Best T-Walsh Defense?

[mgoetze]

LHO opens 1♣ (2+ clubs), partner passes, and RHO bids 1♦ (4+ hearts) or 1♥ (4+ spades). What should your options be? Assume for the purposes of this poll that partner refuses to play a materially different defense to the two given auctions for memory reasons.

 

I have tried to list all the reasonable defenses I could think of or have seen others play, please feel free to describe your pet method and I can add it to the poll.

 

(Note: "oM" in the poll means the major not shown by responder, i.e. spades over 1♣-1♦ and hearts over 1♣-1♥.)

[Finch]

You've missed out

 

Double = t/o of their major

'Cue' at the 1-level = natural

 

which is a perfectly sensible defines

[mgoetze]

Double = t/o of their major

'Cue' at the 1-level = natural

Alright, added that one. Wonder what the two people who voted for "Other" like...

[akwoo]

For memory reasons, I would think I would want to play the same defense as over 1N-2R, and over as many other transfer auctions as possible (possibly including 2D Flannery). Is there a strong reason why that's not a good idea? (Also, what is best over 1N-2R anyway?)

 

Also, now disregarding memory issues, might the answer depend on whether opps are playing a strong NT or a weak NT (and hence on the 1C opener's range if balanced)?

[mgoetze]

For memory reasons, I would think I would want to play the same defense as over 1N-2R, and over as many other transfer auctions as possible (possibly including 2D Flannery). Is there a strong reason why that's not a good idea? (Also, what is best over 1N-2R anyway?)

 

Also, now disregarding memory issues, might the answer depend on whether opps are playing a strong NT or a weak NT (and hence on the 1C opener's range if balanced)?

I think it's pretty safe to assume 1NT will be 14-16 or 15-17. Transfer Walsh with weak NT is exceedingly rare (though it does exist, hi JanM!)

 

Over 1NT-2R, I guess almost everyone plays double as lead-directing and cue as Michaels. There is a case to be made that double should be takeout of the suit shown, and I believe that case gets stronger the weaker the 1NT opening is. For now let's assume a strong NT and look at some of the differences:

 

1. Opener's hand is much more tightly defined, which will allow the opponents to judge much better when it is right to defend (and possibly even double you). Therefore you will rarely want to act over 1NT-2R with, say, a (4432) shape, whereas you would routinely want to get into the auction against 1C-1R.

 

2. You are a level higher - yes, it matters; if you're in 1♠ on a 4-3 or even 4-2 fit the opponents will almost never be able to punish you, but 3♣? Oh dear.

 

3. Responder has shown 5 cards in the suit rather than 4. This means you will almost never want to bid responder's suit naturally - see Frances' defense above - but it also means that opponents are very likely to have found a fit already especially given that 1NT showed 2+ in every suit. Combined with opener having shown more strength, it means we are considerably more likely to end up on defense than after 1C-1R, making "lead-directing" a much more attractive meaning.

[Vampyr]

Over 1NT-2R, I guess almost everyone plays double as lead-directing and cue as Michaels.

 

Is this (1NT)-P-(2R)?

 

If so, and if by "cue" you bidding their suit at the 2-level, I think that using this bid for takeout is much too common for your guess about "almost everyone" to be accurate.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

we play the way Frances wrote, treating the auction the same as, if the suit was bid direct,

instead of via transfer.

 

This has the advantage of being simple, and keeping the memory low.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[wodahs]

I like X = takeout of their major, then everything else is transfers. Use the bidding space they opened up to your advantage. So after (1D), then X = takeout of hearts, 1H = spades, 1S = whatever you want a cuebid of 2C to be, 2C = diamonds, transfers as high as you want to go. Leave 1NT out of the transfer ladder if natural, it has positional value.

[Bende]

dbl = t/o with four cards in oM

cue = t/o without four cards in oM (three cards or very strong)

[mgoetze]

Nice suggestions, wodahs and Bende. There sure are a lot of things one can play here and very little agreement about what's best!

[PhilKing]

If you cue the major with a balanced hand lacking four of the other major, you commit yourself unnecessarily.

Just doubling to show a desire to get involved (ostensibly takeout of the major) achieves two key objectives:

 

1. It keeps us out of trouble, or at any rate the safety factor is greatly increased, because lefty now has to act. Assuming he will generally complete to the major to show three, we are off the hook when righty is 44M with a good hand, for example. If we have to cue 1M to show a takeout double, we will get routinely punished when we have no fit and a minority of the points.

 

2. When they are in trouble, we can sometimes catch them. After 1♣-p-1♦-x, what does lefty do with a 3235, 4234 or 3244 minimum opening?

[mgoetze]

2. When they are in trouble, we can sometimes catch them. After 1♣-p-1♦-x, what does lefty do with a 3235, 4234 or 3244 minimum opening?

In my partnership, pass. I'm not really worried about being penalised in a 4-3 fit in 1♦ or a 5-2 fit in 1♥.

[Zelandakh]

Over 1NT-2R, I guess almost everyone plays double as lead-directing and cue as Michaels.

I remember fred posting a very strong opinion that double should be takeout a few years back. A popular defence in England is for the cue to be a good takeout of their suit with a delayed double being a weaker takeout. Finally, many play that the double shows a real overcall rather than just being lead-directing. I also agree that it is sensible for an I/A pair to have a generic defence against transfers that is used in a variety of situations.

 

In this specific situation, there is something to be said for playing X = takeout, cue = raptor over 1♦ and X = hearts, cue = takeout over 1♥. One thing you have not mentioned is whether 1NT is natural for you or showing the other 2 suits and that may well be of some relevance.

[mgoetze]

I remember fred posting a very strong opinion that double should be takeout a few years back. A popular defence in England is for the cue to be a good takeout of their suit with a delayed double being a weaker takeout. Finally, many play that the double shows a real overcall rather than just being lead-directing. I also agree that it is sensible for an I/A pair to have a generic defence against transfers that is used in a variety of situations.

 

In this specific situation, there is something to be said for playing X = takeout, cue = raptor over 1♦ and X = hearts, cue = takeout over 1♥. One thing you have not mentioned is whether 1NT is natural for you or showing the other 2 suits and that may well be of some relevance.

Well, speaking of strong opinions posted by Fred, I'm pretty sure that another of those was that 1NT in sandwich position should be natural. I also saw Michael Rosenberg say the same thing just yesterday on BridgeWinners. So it didn't really occur to me as a question. ;)

[fromageGB]

Now discussed, and we are happy to overcall at the 2-level rather than double to show that suit, and think 1NT more frequent as well as more useful played as Raptor than natural, so we have :

 

X = takeout with 4 other major, denying 5 card minor

their major = 5-5 minors (with transfer reply if opener does not bid)

1NT = Raptor (4 other major + 5 minor)

other suits (including 2C) = natural

Edited September 26, 2015 by fromageGB

[fred]

I remember fred posting a very strong opinion that double should be takeout a few years back.

One of us is having memory problems as it is hard for me to imagine that I ever had such an opinion let alone that I felt strongly about it.

 

Against a strong notrump at least, I believe I have always played DBL of a Jacoby transfer as "lead directing" (ie normally a strong suit with 5+ cards). With a takeout double type hand, I believe my approach has always been to Pass and then to judge whether or not to enter the auction at my next turn. I believe I have always played a direct cue bid as Michaels.

 

"Always" in the above paragraph means "for roughly the past 20 years".

 

Today I feel fairly strongly that this is the right way to play. It is possible that I once felt differently and don't remember, but I doubt it.

 

If you can find any Forums posts by me that support your assertion, I would be very interested in reading them!

 

Fred Gitelman

Brdige Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[aguahombre]

Is one of you talking about xfer Walsh after 1C, and the other talking about a transfer after a 1nt opening?

[mgoetze]

Is one of you talking about xfer Walsh after 1C, and the other talking about a transfer after a 1nt opening?

No, if you follow the chain of quotes I think you'll find they're both talking about transfers after a 1NT opening.

[gnasher]

One of us is having memory problems as it is hard for me to imagine that I ever had such an opinion let alone that I felt strongly about it.

 

Against a strong notrump at least, I believe I have always played DBL of a Jacoby transfer as "lead directing" (ie normally a strong suit with 5+ cards). With a takeout double type hand, I believe my approach has always been to Pass and then to judge whether or not to enter the auction at my next turn. I believe I have always played a direct cue bid as Michaels.

 

"Always" in the above paragraph means "for roughly the past 20 years".

 

Today I feel fairly strongly that this is the right way to play. It is possible that I once felt differently and don't remember, but I doubt it.

 

If you can find any Forums posts by me that support your assertion, I would be very interested in reading them!

 

Fred Gitelman

Brdige Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Here is a post which very much doesn't support Zel's assertion:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/6275-whats-your-plan/#entry52275

 

And here is a post that shows that Zel used to be better at knowing what Fred thought:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44276-interfere-with-their-no-trump/page__view__findpost__p__532729

[cherdano]

One of us is having memory problems as it is hard for me to imagine that I ever had such an opinion let alone that I felt strongly about it.

 

Against a strong notrump at least, I believe I have always played DBL of a Jacoby transfer as "lead directing" (ie normally a strong suit with 5+ cards). With a takeout double type hand, I believe my approach has always been to Pass and then to judge whether or not to enter the auction at my next turn.

 

(...)

 

If you can find any Forums posts by me that support your assertion, I would be very interested in reading them!

 

Sorry Fred, nothing interesting here - Zel misremembers:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/6275-whats-your-plan/page__view__findpost__p__52275

[Zelandakh]

Sorry, I must be getting old. Out of interest, what do you play against Transfer Walsh responses, fred?

[fred]

Sorry, I must be getting old. Out of interest, what do you play against Transfer Walsh responses, fred?

The number of pairs using Transfer Walsh seems to have grown considerably during the past few years, but I have played only a handful of serious events in that time. As such, it was never really necessary or practical for my partnerships to put a lot of effort into trying to figure out a really effective defense, especially if it turned out that such a defense would require a lot of memory.

 

So I do something very simple which I am suspect is not that close to being optimal (whatever that means). After 1C-P-1D (showing hearts)...

 

- DBL is takeout of hearts with emphasis, if any, on diamonds over clubs (easy to remember - it is what it sounds like)

- 1H is takeout of hearts with emphasis on clubs over diamonds (easy to remember assuming you remember what DBL means)

- All other bids are as if the response had been a natural 1H (for me 1NT, 2C, and 2H would all be natural)

 

After 1C-P-1H (showing spades) we did the same thing (but of course the suits are different).

 

If I was interested in trying to come up with a better defense, I would start by considering the possibility of utilizing sequences that start with Pass in order to describe various types of constructive hands.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nullve]

Maybe

 

(1♣)-(1M-1)-?:

 

X = takeout of M

1M = shape for 2♣+, but too strong

...1N = F1 relay

......2♣+ = same as 2♣+ directly in terms of shape

...new suit = P/C

1♠(M=♥) = standard overcall

1N = 15-17 bal.

2♣+ = "standard", but like a WJO in terms of strength.

 

Maybe also

 

(1♣)-(1♠)-?:

 

X = shape for 2♣+, but too strong

...1N = F1 relay

......2♣+ = same as 2♣+ directly in terms of shape

...new suit = P/C

1N = 15-17 bal.

2♣+ = "standard", but like a WJO in terms of strength,

 

sacrificing the immediate takeout double.