Transfer Walsh

[dan_ehh]

Hello to all T Walsh players,

 

I would be interested to know what method you prefer, and what are the reasons.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[navahak]

Minimum 2-3 card support can sometimes win a part score at one level. But I believe that multi meaning forcing agreement generates better continues for strong hands. Basically Gazilli at one level.

 

It also depends a bit on what 1NT range is. But not too much.

[aguahombre]

Haven't we been here before, and didn't it get ugly? :rolleyes:

[MickyB]

1C = nat/17-19 NT, 1D = nat/11-13 NT. Completing the transfer shows various unbalanced hands. This give you accurate auctions with little downside on the club/strong balanced hands, while bidding naturally on the weak NTs reduces 4th seat's options and will tend to right-side major contracts when 4th seat overcalls.

 

If forced to open 1C on both 11-13 and 17-19 NTs, I think I'd play that the transfer complete shows/includes the weak NT and 1NT shows 17-19.

[dan_ehh]

Haven't we been here before, and didn't it get ugly? :rolleyes:

I tried searching but came up empty handed, if you can point me at a previous thread I would very much appreciate it.

[aguahombre]

I tried searching but came up empty handed, if you can point me at a previous thread I would very much appreciate it.

I recall PhilKing suggesting a modified rebid scheme after a T-Walsh response, and it turning into a bit of a scuffle with Mikeh.

 

As a person contemplating a switch to T-Walsh, I was interested in both sides' points --- but it was contentious, and I can't find it. Might have been an offshoot of a non T-Walsh thread.

[MickyB]

I recall PhilKing suggesting a modified rebid scheme after a T-Walsh response, and it turning into a bit of a scuffle with Mikeh.

 

As a person contemplating a switch to T-Walsh, I was interested in both sides' points --- but it was contentious, and I can't find it. Might have been an offshoot of a non T-Walsh thread.

 

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/68334-choose-your-own-adventure/

[mikeh]

Haven't we been here before, and didn't it get ugly? :rolleyes:

As one of the protagonists (I think), it didn't seem that ugly to me. I posed some questions, Phil expanded on his original post, I thanked him and that was the end of it, apart from some posters who didn't see that had actually happened piling on to create some fun :P

 

I saw from what Phil wrote that there are some interesting possibilities beyond the versions of t-walsh with which I was familiar. I am not sure whether Phil's version would work for me, but it's good to see how thoughtful players are developing ideas.

[mikeh]

1C = nat/17-19 NT, 1D = nat/11-13 NT. Completing the transfer shows various unbalanced hands. This give you accurate auctions with little downside on the club/strong balanced hands, while bidding naturally on the weak NTs reduces 4th seat's options and will tend to right-side major contracts when 4th seat overcalls.

 

If forced to open 1C on both 11-13 and 17-19 NTs, I think I'd play that the transfer complete shows/includes the weak NT and 1NT shows 17-19.

I think Phil suggested opening 1♦ on the strong 1N hands, flipping your use of 1♣/1♦.

 

If I understand you correctly, you would open 1♦ on 4=4=2=3, with 11-13?

 

Phil, I assume, would open 1♦ with 4=4=2=3 17-19?

 

I can see the arguments for this, but do wonder about the loss of the ability for responder to compete in a minor (especially diamonds, since clubs are often suspect anyway) should 2nd seat interfere. I suspect that in real life this isn't a big deal, especially at imps.

 

Also, I suppose one needs to have a good structure to allow the two hands to untangle shape/fit if the initial transfer is forced.

 

I assume that one accepts the transfer only with at least 3 card support? With unbalanced hands lacking any fit, one bids naturally?

[MickyB]

I think Phil suggested opening 1♦ on the strong 1N hands, flipping your use of 1♣/1♦.

 

If I understand you correctly, you would open 1♦ on 4=4=2=3, with 11-13?

 

Phil, I assume, would open 1♦ with 4=4=2=3 17-19?

 

 

Yes, Phil puts the weak NT through 1C, I did this briefly before deciding it was better to put it through 1D. Phil's 1NT opening is 15-17, I think his balanced range through 1D is 18-20.

 

I can see the arguments for this, but do wonder about the loss of the ability for responder to compete in a minor (especially diamonds, since clubs are often suspect anyway) should 2nd seat interfere. I suspect that in real life this isn't a big deal, especially at imps.

 

When partner opens 1m showing [that suit or a big balanced hand], you are normally well placed - eg after 1C (2S), we can bid 3C to show 3+clubs and 7-10 points, or 2NT to show 5+clubs any strength. It's very rare for the ambiguity to cause you issues.

 

The gains in competition come mainly on the 17-19 NTs. Say you hold a balanced 18-count and the auction starts 1C (2S) P (3S). How do you feel? If 1C showed 11-13 NT/17-19 NT/clubs, responder has to be wary that opener has the weak balanced hand, thus has to pass over 2S on many moderate hands. In contrast, we can pass happily on a balanced 18 after 1C (2S) P (3S), knowing that partner would already have acted on most 7-counts.

 

I assume that one accepts the transfer only with at least 3 card support? With unbalanced hands lacking any fit, one bids naturally?

 

No, I play completing the transfer as showing one of a variety of unbalanced hands without a fit. This approach allows opener to show 5♣4♦ and stop in 2m, show 5+♣ and 3-card support and stop in 2♣, and show a 17-19 NT with 4-card support and stop in 2M. I also use kit to allow responder to show 5♠4♥ without going past 2♣, so all 4-4 fits are found when opener is unbalanced.

[Cthulhu D]

I play 2-3 support in a weak NT or exactly 3 in a 1-3-4-5 hand. Because those where the notes that Phantomsac, Franceshinden and mgoetze (thanks to the three of them) had posted when I was looking for a method. I'm not sure it's better - I'm often frustrated by not knowing whether I have 2 or 3 card support, but conversely we think opening balanced 11 counts is a winner and I think that you need to have transfer acceptance being the weak NT to enable a 14-16 NT to enable making the approach playable.

 

I think it's a complex and non-obvious tradeoff. The 1C-1D-1H-1S relay is a cool tool.

[WesleyC]

I've tried a bunch of variations and settled on short club with 1M rebid on all balanced(ish) hands 11-13(14) HCP and shapely hands with 3c support (less than GF). This works best in the context of short club.

 

Leaving the 1NT rebid to show (17)18-19 balanced is a huge boon, both because you get a whole extra level on slam/game exploration auctions and also because you can safely respond to 1C on any hand without fear of ending up in 2NT.

 

The other personal change I've made to traditional walsh is using 1C - 1S as a multi, either 6-10 No Major, G/F 5+ Clubs or Balanced G/F that doesn't want to declare 3NT. Showing clubs rather than diamonds in this way is better in terms of economy and leaves responder room to pattern out their full shape below 3NT if required.

 

INV+ Diamond hands are handled via 1C - 2C which still leaves room for opener to start with 2D on all minimums without a great fit.

[gnasher]

If 1♣ includes both balanced ranges, I think it's clear to play that 1NT shows one of them and 1M includes the other. The gains from not having to rebid 2NT are far greater than anything you could gain from another method.

 

Multiplexing the 1M bid seems worthwhile. Without even trying to be clever, you could play:

1M = 11-14 balanced or unbalanced with 3-card support

2x = natural but denying 3-card support

After 1♣-1red;1M-1NT, 2♣ is a minimum unbalanced 3-card raise, and you can use the rest of the two-level to show better raises.

 

When 1♣ includes only 11-14 balanced, I play that completing shows 3-card support either balanced or unbalanced, and 1NT shows a weak notrump without 3-card support. That leads to good auctions after those two starts, but Phil's methods look interesting.

[PhilKing]

I think Phil suggested opening 1♦ on the strong 1N hands, flipping your use of 1♣/1♦.

 

If I understand you correctly, you would open 1♦ on 4=4=2=3, with 11-13?

 

Phil, I assume, would open 1♦ with 4=4=2=3 17-19?

 

I can see the arguments for this, but do wonder about the loss of the ability for responder to compete in a minor (especially diamonds, since clubs are often suspect anyway) should 2nd seat interfere. I suspect that in real life this isn't a big deal, especially at imps.

 

Also, I suppose one needs to have a good structure to allow the two hands to untangle shape/fit if the initial transfer is forced.

 

I assume that one accepts the transfer only with at least 3 card support? With unbalanced hands lacking any fit, one bids naturally?

 

After, say 1♦-(1♠) responder can compete pretty aggressively in diamonds when the balanced option is very strong - 3 card support is certainly enough at the two level.

 

When they come in over 1♣ things are much worse, but at least we have only one balanced range to worry about.

 

In MickyB's system, the situation is reversed.

[fromageGB]

1♣ 1red completion = 12-14, 2 or 3

 

My reasons for completing to be 2 or 3 card support 12-14 and 1NT to be 17/18 are that it makes it very east for responder to use stayman and transfers over the 1NT with major holdings in the same way as after a 1NT open, and everything is easy. Transfer with one major 5+, and if both majors bid 2♣. Intuitive and instinctive. After a major completion use 2♣/♦ artificially to show invitational or better hands with both or one major, and you get a fit with game invitation declined played by opener at the 2 level. This is a good use of the low-level opener continuation, as well as allowing a weak 5 card major to show that hand effectively by passing the completion.

[Fluffy]

I have only played the 1M = 3 card support version, and I am convinced now that it is not optimum, 1NT rebid for 19 balanced is powerful.

 

I would like to toy around with a 2NT rebid with 20-21 leaving 2NT for 22-23 (or perhaps minors and kokish), but not sure how it would go, anyone got experience?

[fromageGB]

I have only played the 1M = 3 card support version, and I am convinced now that it is not optimum, 1NT rebid for 19 balanced is powerful.

 

I would like to toy around with a 2NT rebid with 20-21 leaving 2NT for 22-23 (or perhaps minors and kokish), but not sure how it would go, anyone got experience?

I play a 15/16 1NT, so use after 1♣ use a 2-way split with 1NT=17/18 and 2NT = 19. Not the same range as yours, mainly because I judge my partners not adventurous enough to make that 19/20. But it works, and I have had no problems with it.

 

Edit - responses to this 2NT for us are exactly the same as over 1NT, just everything shifted a level higher. No problems.

 

Edit - I would suggest though that you are getting into dangerous territory if you extend the 2NT rebid to be any stronger. If it could be a 21, you are effectively insisting your partner responds to 1♣ on a flat 4 count. No experience of that, but I don't like the sound of it.

Edited November 7, 2014 by fromageGB

[navahak]

Edit - I would suggest though that you are getting into dangerous territory if you extend the 2NT rebid to be any stronger. If it could be a 21, you are effectively insisting your partner responds to 1♣ on a flat 4 count. No experience of that, but I don't like the sound of it.

 

This works very well if one changes his biding attitude about strong hands that opener holds. That includes biding after Gazilli and reverses needs to adjust so one can stop low enough.

 

Of course this adjustment to biding thinking is surprising hard. Even adjusting to biding after overcalls seems to be near impossible for most bridge players. They seems to think they bid same after opening bid and one level overcall.

[fromageGB]

This works very well if one changes his biding attitude about strong hands that opener holds.

It's not the strong hands that are the problem. I'm thinking of a 12 count opener and a 4 count responder laying themselves open to penalty doubles. I suppose this is no different from a very weak responder running from a weak 1NT doubled, but you are deliberately exposing yourself to extra risk for perhaps little gain.

 

Even when not doubled, your -200 is not usually a good score.

[NickRW]

Edit - I would suggest though that you are getting into dangerous territory if you extend the 2NT rebid to be any stronger. If it could be a 21, you are effectively insisting your partner responds to 1♣ on a flat 4 count. No experience of that, but I don't like the sound of it.

 

What's wrong, though, with extending the range to be 19-20 (assuming, at any rate, your 1♣ opener is reasonably sound.

 

Nick

[fromageGB]

What's wrong, though, with extending the range to be 19-20 (assuming, at any rate, your 1♣ opener is reasonably sound.

 

Nick

Absolutely nothing, though it is a question of degree and where your personal boundaries are. A good idea in my view.

 

My personal problem is that my newer partners are (like me) long in the tooth and can't cope with too many new things at a time. While I will suggest a change to the 2NT open, I have thrown a lot at them that they are still not fluent with. My "lifelong" partner had reached her "tolerance for change" saturation point a while ago.

[navahak]

It's not the strong hands that are the problem. I'm thinking of a 12 count opener and a 4 count responder laying themselves open to penalty doubles. I suppose this is no different from a very weak responder running from a weak 1NT doubled, but you are deliberately exposing yourself to extra risk for perhaps little gain.

 

Even when not doubled, your -200 is not usually a good score.

 

Is this data based on facts or just feeling without trying?

 

I have played that kind of responding style (without transfers) without issues. If I go -200 uncontested undoubled it is shockingly often that opponents forgot to bid their cold game (24-26 HCP in their way). Also penalty double after one suit opening is even harder than after weak 1NT. Most often we are in contested auction where passing with minimal hands doesn't even leave penalty double chances.

 

But of course in that style of biding it is nice to play 1M if holding 4 opposite 11 and opponents forgetting to bid.

[Fluffy]

21 balanced vs 4 balanced do not make game that often, the big gain comes from the exchanged information when it is a slam hand.

[dan_ehh]

Thank you all for your answers. I appreciate all of them.

[jallerton]

I have only played the 1M = 3 card support version, and I am convinced now that it is not optimum, 1NT rebid for 19 balanced is powerful.

 

I would like to toy around with a 2NT rebid with 20-21 leaving 2NT for 22-23 (or perhaps minors and kokish), but not sure how it would go, anyone got experience?

 

One of the advantages of using 1NT rebid as 17/18-19 is that the 2NT rebid can be used conventionally to cover hand types which are awkward to cope with in standard methods, e.g. strong hearts raises and strong club single-suiters. So you'd be giving up that by playing 1♣-1Red-2NT as 20-21 balanced

 

A more serious flaw with your suggestion is that you need to bear in mind that Responder does not always have a 4-card major to show! Without a major, he has to respond 1♠ or 1NT. Opener can no longer complete to 1M so all of the balanced hands have to bid one notch higher. After 1♣-1♠, the weak NT hands have to rebid 1NT, 2NT becomes 17/18-19, so what would you rebid on the 20-21 hand? 3NT, presumably, but that takes up am awful lot of room and you'll find it even more difficult to show a very strong hand with clubs.