think the latter hand is not so essential so you might as well define the transfer accept as exactly 3-card support. I believe that is the style that is most commonly played in the Netherlands.

 

We used the 3-level accept for the 18-19 hands. I believe 4m should be a Walsh Fragment and 4-level accepts should be (51)16 but I am not sure if we discussed that.

 

Roy Hughes suggests a different style in his "Building a Bidding System" book, in which 1♦ is used not only with hearts but also with any hand that wants to relay. Sounds a bit over-loaded to me but he wrote a book about it so presumably he has given it some thoughts.

 

The British juniors seem all (?) to play that the transfer accept as 12-14 balanced without 4-card support.

[ahydra]

Close between 3H and 4D (SPL). I'd pick the former at pairs and the latter at teams.

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

The British juniors seem all (?) to play that the transfer accept as 12-14 balanced without 4-card support.

Another possibility is (roughly) to accept with 0-2 hearts, raise with 4 hearts and bid something else with precisely 3 hearts. I do think the quoted method is better than accepting with 3 card support.

[gordontd]

Close between 3H and 4D (SPL). I'd pick the former at pairs and the latter at teams.

 

ahydra

What about 3D? Wouldn't you expect that to show the strength of the former with the shape of the latter?

[ahydra]

What about 3D? Wouldn't you expect that to show the strength of the former with the shape of the latter?

 

Hmm, a valid point... I'll have to discuss this with partner :) The way we play 4D would be the SPL. But with 2D being a reverse, it makes sense to allocate some other meaning to 3D than "NAT, better than a reverse". I quite like this idea of "opener mini-splinters"; I guess other uses would be showing singleton vs void, or perhaps showing some specific shape (like 4405, here).

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

I quite like this idea of "opener mini-splinters"; I guess other uses would be showing singleton vs void, or perhaps showing some specific shape (like 4405, here).

I have one partner with whom I had agreed that 4D would be a singleton splinter, 3D would either be a mini-splinter or a void splinter, and the hand with the void would go on after partner signed off. What we didn't discuss (and led to us missing a slam this week) was what calls by opener show the stronger hand after partner has cue-bid. I think it could be sorted out using some version of serious/frivolous 3NT.

[PhilKing]

Best use for 3♦ imo is to show exactly 18-19 bal with 4 hearts (if such hands open 1♣.

[paulg]

Depends on your agreements. Just saying you play "Transfer Walsh" doesn't define the system.

This is the only possible answer.

 

I would hope that anyone who decides to play Transfer Walsh will put in the necessary effort to gain from adopting such a non-standard method. It is not something that you get for free, but it comes up more often that practically any other convention you will play and is worth investing time and effort to get a set of solid agreements. But even before you start agreeing on Transfer Walsh you need to decide what hands will open 1♣.

 

There are two or three popular approaches with respect to accepting the transfer. There are probably a multitude of approaches when you do not accept the transfer, either with or without support. I fear that those who say, "just do the same as 1♣-1♥" appear to be encouraging a quick-and-easy approach that will not take significant advantage of the method but will incur a lot of pain with the 1♠ transfer response. On the other hand it is possible that a mini-splinter is the best use for the call, but it is just so dependent on the rest of your methods (and hands that open 1♣).

 

(As it happens I play 3♦ the same way as Phil)

[MickyB]

Accepting on any hand with precisely three hearts strikes me as an attempt to play "natural" rebids with little regard for theory. The "complete = 11-13 NT" method is decent but I am fairly sure it's better to play the transfer completion as artificial and forcing. It's much like any number of other auctions - the cheapest bids should be used for hands that are still looking for a fit, most higher bids [and this may well include 2♦ or even 2♣] should be used to show various hands with support.