Show the spades or the balanced hand and strength?

[AL78]

5 card majors, strong NT:

 

♠A986

♥K3

♦A654

♣Q75

 

1♦ 1♥

?

[Douglas43]

Not my usual system (I have to open 1NT), but would prefer 1♠ to 1NT rebid. The upside of strong NT/prepared minor at pairs is on hands where you make 2♠ but 1NT only makes 6 or 7 tricks. Also influenced by the acey-spacey nature of the hand which means you want to play in a suit fit if possible, or if in 1NT it might be OK to have the lead coming round to partner.

[nullve]

There are probably hundreds of threads on BBF about this 1♠ or 1N over 1m-1♥ dilemma.

 

Both choices lead to unsolvable problems.

 

Most (all?) of these problems go away if you play T-Walsh (which should be standard even in North America now that the GCC is history).

[paulg]

Most (all?) of these problems go away if you play T-Walsh (which should be standard even in North America now that the GCC is history).

This is an exaggeration :)

 

Some problems go away, but mainly the problems are pushed to another part of the system that I feel is more acceptable.

 

I am a fan of T-Walsh and have invested a lot of time over the years in the variant I play. But I dislike playing T-Walsh with friends, even if they started from my notes, because the follow-ups and specific variants can be do different. There is no standard for T-Walsh, like there is no standard for whether to rebid spades or one no trump.

 

The main disadvantage for T-Walsh is that it needs work, which is why it will never because standard.

 

In terms of the original question ask, my principle is that balanced hands open or rebid no trump. This does not go down well with GIB or in some countries.

 

 

[DavidKok]

There are probably hundreds of threads on BBF about this 1♠ or 1N over 1m-1♥ dilemma.

 

Both choices lead to unsolvable problems.

 

Most (all?) of these problems go away if you play T-Walsh (which should be standard even in North America now that the GCC is history).

I've once been told that there are as many versions of T-Walsh as there are bridge players. I no longer believe this is true - a lot of players form multiple partnerships, so the number of T-Walsh versions is a lot greater still. I wish you all the luck on your quest to make it standard.

 

That being said, this bidding problem a classic example of 'partnership agreement'. In anything resembling standard bidding you are risking missing either the 4-4 spade fit if both hands are weak, or you risk bypassing 1NT when it can be the best contract (or worse, partner might give inappropriate preference to 2♦). Discuss it with your partner, pick one and live with the consequences. I'm a fan of bypassing the spades.

[nullve]

I've once been told that there are as many versions of T-Walsh as there are bridge players.

Does this make T-Walsh fundamentally different from

 

* control-showing cuebids

* Jacoby 2NT

* Roman Key Card Blackwood

* Stayman

 

? (To take just a few examples.)

 

Yes, there are many versions of T-Walsh, but some are local dialects "spoken" by many. In Norway, for instance, a common dialect of T-Walsh is the version played by Brogeland-Lindqvist, which looks something like

 

1♣-?:

 

1M-1 = "4+ M"

...1M = 3 M or a bad MIN 4c raise (2♣+ = XYZ over this)

...2M = a good MIN 4c raise

...others: same as over 1♣-1M in standard, but tends to deny (exactly) 3 M

1♠ = "4+ D" OR "6-10 BAL w/o a major"

1N = "11-12 BAL" (= NAT INV opposite 11-14 BAL)

2♣ = inverted

 

In anything resembling standard bidding you are risking missing either the 4-4 spade fit if both hands are weak, or you risk bypassing 1NT when it can be the best contract (or worse, partner might give inappropriate preference to 2♦).

You also risk missing a 5-3 fit after 1m-1♥; 1♠ when Responder is weak, e.g. with

 

13 hcp, 4342

 

opposite

 

8 hcp, 2524.

[nullve]

This is an exaggeration :)

 

Some problems go away, but mainly the problems are pushed to another part of the system that I feel is more acceptable.

Fair enough.

 

There is no standard for T-Walsh, like there is no standard for whether to rebid spades or one no trump.

So T-Walsh is basically like any other piece of system in this respect.

 

The main disadvantage for T-Walsh is that it needs work, which is why it will never because standard.

The main disadvantage is that people think that T-Walsh requires work and that standard doesn't. But threads like this show that they are wrong.

[LBengtsson]

no-trump shape, bid NT. if hand ♠AQxx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣xxx then I might bid 1♠ as honour cards are in long suits.

[DavidKok]

Does this make T-Walsh fundamentally different from

 

* control-showing cuebids

* Jacoby 2NT

* Roman Key Card Blackwood

* Stayman

 

? (To take just a few examples.)

 

Yes, there are many versions of T-Walsh, but some are local dialects "spoken" by many. In Norway, for instance, a common dialect of T-Walsh is the version played by Brogeland-Lindqvist, which looks something like

I'm really not interested in another Transfer Walsh discussion. I think there are differences between T-Walsh problems and these other conventions, primarily in that a lot of the difficulties only appear on a later round of the bidding and partly in that it takes additional agreements to deal with interference. But as you say, for every convention (and, arguably, for every natural bid) there is a player out there who misuses it.

[nullve]

a lot of the difficulties only appear on a later round of the bidding and partly in that it takes additional agreements to deal with interference.

Also true of the conventions I listed.

 

I'm really not interested in another Transfer Walsh discussion.

Ok :blink:

[mycroft]

So from what I've seen (never having found a partner and the time to play transfers/1♣ yet, but against it and reading the books) I'd say the variants are more like "variations of Precision 1♣" (okay, variations of "transfers after Precision 1♣") than "variations of Jacoby 2NT responses". They come up a lot, there are a lot of them, and they have to be resolved to play a useful session of bridge.

 

Sure, there are the same number of decision points in Standard. But:

• we've all had our entire bridge lives to find out where they are, and
  
• areas have basically settled down to their standard for 80% of them, and "one of these two" for another 10-15%.

The work's already been done by basically every bridge player alive (except the Poles, who can play their entire lives without playing a non-PC system)

 

In time, that will happen with T-Walsh, too, I think. But right now, we're at the "which book did you read" point, and hope that you know what their answer means.

[AL78]

In case anyone is interested, here is the hand. We got 70.5% despite partner thinking there was a winning spade out and so not cashing her spade at the end.

 

https://tinyurl.com/yemtdeae

[helene_t]

Most pairs rebid 1♠ but whether this is demonstrably better I don't know. Rebidding 1NT makes it simpler because partner will know that you have a balanced 12-14 hand, something which you might not be able to show otherwise.

 

T-Walsh can indeed solve this problem if you accept the transfer with any 12-14 balanced hand without 4-card hearts support.

[nullve]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa986hk3da654cq75&e=sk732hjt64dj3caj6]266|100[/hv]

"Dutch" T-Walsh:

 

1♣(1)-1♦(2)

1♠(3)-2♠(4)

P

 

(1) NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL

(2) 4+ H

(3) 4+ S, tends to deny 3 H

(4) < INV raise

 

"Swedish" T-Walsh:

 

1♣(1)-1♦(2)

1♥(3)-1♠(4)

2♠(5)-P

 

(1) NAT or 11-13/17-19 BAL

(2) 4+ H

(3) 3 H or 11-13 BAL w/ 2-3 H

(4) 4+ S, often played as NF

(5) 4 S, MIN (but not a terrible MIN if 1♠ was NF)

 

The T-Walsh played by Brogeland-Lindqvist is very similar to the "Dutch" one, but they open 1♦, not 1♣, with (11)12-14 hcp and 4342, so I guess ther auction on these hands would be the more standard-looking

 

1♦(1)-1♥(2)

1♠(3)-2♠(4)

P.

 

(1) 4+ D (but not 4342)

(2) 4+ H

(3) 4+ S (but not 4342)

(4) < INV raise