New idea for T-Walsh

[Free]

I was toying with a new idea for T-Walsh. The 1♣ opening would be unbalanced natural or balanced min/max (with 1NT opening splitting the ranges). The NT ranges are undefined at the moment, but would probably be 11-13, 14-16 (1NT) and 17-19. 3-3-5-2's would also be opened 1♣ if they fall in the correct range.

 

The idea is to combine some ideas I've seen over the years. As most of you probably know I'm fond of Gazzilli over 1M openings. After an unbalanced 1♦ opening I can play 1NT or 2♣ as some sort of Gazzilli. After 1♣ openings however there's nothing appealing available. This is where another idea comes into play: 2 artificial calls showing or denying 3+ card support for partner's suit.

 

After 1♣-1♦ (4+♥):

1♥ = min bal, 2-3♥

1♠ = natural, unbal

1NT = 16+HCP, 0-2♥, forcing

2♣ = natural

2♦ = 16+HCP, 3+♥

2♥ = normal 4 card raise (perhaps allowing 3 in a 5431 distribution?)

2♠ = min 6-5 or INV distributional raise

2NT = 14-15 hand of death

3♣ = 14-15 nat with 0-2♥

3♦+ = ?

 

After 1♣-1♥ (4+♠):

1♠ = min bal, 2-3♠

1NT = 16+HCP, 0-2♠, forcing

2♣ = natural

2♦ = 16+HCP, 3+♠

2♥ = min 6-5 or INV distributional raise

2♠ = normal 4 card raise (perhaps allowing 3 in a 5431 distribution?)

2NT = 14-15 hand of death

3♣ = 14-15 nat with 0-2♠

3♦+ = ?

 

This gives us a lot of space to figure out strong hands and it allows us to find distributional games.

After the 2♦ reverse responder can safely bid 2M with a weak hand: even a 4-3 fit will play ok at 2-level. And with strong hands either he or opener already knows about a fit (responder knows 5-3, opener knows 4-4). After 1NT "Gazzilli"-ish we have plenty of space to figure out where to play. The biggest problem I see here is that we still don't know anything about opener's ♣ holding: it might be natural ofcourse, but it can still be balanced with a doubleton ♣.

 

I guess this could work very well, given some work. But I have not yet figured out what 1♣-1♠ and 1♣-1NT should mean, and if it's possible to use similar continuations after these responses. If we say that 1♠ promisses a rebid (for example with 6+♦), then we could even play 1♣-1♠-1NT as balanced min/max and 2♦ as 16+ any unbalanced. But that shifts the problem to 1♣-1NT auctions.

 

Your input would be welcome!

[Kungsgeten]

I think it has merits, although the thing I enjoyed most about playing t-walsh was that we could show a non-forcing 17--19 NT at 1NT. In this method 1NT seems to be forcing. Your 2♦ rebid is similar to Odwrotka in Polish club, with the exception that responder may have a very weak hand. I think it could work. We used to play the following:

 

1C--1D;

1H = 2--3 card support min bal or 3 card support min unbal

1S = Natural, unbalanced and unlimited

1N = 17--19 bal, 2--3 support

2C = Natural min, 0--2 support

2D = Natural reverse

2H = 4 card support, min semi-bal or min unbal (too bad for 3H)

2S = 4+ support, unbal, 16+

2N = 16+ with 6+ clubs, if 3 card support then 18+

3C = 6+ clubs, 3 card support, 15--17

3D = 17--19 bal, 4 card support

3H = 13--15 unbal with 4 card support

 

1C--1H;

1S = Same principle as above

1N = As above

2C = As above

2DH = Reverse

2S = 4 card min

2N = Same principle as above

3C = As above

3D = 4+ support, unbal 16+

3H = 17--19 bal with 4 card support

3S = Same principle as above

 

The biggest problem was when opener was strong with support, and responder had bid on air. This could be solved by passing with very weak hands, or to use some kind of lower force (as you suggest). A treatment I've seen is:

 

1C--1red; 2D = Natural reverse or strong with 4 card support

 

It seems pretty good to me.

 

Another option would be to use the simple transfer accept as a forcing bid. From my experience the bidding very seldom went 1C--1red; 1M all pass. Perhaps something like this:

 

1C--1D;

1H = Balanced min 2-3 hearts or 16+ unbal with 3+ hearts

1S = Natural unlimited

1N = 17--19

2C = Natural

2D = Natural reverse

2H = Bad raise

2S = 16+ and 6+ clubs

[benlessard]

What we do in a strong club 15+ scheme is to split the 1M rebids range.

 

1NT = 12-14

 

 

1C-1D(H or pts)-1NT = 17-18 without 4H

 

1C-1D-1H = at least 3H 15-16 or 19-20 not forcing

1C-1D-1S = at least 3S 15-16 or 19-20 not forcing

 

after 1C-1H(spades) we dont need to split the range because 1H is 0-4(5) or GF.

[fromageGB]

I was toying with a new idea for T-Walsh...

I can't really see what you are trying to do here. It seems basically pretty normal but with a split on strong hands between 3 card support and fewer, the former rebidding 2♦. Is it really necessary, as there is room over 1NT for responder to find out, and is it worth sacrificing the natural bid for a strong xx46 shape ? (If this is in your 1♦ opening, it must be tricky to subsequently describe.)

 

Another problem is the 1NT rebid being 0-2 hearts, because if both long club hands and balanced hands are in this one bid, it must be forcing, which does not seem a good idea to me. Yes, there is space to figure out the best place to play, but this is quite likely to be 1NT. This is completely different to the Gazzilli scenario, where there is a fallback contract of 2M, which is reasonable.

 

I am also not keen on a minimum club/major two-suiter being forcing to the 3-level when there is no fit, as it must be if the 2♠ rebid could be an invitational raise.

 

Sorry, but to me it does not look very good so far.

[The Pud]

1♣ - 1♦: 4+ hearts

 

1♥: 2-3 hearts, 11-13 balanced or 11-5 5+C 0-2 hearts

1♠: natural, 11-18, F1

1NT: 17-19 balanced 2-3 hearts

2♣: 15+ with at least 3 hearts

2NT: Acol 2 in clubs, 0-2 hearts

3♣: 6+C, 0-2 hearts

 

Similar after 1♣ - 1♥

 

 

1♣ - 1♠: less than GF without 4cM or Weak Jump Shift in Diamonds

 

1NT: 11-13 balanced

2♦: 17-19 balanced

2♥: invitational

2♠: puppet to 2NT

 

 

1♣ - 1NT: 8-11 6+Diamonds or Diamonds GF

 

2♣: 17-19 balanced or natural

2♦: 11-13 balanced or minimum

 

 

1♣ - 2♣: Clubs GF

 

 

1♣ - 2♦: 5+D4+S 0-10

[mikeh]

why do so many people add complexity as if complexity is an asset?

 

Complexity adds to memory load, and increases error rates, but can be a very important part of a method IF it solves problems. When all it does is complicate things for no reason other than to be able to boast that one plays a complex method then it is silly.

 

Why on earth would one want to play the suggested method?

 

1N 16+ 0-2 hearts? wtf??? what 'problem' does that solve? I suppose one could invent a method over it for responder to find out about the hand type, but what does he do with weak hands?

 

2♠ min 6-5 or a distributional raise?

 

what problem does that solve, and how does one bid after this?

 

I mean, a simple, straightforward t-walsh structure deals accurately with the vast majority of hand-types, with easy to play, simple and effective follow-ups.

 

1♣ - 1♦:

 

1♥ shows a balanced hand with 2-3 card support, over which responder uses 2C as a puppet to 2D, to play or to make a natural invite, and 2D as artificial gf.

 

1S shows an unbalanced hand with spades, non-forcing

 

1N shows a balanced hand with too good for a 1N opening (if 1N s 15-17,then this shows 17+-19) and is non-forcing, denying 4 hearts

 

2C is natural, non-forcing

 

2D is....surprise...natural...a reverse

 

2H is a minimum with 4 card support

 

2S is....surprise....natural, gf

 

2N can be put to special uses...I play it as the BW death hand: 6331 with 18+ or so, and 3 hearts. we have a simple artificial structure over it.

 

Compare this to the absurdity of using 1N for 16+ 0-2 hearts, or 2S as whatever is meant by 6-5 or distributional raise.

 

Maybe you can make your method work (tho how you have intelligent bidding when opener has a club diamond reverse hand is so far a mystery) but why go to all that work? what problems are you solving, and at what cost?

 

Those 2 questions should be the very first thing anyone ever considers when thinking about a new approach. Instead, it seems that most simply think: wow, this is neat!

[mikeh]

dup

[fromageGB]

... Instead, it seems that most simply think: wow, this is neat!

Be fair, there is only one poster who thinks the idea has merit. From Free's silence, I assume he too has given up on the idea. But ideas I like to hear, because as someone wrote elsewhere recently, it makes you question your own ways and see things from an angle you may not have considered.

[Zelandakh]

I don't want to get into the whole issue of whether it is a good idea or not but if you like Gazilli it would be possible to play 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ as natural or extras with Gazilli-style follow-ups. Obviously you lose the ability to pass 1♠ this way and it is slightly more complicated when the base suit is a major rather than a minor - but I think it should work. After a 1♥ response things are more difficult and I cannot see how a Gazilli structure could work. On the other hand you could bundle the 3 card raise into 2♦ and use 2♥ as a relay to sort it out (1♣ - 1♥; 2♦ - 2♥; 2♠ = 3 spades with or without diamonds...1♣ - 1♥; 2♦ - 2♥; 2NT+ = normal reverse with 0-2 spades). Obviously there are downsides to both of these ideas but at least the alterations are small and the memory overhead therefore less than for a custom method.

[mikeh]

Be fair, there is only one poster who thinks the idea has merit. From Free's silence, I assume he too has given up on the idea. But ideas I like to hear, because as someone wrote elsewhere recently, it makes you question your own ways and see things from an angle you may not have considered.

I have no problem with thinking outside the box, but one needs to edit one's idea by doing that 'what problem does this solve and at what cost' before announcing one's bright new idea to the world. This comment applies only to constructive bidding situations...if thinking of obstructive bidding, such as over their strong 1N or in a preemptive setting, then one adds: what problems does this cause the opps?

 

one needs, iow, to at least try to think critically

[mgoetze]

I can't really see what you are trying to do here. It seems basically pretty normal but with a split on strong hands between 3 card support and fewer, the former rebidding 2♦. Is it really necessary, as there is room over 1NT for responder to find out, and is it worth sacrificing the natural bid for a strong xx46 shape ? (If this is in your 1♦ opening, it must be tricky to subsequently describe.)

My thought exactly. I also toyed with using 2♦ as something artificial at one point, and had preliminarily assigned the natural meaning of the bid (diamond reverse) to 2NT instead of the death hand. I decided that that was too awkward and reverted 2♦ to natural - you really need to explain what you're doing with that hand instead if you're making the bid artificial.

[phoenix214]

I am quite new to T-Walsh butfor the Gazilli effect you can take the idea from Ambra t.i.

After a 1 clubs opening the cheapest reverse is multi-purposed. Example:1C-1D(hearts). Now 2D is either natural or 17+ with 6C or 5C and 4H.

By doing this you get the effect that all jumps are limited to 16. The only problem is that now you have to play some 2S relay to see what opener has.

[snillrik13]

Take a look at "odwrotka" a la snillrik (myself) in www.fanfantunes.n.nu and you will find a super response system to 16-21 NT (after 1C - transfer and splitting 16-18 and 19-21))