Choose your own Adventure

[mgoetze]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa7hak85d3caj9843&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1c(2+ Clubs)p1h(4+ Spades)p?]200|300[/hv]

 

Your choices are 2♥ (Natural reverse), 3♣ (which conveniently denies having 3 spades, since that hand would bid 2NT), or the very pessimistic 2♣.

 

If you bid 3♣...

 

 

Partner passes and one down is good bridge.

 

 

If you bid 2♣...

 

 

You probably get a top.

 

 

If you bid 2♥...

 

 

[hv=pc=n&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1cp1hp2hp2n(Lebensohl)p3cp3dp]200|133[/hv]

Can you sit for this?

 

[whereagles]

I'd reverse and stick to pard's choice.

[gszes]

deleted duplicate post

[gszes]

I would bid 2h since it will take a perfectly fitting minimum to

make game reasonable P will upgrade club honors and heart honors

and downgrade most others that arent aces and should be able to

make a decent decision. OK NOW I will look at the spoilers sigh

 

hmmm SPOILER seems to indicate that responder is something like

xxxx x(x) xxxxxx(xx) (x) probably close to a min and since we are

a misfit w/o much extra

 

Pass

 

seems like the way to go. This decision is made w/o having a clue

what an original 1c 2d bid would have meant as well as would 2s

(over 2h) have shown extra spades and be forcing or not forcing.

I am also assuming an original 1d bid would have shown 4+ hearts and

said nothing about diamonds.

[mgoetze]

Pass

 

seems like the way to go. This decision is made w/o having a clue

what an original 1c 2d bid would have meant as well as would 2s

(over 2h) have shown extra spades and be forcing or not forcing.

I am also assuming an original 1d bid would have shown 4+ hearts and

said nothing about diamonds.

Partner could have shown a weak hand with a 6-card diamond suit by responding 2♣ to 1♣, 2♦ would have been invitational. Honestly we haven't really discussed 2♠, I would have assumed that it is forcing and tends to show a 5th spade.

[Jinksy]

Partner could have shown a weak hand with a 6-card diamond suit by responding 2♣ to 1♣, 2♦ would have been invitational. Honestly we haven't really discussed 2♠, I would have assumed that it is forcing and tends to show a 5th spade.

 

But surely you'd expect him to canape in preference if he has a 4cM? P's most likely shape looks to me something like 4261. He shouldn't be mucking around introducing five card suits at the three level, and with as many as 2Cs, he might favour passing 3♣ to bidding 3♦s on a flimsy 6 card suit. Pass before they start doubling.

 

I don't see much point in 2♠ being forcing if you're playing 2N as Leb, since he's got two ways of bidding S more encouragingly.

[mgoetze]

He shouldn't be mucking around introducing five card suits at the three level

Oh, sure, absolutely.

 

What should he be doing with a weak 4351 though?

[mike777]

2h reverse then pass 3d.

 

I assume 2nt is weakish and art.

I assume we play walsh so pard is showing a weakish 4-6+

With 4=3=5=1 weakish pard passes 3c

 

A typical 4-6 hand might be:

 

Axxx..xxx....xxxxxx...void.

Note on this auction 2h might be a fake/forced reverse into a 3 card suit for some reason so we cannot pass 2h.

 

=----------------

 

" don't see much point in 2♠ being forcing if you're playing 2N as Leb, since he's got two ways of bidding S more encouragingly"

 

2s should be F1 as it would show 5+s and roughly 4-8/9pts. I assume no wjs.

[the_clown]

Oh, sure, absolutely.

 

What should he be doing with a weak 4351 though?

 

I would pass with the weak 4351, everything else is really terrible.

Of course we may miss a game, but every bid is a misdicription of the hand and even if partner is very strong we may not end up in the right spot.

[PhilKing]

This is an advert for playing 1♣-1♥=2♦ as a heart reverse.

 

All hands with diamonds can go through a forcing transfer completion of 1♠. Yes I know most TWalshers play this as some sort of weak NT, but they are misguided. The advantage here is that responder can pass 2♦ with a terrible 4-6, and bid 2♥ to show the death hand - typically 5-8 points with a 4351/4342/5341 or similar.

[Jinksy]

I assume 2nt is weakish and art.

I assume we play walsh so pard is showing a weakish 4-6+

With 4=3=5=1 weakish pard passes 3c

 

I'd prefer playing in our 7 card fit to our 6 card one, personally, so as responder (assuming I didn't just pass 2♥ - which sounds like winning bridge if not winning partnership-development - I'd bid 3♥ via Leb.

 

2s should be F1 as it would show 5+s and roughly 4-8/9pts. I assume no wjs.

 

I don't see the point. At this point you must both be suspecting a misfit, and if he has still has enough power to GF, why doesn't he just bid out his shape at the 3 level?

[whereagles]

This is an advert for playing 1♣-1♥=2♦ as a heart reverse.

 

my head spins...

[mgoetze]

All hands with diamonds can go through a forcing transfer completion of 1♠. Yes I know most TWalshers play this as some sort of weak NT, but they are misguided.

Yeah, I'm one of the misguided ones unfortunately. Unfortunately it's a rather big change, so not gonna happen anytime soon...

[mikeh]

Yes I know most TWalshers play this as some sort of weak NT, but they are misguided. .

It's not often that a player is able to criticize hundreds of players whose systems he doesn't know. It's even rarer that the criticism is valid...and here it isn't. But thanks for the lesson.

[PhilKing]

It's not often that a player is able to criticize hundreds of players whose systems he doesn't know. It's even rarer that the criticism is valid...and here it isn't. But thanks for the lesson.

 

This is a system oriented thread, so suggestions from outside the box are OK, I would have thought (as are opinions as to what is best).

 

And yes, I did see the bit where a jump to 2NT is artificial.

[aguahombre]

It's not often that a player is able to criticize hundreds of players whose systems he doesn't know. It's even rarer that the criticism is valid...and here it isn't. But thanks for the lesson.

We don't "have" t-Walsh, but are interested and considering it. Isn't Phil suggesting the transfer completion retain its normal expectation PLUS the possibility of an unbalanced opener with 4-5+ in the minors?

 

If so, he is offering an addition in the guise of criticism.

[Finch]

It's not often that a player is able to criticize hundreds of players whose systems he doesn't know. It's even rarer that the criticism is valid...and here it isn't. But thanks for the lesson.

 

He is criticising hundreds of players whose system he does know, at least the relevant part of it, that is the point.

[mikeh]

We don't "have" t-Walsh, but are interested and considering it. Isn't Phil suggesting the transfer completion retain its normal expectation PLUS the possibility of an unbalanced opener with 4-5+ in the minors?

 

If so, he is offering an addition in the guise of criticism.

maybe he is, but one cannot play the transfer acceptance as maybe NOT any spade length at all AND not restructure the rest of the system. To argue, without explanation, that those whose internally consistent methods require some spade length to accept the transfer are 'misguided' is flat out insulting not to mention arguably wrong.

 

I have no problem with anyone who suggests alternate approaches to methods, but that isn't what Phil was doing. He suggested one change, a change with lots of completely unmentioned ramifications, and adds to that the assertion that not playing his method is misguided.

[cherdano]

maybe he is, but one cannot play the transfer acceptance as maybe NOT any spade length at all AND not restructure the rest of the system. To argue, without explanation, that those whose internally consistent methods require some spade length to accept the transfer are 'misguided' is flat out insulting not to mention arguably wrong.

 

I have no problem with anyone who suggests alternate approaches to methods, but that isn't what Phil was doing. He suggested one change, a change with lots of completely unmentioned ramifications, and adds to that the assertion that not playing his method is misguided.

Well - but by now you should know Phil well enough that there is a LOT of thought behind a comment like that. Dismissing an entire system out of hand would be rude, but criticizing it after giving it a lot of thought is entirely appropriate. Of course he could have expanded "misguided" into a longer and entirely polite sentence. But not everyone writes 800 word posts all the time - for my part, I don't mind the density of information in PK's posts.

[mikeh]

Well - but by now you should know Phil well enough that there is a LOT of thought behind a comment like that. Dismissing an entire system out of hand would be rude, but criticizing it after giving it a lot of thought is entirely appropriate. Of course he could have expanded "misguided" into a longer and entirely polite sentence. But not everyone writes 800 word posts all the time - for my part, I don't mind the density of information in PK's posts.

I don't know Phil at all. I can deduce that he thinks that he has some undescribed superior method so marvelous that to play otherwise is to be misguided. Personally, I enjoy learning of methods that are superior to the ones I play or know. What I don't find useful is being told that a method, that I happen to play, is silly... that I have to be misguided to play it, without the slightest attempt to explain.

 

Edit

 

Nobody seems to have addressed the underlying issue raised by PK. He says that using 2♦ as a heart reverse allow responder to pass with a weak 4=6 pointed hand. Yes it does. Strangely, after 40 years of playing the game that hasn't been a major problem. I'd be interested in knowing how frequently the issue arises....I'd be surprised if it arose more than once every 30 sessions or so, and on some of those times we'll survive in 3♣, and on others opener will be 3=4=0=6 and we'd be better off in spades. Maybe with those we accept the transfer and somehow later show our hand?

 

meanwhile, what was formerly a common and easily developed method of accepting the transfer (in the way I play, opener shows precisely 3 spades and a 14-16 1N or 15-17, depending on which of 2 partnerships I am in), becomes complicated by the need for responder to cater to opener holding a rounded suit reverse. Now, this can surely be sorted out, but only by changing the structure significantly and, it seems to me, with some loss of efficiency...on hands that are far more common than the problem hands we are trying to solve.

 

This seems like a lot of work to cater to two very rare hands...the weak 4=6 where guessing to pass a bid where opener could have a huge hand that plays very poorly in 2♦ or the 'death hand' where he wants to play 2♥ opposite a reverse. Admittedly, we gain an artificial 2♥ that could be put to some use and maybe that would justify the gadget....but to mention none of this and to merely dismiss anyone not so enlightened as to play PK's mystery method as misguided seems a bit much.

 

I apologize to you for having used so many words. However, I have always believed that it is best to set out one's reasoning if one wants to learn the flaws in one's approach. I appreciate that you simply assume that PK has considered all of this, as indeed he may have, and that his criticism, without explanation, must be valid because.....well....because? because he is philking? Sorry, I don't doubt that he is a good player. But not every thought held or stated by a good player is a good idea, and it is truly silly to ascribe to a cult of accepting, without thought, pronouncements from anyone.

 

Looking to be corrected isn't the main reason I post at length but it is one of the reasons.

[PhilKing]

It's not about the 2♦ transfer reverse. Fundamentally, it's about how we use step 1 after a 1-level major-suit transfer. Since it is our most economical bid, it boils down to whether we should use it to show a very specific hand-type (commonly a three raise with a particular range, slightly less commonly a weak NT with 2-3 hearts with 1NT showing 18-19), or to cover many hand types. Most TWalshers do the the former, and there are two obious gains over standard. We know what the gains are, and they are all absolutely fine.

 

However, does it not strike one as inefficient to limit the use of our most economical bid in such a narrow way? By playing a completion as forcing, you can do so much more. Once you do this many solutions are possible (MickyB's structure has quite a few similarities) but this one is mine. Note that balanced hands in the 18-20 range open 1♦, so they are not an issue. After 1♣-1♥:

 

1♠ = forcing, see below

1NT = a weak no trump

2♣ = nat, 6+ card suit unless specifically 4♥5♣

2♦ = heart reverse (can start a bit lighter than standard for obvious reasons)

2♥ = good 4-card raise to exactly 2♠

2♠ = a bad raise to 2♠, typically unbalanced 11-13 with 3 card support or a minimum weak NT with 4-card support

2NT = GF with 6+ clubs, denies 3♠

3♣ = a sound rebid - eg ♠Ax ♥AJx♦xx ♣AQJTxx

Higher = can be fairly standard, but obviously aren't :ph34r:

 

The hand-types that can go through a forcing 1♠ transfer completion are as follows:

 

Almost all hands with 5+♣4+♦

A very good 3-card raise to specifically 2♠ (nominally 14-16 3(14)5 or 3-6)

Various off-cntre 3♣ rebids a) a suit-oriented 3♣ rebid slightly lacking in high cards b) a natural 2NT rebid with 6♣, typically about 16+ to 18- points c) a 3♣ or stronger rebid with 3♠.

 

Now that sounds overloaded, but is more or less the absolute limit of what we can get into 1♠. The first thought would tend to be "you crazy idiot - you can't possibly get all that into 1♠", but it unwinds in a deceptively simple way. Responder basically bids on the assumption that he is facing 4♦ and 5♣:

 

1NT = to play opposite 45m minimum

2♣ = ditto

2♦ = ditto

2♥ = a GF relay

2♠ = constructive (WJS was available)

2NT/3♣/3♦ = inv opposite minors

 

This is how it unwinds after 1NT:

2♣ = 45m extras (about 16)

2♦ = a sound reverse - good 17+

2♥ = 3♠6♣, strong unlimited

2♠ = 3♠ unbalanced, nominally 14-16

2NT = natural with 6♣

3♣ = natural based on playing strength

higher = no meaning

 

Continuations are pretty much the same after 2♦, are obviously manageable after 2♥ and 2♠, so just a quick look at the invitational jumps:

 

After 2NT: all continuational are nat F (3♠= cards, the 4-card raise just bids game)

After 3♣/3♦: ditto, with a raise to 4m being RKC

 

Trade offs

 

I lose the ability to stop in 1[♠] and the knowledge of whether it will be advantageous to remove a 1NT rebid to 2♠. But I believe I get way more in return. By far the biggest plus is that we have 3 ways to raise to 2♠. This just gains time after time, enabling frequent good stops in 2♠ when it is bid directly and logical routes to "unbiddable" games after the good raises.

 

The second biggest gain has been the ability to get to good minor-suit partscores. These days, both minors can often get lost, since we end up treating the hand as balanced or alternatively rebidding clubs. And game bidding on the minor-suit hands is also more accurate.

 

The transfer reverse to hearts is just a spin-off benefit, but if you just do a simple single dummy simulation of 50 or so hands, you might be surprised at how often the method gains. It makes all the lousy Lebensohl variant playable - you will almost never have to bail to 3♣ on some stupid doubleton again.

 

After that, the gains get smaller, but the overall effect is that responder often gets to know opener's general hand type and strength at a much lower level than in standard T-Walshe - not just in the unusual sequences but because the "standard" ones are also more closely defined as a result. One might assume there is a high level of information leakage, but the reverse tends to be true. After the various raises to 2♠, for instance, we tend to have much quicker auctions than standard bidders.

 

Four 3♣ rebids, three raises to 2♠, new life into 45m hands and transfer reverses. This is the future!

[P_Marlowe]

Oh, sure, absolutely.

 

What should he be doing with a weak 4351 though?

I would go via the natural reverse, and pass it out.

The question is where do I want to go, ..., no idea, and ... partner should

not introduce a 5 card suit in search of a 5-?, he knowes about a

4-3 fit, he happens to have a shortage, so ruffing will be in the hand

with short trumps.

[whereagles]

transfer reverses. This is the future!

 

PHEEAR!

[mikeh]

thanks for the post, Phil

 

 

While I appreciate the effort, I see that in order to accommodate all this. you need to incorporate a possibly artificial 1♦ opener, for the 18-20 balanced hands, which emphasizes my point. Maybe your system is an improvement over t-walsh as it is commonly played, but to argue that anyone unwilling to embark upon all this artificiality is misguided is an extraordinary claim.

 

In NA many good pairs now play a form of meckwell precision, known as meckwell lite. Should we call them misguided because they don't play the full meckwell system? Would Fantunes be justified, given their record, in asserting that those who don't play their methods are misguided?

 

We all have to make tradeoffs in just how much work we want to put into what is for most of us only a hobby. Bridge for me, for example, is nowhere near the top of my priorities in life so I am content to play a relatively simple method...and I have never heard anyone claim that t-walsh as commonly played is the ultimate method. Anyone who did so would warrant being called misguided....I suspect Phil didn't mean to insult those unwilling or unable, for any number of reasons, to put in the effort required to continually tweak their methods, so this thread-jack may have arisen from an over-reaction on my part. If so, then at least it has drawn Phil out to explain his preferred method, so there has been a silver lining.

[MickyB]

While I appreciate the effort, I see that in order to accommodate all this. you need to incorporate a possibly artificial 1♦ opener, for the 18-20 balanced hands

 

If forced to play 1C as nat/weak bal/strong bal, perhaps Phil would advocate something like -

 

1C:1H (spades) -

1N = weak bal

2D = strong bal, NF

1S = various, somewhat similar to his existing kit

 

Having said that, the trade-offs are larger for this than in Phil's methods. Maybe he just meant people were misguided for opening 1C on both balanced ranges!