What does Transfer Walsh do here?

[Finch]

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

 

It's true that there are two main styles. It's certainly not true that in every case accepting the transfer is forcing. Along with a lot of other people, I play accepting the transfer as non-forcing.

[Finch]

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

 

I used to play that before I played T-Walsh. Now I put all strong 4-card raises into the 2NT rebid.

 

Both with Jallerton and my other regular partner we play 3D as showing a game forcing hand with clubs. So not very suitable on this hand.

I repeat: T-Walsh is not a system and opener's rebids are not defined.

[bluecalm]

It's true that there are two main styles. It's certainly not true that in every case accepting the transfer is forcing. Along with a lot of other people, I play accepting the transfer as non-forcing.

 

T-Walsh isn't very popular in my country but people I know who play it play accepting as NF.

Bocchi-Duboin played it as NF as well (although containing some hands up to 16-17hcp).

I find the idea of accepting being forcing theoretically unsound.

 

I used to play that before I played T-Walsh. Now I put all strong 4-card raises into the 2NT rebid.

 

Aren't you afraid to end up in 2N when holding 8-9card major fit when partner is too weak to bid after 2N ?

I didn't have any experience with T-Walsh but it seems to me handling 18-19bal opposite near busts is one of its biggest gains over standard.

[Zelandakh]

Aren't you afraid to end up in 2N when holding 8-9card major fit when partner is too weak to bid after 2N ?

Is this not similar to asking whether a pair is worried about finishing in 2NT when playing Jacoby?

[hrothgar]

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.

 

At the most basic level, transfer Walsh applies transfers to a Walsh style response structure to a 1♣ opening.

 

(Once again simplifying) playing a Walsh style over a 1C opening, responder will prioritize a 1M response over 1♦ with hands that are only worth one bid.

As a practical example

 

After a 1♣ opening, Walsh players would respond 1H holding either of the following two hands

 

♠ J54

♥ KT72

♦ QJ52

♣ 54

 

♠ J54

♥ KT72

♦ QJT52

♣ 5

 

In contrast, players who bid "up the line" would typically show Diamonds first.

 

Playing a "transfer" Walsh style, players would advance 1♦ with hands that Walsh players would bid 1♥ and bid 1♥ with hands that Walsh players would bid 1♠.

 

On the "why is this a good idea" front:

 

1. A transfer Walsh style is more efficient at using bidding space because it does a better job aligning the frequency of the response with the level of the response. (Playing standard Walsh, 1D responses are significantly less frequent than 1♥ responses)

 

2. A transfer Walsh style is better at supporting very light responses to 1C openings

 

3. A transfer Walsh style solves some thorny problems that plague more traditional response structures (think Bridge World Death hand)

[bluecalm]

Is this not similar to asking whether a pair is worried about finishing in 2NT when playing Jacoby?

 

I don't know what Jacoby is in the context.

If you mean transfer after 1N then no, because you only end up in 2N with 5-2 trumps and invitational hand (so 23-24pc)

If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural. Responder doesn't know if opener has 2 or 4 cards in M and with something like Kxx JTxxx Jxx xx is stuck.

[Zelandakh]

If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural.

Read Frances's post again blue. Her 2NT rebid contains all of the strong 4 card raises, precisely as most play a 2NT response to a 1M opening. I would assume from this that she has an alternative rebid for the strong balanced hands without 4 card support, most likely 1NT but this part was not stated.

[aguahombre]

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.

As an outsider looking in to T-Walsh first responses, and after learning that Opener's rebids are not prescribed as part of the system --- it seems that the chief advantage to T-Walsh would be the ability to rebid 1 of Responder's suit to show exactly 3, eliminating that issue from all future checkbacks when Opener has the normal minimum opening range.

 

I cannot see how accepting with 0-2 and bidding something else with precisely 3 hearts would do anything other than clog up our auction (Do we then make "delay" reverses?). It might kill us when Responder is very light and we can no-longer bail out at 1H (an alleged advantage we don't have to begin with unless playing T-Walsh Responses).

[Zelandakh]

As an outsider looking in to T-Walsh first responses, and after learning that Opener's rebids are not prescribed as part of the system --- it seems that the chief advantage to T-Walsh would be the ability to rebid 1 of Responder's suit to show exactly 3, eliminating that issue from all future checkbacks when Opener has the normal minimum opening range.

 

I cannot see how accepting with 0-2 and bidding something else with precisely 3 hearts would do anything other than clog up our auction (Do we then make "delay" reverses?). It might kill us when Responder is very light and we can no-longer bail out at 1H (an alleged advantage we don't have to begin with unless playing T-Walsh Responses).

The core idea is to stay low without a fit and bid more when a fit is available. Stopping in 1♥ with a weak hand and a long suit is actually safer than a method where all hands with 3 cards accept the transfer, since the latter types might grow up to make game whereas we have nowhere to go other than 2♥ opposite the misfit. Note that this is the same reason why accepting on a weak NT is better than accepting on 3 cards - these hands are just very likely to want to play here opposite the weak one-suiter and this also makes for a method good at differentiating between hand types.

[karlson]

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

 

I play the same style, but it seems right to me to swap (play 3♥ as 18-19 bal with 4 hearts, and 3♦ as an unbalanced 4-card raise). I think rightsiding is more likely to matter opposite the balanced hand (but it's probably not a big deal either way).

[32519]

Mr. Willey, maybe you should start taking a closer look at T-Walsh and see how you can rehash it into your MOSCITO system; firstly to get the system legal, and secondly to jam the auction. How about this for a starter:

1♣ = 10-11 HCP, balanced (that should be legal even in the ACBL)

 

Partner’s responses are T-Walsh

1♦ = 4+ Hearts

1♥ = 4+ Spades

 

Now you can try and jam the auction by bidding 2♥/2♠ on a potential 4-3 fit. The opponents have no idea of responder’s actual hand strength and after 2♠ need to balance on level-3. Every time partner has real values he simply keeps on bidding over 2M.

 

You can come and post your new system here and the forum members will help you with the continuation bidding structure. Maybe you can call it “Upside Down MOSCITO,” or "Inside-Out MOSCITO."

[hrothgar]

Mr. Willey, maybe you should start taking a closer look at T-Walsh and see how you can rehash it into your MOSCITO system; firstly to get the system legal, and secondly to jam the auction. How about this for a starter:

1♣ = 10-11 HCP, balanced (that should be legal even in the ACBL)

 

Partner’s responses are T-Walsh

1♦ = 4+ Hearts

1♥ = 4+ Spades

 

Now you can try and jam the auction by bidding 2♥/2♠ on a potential 4-3 fit. The opponents have no idea of responder’s actual hand strength and after 2♠ need to balance on level-3. Every time partner has real values he simply keeps on bidding over 2M.

 

You can come and post your new system here and the forum members will help you with the continuation bidding structure. Maybe you can call it “Upside Down MOSCITO,” or "Inside-Out MOSCITO."

 

FWIW, I pointed out the similarity between transfer Walsh and the MOSCITO opening structure years back.

It was not a fruitful discussion.

[Finch]

I don't know what Jacoby is in the context.

If you mean transfer after 1N then no, because you only end up in 2N with 5-2 trumps and invitational hand (so 23-24pc)

If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural. Responder doesn't know if opener has 2 or 4 cards in M and with something like Kxx JTxxx Jxx xx is stuck.

 

Sorry that I wasn't clear. In the version of T-Walsh where you complete the transfer with a weak NT and rebid 1NT on strong balanced hands, 2NT is 'free' and we use it as a forcing bid containing various strong hands with 4-card support.

[bluecalm]

Sorry that I wasn't clear. In the version of T-Walsh where you complete the transfer with a weak NT and rebid 1NT on strong balanced hands, 2NT is 'free' and we use it as a forcing bid containing various strong hands with 4-card support.

 

Thanks for the clarification, that version makes lot of sense to me.

[gnasher]

The core idea is to stay low without a fit and bid more when a fit is available. Stopping in 1♥ with a weak hand and a long suit is actually safer than a method where all hands with 3 cards accept the transfer, since the latter types might grow up to make game whereas we have nowhere to go other than 2♥ opposite the misfit. Note that this is the same reason why accepting on a weak NT is better than accepting on 3 cards - these hands are just very likely to want to play here opposite the weak one-suiter and this also makes for a method good at differentiating between hand types.

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.

[Zelandakh]

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.

And where do you want to be opposite Opener's minimum 3145? If you are accepting the transfer with 0-2 hearts then it would be difficult to stop in 1♥ with the weak balanced hands of 3+ hearts, so we are only talking about those weak NTs with 2 hearts here.

[paulg]

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.

I think if you have 7-9 HCP and 5 hearts, and the opponents have not bid yet despite at least three opportunities, then the chances of 1♥ being the last makable contract has gone up significantly. It still may not be high, but it is well above zero.

[fromageGB]

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.

Which word was that?

 

The article is extremely useless and does little except note that the concept exists. To be fair, I think it is not an easy subject for an article, as there are so many flavours and styles you can adopt. If I updated this article with a section to accommodate my methods, you would need a section for each partnership that uses twalsh. As my notes cover 7 pages, I don't think the idea of revision is a starter.

[fromageGB]

At the most basic level, transfer Walsh applies transfers to a Walsh style response structure to a 1♣ opening.

I see no connection between the Walsh style and transfer walsh. It should really have a different name. Walsh to me implies that a good hand with diamonds and a major will show diamonds first. I don't know any twalsh player who does this.

[fromageGB]

As an outsider looking in to T-Walsh first responses, and after learning that Opener's rebids are not prescribed as part of the system --- it seems that the chief advantage to T-Walsh would be the ability to rebid 1 of Responder's suit to show exactly 3, eliminating that issue from all future checkbacks when Opener has the normal minimum opening range.

 

I cannot see how accepting with 0-2 and bidding something else with precisely 3 hearts would do anything other than clog up our auction (Do we then make "delay" reverses?). It might kill us when Responder is very light and we can no-longer bail out at 1H (an alleged advantage we don't have to begin with unless playing T-Walsh Responses).

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.

I don't agree that showing exactly 3 is best. I am a strong adherent of the "completion shows a 12-14 without 4 card support" camp, so it will be 2 or 3. It will not be fewer than 2 if you play that a 1♦ open is long or has a shortage outside diamonds; now the 1♣ open guarantees you have at least a doubleton in both majors.

 

12-14 is not guaranteed, as for me a 1♣ open may have a shortage in diamonds, so it could be 15/16 in that case.

 

Playing a completion as non-forcing is better in my view. When responder is a minimum hand with a 5 card suit, I am happy to be able to pass. OK, going further is an option when 4th seat protects, but it is useful to have distinctions between various responder rebids/recalls(!).

[fromageGB]

And where do you want to be opposite Opener's minimum 3145?

Don't open 1♣!

[fromageGB]

My agreements say that 1♣ 1♦ 3♦ is 15/16 4 card support with diamond shortage, while 4♦ is 17-19. The OP hand is 4♦ for me.

[Zelandakh]

Don't open 1♣!

Don't we want to open 1♣ more often playing TWalsh rather than less?

[fromageGB]

Well, I do, but not with a shortage other than diamonds. For example, 3352 or 4252 are 1♣ open for me, and that may not be standard with others.

[Finch]

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.

 

This demonstrates the problem of talking about bits of system in isolation.

If I have a weak hand with a long suit (hearts), I responded 2♥ WJS in response to 1♣ so that isn't a possible hand. If I have a stronger hand, I can raise the 1♥ completion to 2♥ which I play as constructive. This isn't the only possible scheme, of course.

 

But my empirical evidence suggests that with a weak hand with a 5-card suit opposite a weak NT, you get to play at the 1-level surprisingly often and you often gain imps compared to the 1NT or 2M contract selected in the other room. You don't have to be that weak to pass - in the NEC we bid 1C - 1H - 1S - P and responder had a 5422 9-count. This was our last making spot opposite opener's 2443 11-count and they could make nothing. (2H was off, in spite of it being a bigger fit.)