Wishful thinking in a Transfer Walsh context?

[mw64ahw]

Trying out a variant of Transfer Walsh where the ♥ transfer is completed with 11-14 & 2-4♥ w/o long ♣s this auction occurred.

(NB: 1♦ is 3+♦ unbalanced/long ♦s)

 

Is the auction reasonable/optimistic or unwise given a combined 21 hcp or should 3♣ be passed?

Progress - I've worked out how to include bidding explanations![hv=pc=n&s=s92h8762da762ckj5&n=skj76hajd5ca98762&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1d(4%2BH)p1s(UB 4S6%2BC 12-14)p1np3c(6%2BC no Dctrl)p3n(3%2BC w honour/Dctrl)]266|200[/hv]

[steve2005]

3♣ is an unreasonable overbid even if non-forcing opposite a 1NT which can have at most a bad 10 hcp.

What is wrong with 2♣?! You have a minimum hand without a known fit.

So far, it looks like the prospects for game are low and you are just looking for the best part-score.

[mw64ahw]

3♣ is an unreasonable overbid even if non-forcing opposite a 1NT which can have at most a bad 10 hcp.

What is wrong with 2♣?! You have a minimum hand without a known fit.

So far, it looks like the prospects for game are nil and you are just looking for the best part-score.

As an afterthought would 2NT instead of 1NT by South have been reasonable looking at counting tricks rather than hcp?

[DavidKok]

1. Your 1♠ is explained as "Unbalanced, 4♠, 6+♣, 12-14 (points?)". That doesn't make any sense. Where do the unbalanced hands with 4 spades and 5 clubs, or for that matter the 4=1=4=4 hands, go? And what if you have 15-17 points, or 10-11? Also in Transfer Walsh it is important to clarify if the 1♠ bid can contain 3 hearts.
   
2. South's 1NT is perfect in a normal system, where 1♠ just shows five clubs (and may show four if you open 1♣ with 4=1=4=4) and can be 12-17 points or so. If you insist 1♠ shows the hand you describe it as I would bid 2♣ with the South hand instead.
   
3. In a normal system 2♣ would be a fine rebid over 1NT. In your situation it would be a mistake - you have exactly what you have shown, and partner has decided 1NT is the best contract. Pass! 3♣ is just foolish.
   

[mw64ahw]

1. Your 1♠ is explained as "Unbalanced, 4♠, 6+♣, 12-14 (points?)". That doesn't make any sense. Where do the unbalanced hands with 4 spades and 5 clubs, or for that matter the 4=1=4=4 hands, go? And what if you have 15-17 points, or 10-11? Also in Transfer Walsh it is important to clarify if the 1♠ bid can contain 3 hearts.
2. South's 1NT is perfect in a normal system, where 1♠ just shows five clubs (and may show four if you open 1♣ with 4=1=4=4) and can be 12-17 points or so. If you insist 1♠ shows the hand you describe it as I would bid 2♣ with the South hand instead.
3. In a normal system 2♣ would be a fine rebid over 1NT. In your situation it would be a mistake - you have exactly what you have shown, and partner has decided 1NT is the best contract. Pass! 3♣ is just foolish.

Thanks - this is what the AI simulator produced in terms of bidding and I am trying to sense check back to this TW variation

1. I hope I get this right after 1♣-1♦ as its a new TW variation for me

. 1♥ 11/12-14 (possibly 10 with 4414) (4432), 5m(422), 6♣3+♥. (I think this could be 6+♣2+♥)

1♠ 6+♣4♠ 10+

--continuations are where the simulator is still learning, but I agree with others that 3♣ above is the wrong bid

1NT 15-17 5m(422) may have 4♠

2♣ 6+♣<3♥ (I think this could be 6+♣<2♥)

2♦ 15-17 4414 or 15-17 4♥?

2♥ 15-17 4♥ or 12-14 4♥?

2♠ 17+ <4♥

2NT a) 6+♣ better than 3♣, b) 6+♣ 3+♥, c) 5♣/♦4♥ GF

3♣ 6+♣

3♦ 4414 better than 2♦ GF

3♥ 4♥ 18-19

3♠ 4♥ cue SI (likely to have 6+♣)

3NT to play

4♣ 4♥ cue SI (likely to have 6+♣)

4♦ 4♥ cue SI (unlikely bid)

 

4135 & 4144 hands will be opened 1♦

 

2. 1NT is OK - I need to run more simulations to find the cut-off between 1NT & 2NT looking at trick count rather than hcp. NB 1♣-1♠ is GF/GI

3. Agree 3♣-3NT is a poor calibration, although both 3NT and 4♣ happen to make in this case

[DavidKok]

That structure over 1♣-1♦ looks extremely vulnerable to interference. I would refuse to play this, if offered.

[pescetom]

Maybe an admin could move this thread to a more appropriate folder (Non-Natural Systems or similar).

[mw64ahw]

That structure over 1♣-1♦ looks extremely vulnerable to interference. I would refuse to play this, if offered.

More so than other versions of TW?

Is the only difference going to be bidding 1♥ with 4♥, having interference and then needing to bid 2♥. This may let the OPs in with ♠?

I'll have to run some stats. on interference.

 

 

 

[mikeh]

A triumph (lol) of artfully constructing a hand on which a borderline game is reached on minimal values

 

I’ve played T-Walsh for years, including against elite competition.

 

The notion that an acceptance of the transfer at the one level shows 2-4 hearts strikes me as close to unplayable. Responder now needs an artificial way to ask whether opener has real support, largely wasting the bidding room that is being ‘saved’ by having to jump to 2H with 4 card support (as, literally, every version of T-Walsh I’ve ever seen requires)

 

David correctly pointed out the silliness of having 1S by opener promise 6 clubs. Wtf does one bid with,say, KJxx x Qxx AQxxx?

 

I wrote in a post on another thread that the OP’s desire to design a bidding method through simulations was fundamentally flawed because of the need, if one wants to do so properly, of working out how one’s ideas work on hands that do not fit the particular scheme one is evaluating. Here, the dedication of the 1S rebid to show 4=6 blacks fails this basic test: it makes bidding 4=1=3=5 hands impossible….please don’t argue that one rebids 1N….that’s so silly as to be indefensible for reasons I’ll leave to the reader. Also, as David pointed out, how does this method deal with say KQxx x KQx AJxxx? Too strong for 1S, in the OP’s pet method and too short in clubs. If the answer is to open 1N, that’s appalling, again for reasons that I’ll leave to the reader.

 

Here’s my TW method:

 

1C 1D 1H: minimum opener with 2-3 hearts. We play xyz over this, and responder’s 1S is non-forcing but includes up to invitational values…opener is expected to raise with 4 card support unless his hand is truly horrible…otherwise makes a natural rebid, passing only with a bad 11 count and 4 spades (we open almost all 11 counts…if you need more, adjust your system micrometers accordingly)

 

1C 1D 1S: unbalanced, non-forcing (but responder passes very rarely) with at least 9 blacks…4=5 or better, clubs always longer than spades. We play FSF over this rather than xyz since responder often wants to bail out to 2C

 

1C 1D 1N: balanced 17-19, 2-3=hearts, may have 4 spades. Our 1N opening is 14-16. If yours is 15-17, make the 1N rebid 18-19.

 

Btw, this ability to show a strong balanced hand at 1N is a significant net winner. We avoid doomed 2N contracts when responder has a minimal response and we have a complex, primarily transfer based method over it so slam and strain decisions can be explored a level lower than standard methods, which are often constrained by a desire not to go past 3N. We have a full extra level of bidding available.

 

To the OP: you’re going about system design in a completely misguided fashion. It seems to me that you came up with hands and designed your method to show those hands, without realizing that your method renders other, common, hands unbiddable. So you have a great method for a 4=2=1=6 hand but your method can’t handle 4=1=3=5 hands of the same strength, nor can it handle slightly stronger hands.

 

I strongly suggest that efforts by someone, with no experience in expert competition, to design an optimal bidding method will be a waste of time.

 

We’ve had some 90 years of the evolution of bidding methods in the crucible of high-level competition. All WC players are highly intelligent. All WC players spend many hours refining their methods. Methods are exposed to very harsh scrutiny in long matches against other WC players. In short, bidding methods at the highest level have evolved over the past 90 years

 

The process is not over. There are a host of methods, but every one of them reflects real world experience against very strong competition. I’d suggest that anyone serious about bridge bidding should take a very hard look at the methods played by the leading players….at the very least it will bring home to you how holistic these methods are.

 

A major concern of system designers is to balance goals such as:

 

- minimizing the ‘unbiddable’ hands. Every method has hands that are difficult to bid in that method. I call those hands that hit the seams in the method. They will be very low frequency hands in a good method. Consider the OP method’s problem with 4=1=3=5 shape…thus the method falls at the first hurdle

 

- ensuring that memory constraints don’t render the system vulnerable to ‘forgets’. This will be dependent on the capacity of the users to learn and remember, but some methods impose more memory load than others. 20 years ago I played a relay method for which we had many hundreds of pages of notes. I’ve renewed that partnership (which had got us to two WC events) but we immediately agreed that we no longer are able to handle the memory demand so we don’t play it.

 

- being difficult to play against. One reason most experts now tend towards aggressive openings and interference is that competitive bidding is still and will always be more difficult than auctions in which the opps pass throughout

 

This is a non-exhaustive list, of course.

 

Finally, I commend to the OP a thought process that causes him, every time he comes up with an apparently successful sequence on some hands, to alter the hands so they fall just outside his parameters, and think about how they can be bid…and, having done that, repeat,..and repeat.

[cherdano]

As an afterthought would 2NT instead of 1NT by South have been reasonable looking at counting tricks rather than hcp?

If you like miscounting tricks, sure.

[steve2005]

As an afterthought would 2NT instead of 1NT by South have been reasonable looking at counting tricks rather than hcp?

2NT has a play as you have a club fit. If North has only 1 or 2 clubs; 2NT won't have all those tricks and won't be much fun.

But South has no idea partner has chosen to play in 1NT rather than in a known 9-card ♣ fit.

Incredibly 1♠ showed 6 ♣'s.

[mw64ahw]

Many thanks for your comments Mike

I thought I would try and put some context around this post.

I had two observations from playing my existing TW approach, namely:

1. I was missing 3NT/4M games with intermmediate semi-balanced hands, which I didn't open 1NT

2. I was missing 3NT contracts with 6+♣ and sufficient hcp between us (may be less than 25)

The aim of considering this variation is to have an approach that shows:

1. intermediate semi-balanced hands so that game is reachable opposite a stong enough partner

2. I can play a super accept opposite 6+♣ similar to that with 4-way transfers.

I have some work and simulations to perform to optimise the structure and then comapare with other TW approaches.

Further points to note are that this TW variation accompanies:

1. a 5+ Majors approach so 1♣ can only ever have 4M

2. an unbalanced ♦ approach based around 3+♦ or semi-balanced long ♦

3. 1♣-1♠ is GI.

I address some of your points below

The notion that an acceptance of the transfer at the one level shows 2-4 hearts strikes me as close to unplayable. Responder now needs an artificial way to ask whether opener has real support, largely wasting the bidding room that is being 'saved' by having to jump to 2H with 4 card support (as, literally, every version of T-Walsh I've ever seen requires)

David made a similar observation and I agree that I would want to show support immediately with 4. The concept originates from the following bulletin, which is the basis for this attempt at a variation.

https://www.bridgewe...20over%201C.pdf

I have added to the original draft structure by suggesting that 2♦ is used to show the intermediate supporting hand, although this may be better as a Max 16-17 intermediate hand as it would allow responder to invite game with a sub-Limit+ hand. The game invite can be made with a Limit+ hand when support is shown with 2♥ over the transfer.

David correctly pointed out the silliness of having 1S by opener promise 6 clubs. Wtf does one bid with,say, KJxx x Qxx AQxxx?

 

I wrote in a post on another thread that the OP's desire to design a bidding method through simulations was fundamentally flawed because of the need, if one wants to do so properly, of working out how one's ideas work on hands that do not fit the particular scheme one is evaluating. Here, the dedication of the 1S rebid to show 4=6 blacks fails this basic test: it makes bidding 4=1=3=5 hands impossible….please don't argue that one rebids 1N….that's so silly as to be indefensible for reasons I'll leave to the reader. Also, as David pointed out, how does this method deal with say KQxx x KQx AJxxx? Too strong for 1S, in the OP's pet method and too short in clubs. If the answer is to open 1N, that's appalling, again for reasons that I'll leave to the reader.

This hand KJxx x Qxx AQxxx isn't an issue as I play a 3+ unbalanced ♦ so I excluded from a 1♣ opening. i.e. you can only have a short Major with 6+♣

 

So after 1♣-1♦ I would complete the transfer with any Minimum hand with 2/3♥. If partner has 4♠ they can then show 4♠ via 1NT or relay to 1NT otherwise.

When Minimum with short ♥s 6♣4♠ opener breaks the transfer with 1♠

When Intermediate with 6♣4♠ 1-3♥, opener again breaks the transfer. Responder can retransfer with 5♥, raise ♠, sign-off in ♣ or super-accept.

 

The potential issue is having an intermediate semi-balanced hand with 4♠ opposite a 1♦ transfer when you would bid 1NT rather than 1♠.

I don't think this should be a problem given you find an 8 card ♠ fit when responder has 7/8+ points or end up playing in 1NT with sufficient hcp and hopefully get a ♠ lead.

Here's my TW method:

1C 1D 1N: balanced 17-19, 2-3=hearts, may have 4 spades. Our 1N opening is 14-16. If yours is 15-17, make the 1N rebid 18-19.

 

Btw, this ability to show a strong balanced hand at 1N is a significant net winner. We avoid doomed 2N contracts when responder has a minimal response and we have a complex, primarily transfer based method over it so slam and strain decisions can be explored a level lower than standard methods, which are often constrained by a desire not to go past 3N. We have a full extra level of bidding available.

I use a similar approach with my partner, but the new variation suggests loosing this benefit. I will have to compare to see if the gains from the new approach outweigh the benefits of my old one.

 

Many thanks again for your comments and let me know if the logic still fails to make sense.

[DavidKok]

Note to the moderators: I think this is an interesting discussion, despite being in the wrong forum. Maybe the thread can be moved, or should we just start a new one?

 

Thanks for explaining. I think the "unbalanced 1♦, shows 3+" is a terrible idea. My own 'unbalanced' diamond contains the following hands:

1. 5(+) diamonds, no longer other suit or equal length major, not 5332 (includes semibalanced hand shapes like 5422 and 6322).
   
2. 5332 with 5 diamonds, the diamonds are rebiddable and the hand looks 'trumpy' (we will rebid the diamonds and treat the hand as a 6322).
   
3. xy45 without reverse strength (we use an artificial NF 1NT rebid to show this hand type over 1M).
   
4. 5332 with 5 diamonds and 17-19, intending to rebid 2NT (some pairs move this hand type to 1♣
   

Option 3 is already straining the agreement. Somewhat similar to a precision 1♦ confusion arises in competition on which is the longer minor. Since the xy45 hand type with 11-15 points is rare (we bid 1♣-1X; 2♦ reverse on most 16-counts) we just ignore it and take our lumps. Standard bidders would open 1♣ and never mention the diamonds, and it mostly averages out that we get the diamonds but not the clubs in on those hand types. Adding hands with long clubs and only 3 diamonds to the mix would make this a serious issue.

Incidentally, I know a pair at my local club that plays Magic Diamond, and their 1♣ shows "length (6+) or shortness (1-) in either minor". We tend to have an edge on competitive auctions against them over this 1♣ bid, although of course their 1♥ & 1♠ are more solid for it.

 

Secondly, one of the advantages of T-Walsh (and Dutch Doubleton) compared to standard is that you have a way to run from 1♣ with weak hands. Contrary to 'standard' where 1♣ can only be opened on a doubleton if 4=4=3=2 and outside of your NT range, these unbalanced diamond systems open 1♣ on a doubleton (and on a three card suit) much more frequently, and the average number of clubs in this opening is quite low. The number depends on your specific agreements, but I think it is somewhere around ~3 clubs average. This not only has consequences for competitive auctions (supporting clubs with only 4 is now a risky proposition) but also means there is much more to gain by having multiple bids for weak (say 0-4 HCP) hands. For example ♠xxx, ♥QJxx, ♦Jxxx, ♣xx is a problem hand opposite 1♣. One way to solve this is by including these weak hands into the major suit transfers in T-Walsh. This has consequences for opener's rebid though. You should be very careful moving around which bids show which exact level of support, because this is the most important question to answer if the bidding may get competitive.

 

A more standard response structure over 1♣*-1♦* would be:

• 1♥: 2-3 hearts, 11-15 HCP, NF (partnership agreement is needed on 4=3=1=5/4=3=0=6 hands)
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠, 5(+)♣ unless 4=1=4=4, 10-18 HCP, NF.
  
• 1NT: (17)18-19 NT. Partnership agreement: denies 4 hearts.
  
• 2♣: 5(+) clubs, not balanced 11-17 HCP, NF (only 5 if 3=1=4=5, 6(+) with all other hand shapes). Partnership agreement: can be bid on 2=2=4=5.
  
• 2♦: Reverse, either clubs/diamonds or an artificial reverse (such as (17)18-19 NT with 4 hearts).
  
• 2♥: 11-14 HCP with four hearts, NF. Need not be balanced.
  
• 2♠: 19+ HCP strong reverse, 4(+) spades, 5(+) clubs. Partnership agreement: include strong 4=1=4=4 hands.
  
• 2NT: Usually artificial, strong, not balanced, 4-card heart support.
  

[mikestar13]

Maybe an admin could move this thread to a more appropriate folder (Non-Natural Systems or similar).

 

It might be moved to Natural Systems, though the definition is fuzzy. The last truly natural system I'm aware of is EHAA as originally devised--everything else depends on a greater or lesser degree of artificiality. My thought for the 21st century definition of "Natural System" is:

1. All one level openings are non forcing .
2. 1NT shows a balanced hand.
3. 1M shows at least four cards in the suit.
4. 1m shows either at least four cards in the suit or a balanced hand.
5. The suit bids do not suggest length in another suit (though they need not deny it).
6. "Opening Pass" is not forcing.

No distinction is made on the basis of any other call except the the opening bid.

 

[mikeh]

I agree with David about 1D showing 3+.

 

Yes, many big club players open 1D with as few as 2 diamonds…some may even hold fewer, depending on how they use 2D. However, I think most such players would agree that the 1D structure is a weakness in the system. They choose to play it not because it’s good or effective but because they don’t want to overload their 2C openings ( which is already another systemic weakness) and they see the benefits of their limited 1M and, to a lesser degree, the 1C opening as outweighing these costs.

 

You don’t have a limited 1M opening nor a forcing, artificial 1C so by opening 1D on 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5 you get most of the shortcomings of a semi-artificial 1D with none of the benefits they get.

 

The advantage of playing 1C 1D (transfer) 1S as promising 6 clubs is small compared to it showing 4=5+ and will arise infrequently. 4=6 hands are much less frequent than are 4=5 hands, plus you also need responder bidding 1D and the opps not bidding.

 

Meanwhile, in competition you’re already in trouble after your 1D bid, since you may have two side suits longer than the suit you’ve opened…or you may have long diamonds. Responder is in trouble if your hand belongs in a diamond partscore (or higher, but higher usually means you have the combined assets to work things out, unless those opponents have preempted)

 

I don’t play my 1D openings the same way as David. I have two serious partnerships, in both of which we play basically the same TW structure but in one our 1D shows 5+ or a 4441/4144/1444 hand. 1C shows 2+

 

In the other, 1D shows 4+. I prefer the 5+ or 4441 approach.

 

Also, the notion of reversing with a misfit ting 15 or 16 leaves me very cold. As David notes, a big but often unstated advantage of TW is that over 1C responder can transfer into a major with very weak hands, intending to pass when, as happens most of the time, opener accepts.

 

Kxxxx xxx xxx xx.

 

Partner opens 1C. Whether that’s 2+ or 3+, passing 1C can lead to playing their 8 or 9 card fit. Bid 1H and most of the time opener will accept (2-3 card support). If he bids 1N, we have at least half the deck so it shouldn’t be a disaster whether one passes or transfers again. If he rebids clubs, he has long clubs so again disaster has usually been avoided.

 

But start reversing on weak (intermediate) hands and you’re creating new disasters.

 

And of course you’re screwing up an important aspect of standard based bidding.

 

In standard methods 1 suit shows roughly 11-21 hcp. I’ve opened with as many as 23 and as few as 10, and others will have slightly different ranges.

 

When your system requires wide range opening, one of the primary goals of system design has to be to refine opener’s shape and strength as soon as possible. Also, as safely and economically as possible.

 

When responder may have as few as 5 hcp (as noted, we may have fewer), and no fit, it makes little sense to create a force via a reverse on as few as 15 (or imo 16j. It’s going to lead to poor contracts.

 

Also, it’s better, theoretically, for opener to divide his rebid such that there remains a wider range for the non-forcing rebids than for the forcing ones. When our nf rebid can be as much as a misfitting 16 (or an ugly 16), we’re unlikely to miss game if responder passes…he can usually afford a bid if he has a fit and as many as 8 hcp and will rarely be passing with 10.

 

Finally, reverses are an excellent tool for bidding slams. They’re good for games as well, but you’re not missing many games if opener doesn’t reverse on intermediate hands, for the reasons discussed.

 

However, widening the permitted strength for the reverse makes slam bidding more challenging, since responder has to try to cater to opener having either a ‘real’ reverse or a much weaker hand.

 

I’m an imp player. Slam swings are disproportionately important, compared to their frequency. While games are the most important goal, slams are not far behind.

 

I could go on, but I’ve spent too much time on this already🧐

[Gilithin]

Yes, many big club players open 1D with as few as 2 diamonds…some may even hold fewer, depending on how they use 2D. However, I think most such players would agree that the 1D structure is a weakness in the system.

Are you sure about this? The limited, nebulous 1♦ opening often causes at least as many issues for the opponents as the Precision pair and often results in them finding their LoTT limit quickly while the opponents are left to guess whether to compete or not.

 

They choose to play it not because it’s good or effective but because they don’t want to overload their 2C openings ( which is already another systemic weakness) and they see the benefits of their limited 1M and, to a lesser degree, the 1C opening as outweighing these costs.

Most big club players that I have heard to express themselves on this, admittedly not a majority, seem to think that the 1♣ opening is the weakest part of Modern Precision. Arguably the true weak spot in the system is actually when you hold a Weak 2♦ and are unable to bid it.

 

You don’t have a limited 1M opening nor a forcing, artificial 1C so by opening 1D on 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5 you get most of the shortcomings of a semi-artificial 1D with none of the benefits they get.

I think it goes beyond this. The reason why the nebulous Precision 1♦ opener is effective is because of its tight strength limits. Getting to 2M quickly on a 4-4 fit will often be a win and both players can know that game is out of reach. Where 1♦ is unlimited, suddenly the issues created are going to hit us a much higher proportion of the time and the opponents less often. Within a natural context I just do not understand the point of moving hands up to 1♦ from 1♣. From a purely theoretical perspective, you want your 1♣ opening to hold about 38% of hands and the 1♦ opening to be around 24%. The traditional, natural 1♣ openers do not come close to this, which explains to some extent why the trend has been to move to, for example, "1♣ = natural or balanced"-type structures. But reducing the load of a natural 1♣ opening? Seriously, why?!?

[mikeh]

The nebulous 1D isn’t hard to defend against. We play, for example, 2D is natural. Note that after a standard 1C, overcalling 1D gives the opps extra bidding space because they have the double, and they usually weren’t about to bid 1D. So having to bid 2D is usually better than 1D unless one has a chunky hand with only 5 not great diamonds, and one can’t bid 2N nor double. So on balance, to me,it breaks even.

 

We lose Michael’s but we play 2H as Michael’s, limited range, and bid 1S or double with stronger hands. Since 1S is rarely passed out, and it’s often a decent result when it is, this isn’t a big negative.

 

Oh, and I don’t understand your argument about finding a 4=4 major suit fit. Last time I checked, I wasn’t experiencing problems doing so after opening 1C, lol.

 

I’ve heard some good 1C players say 1C is the weak point, while others say it’s 2C. Frankly, who cares? Both are weaknesses, offset (to the big clubbers) by the undoubted gain from 1M being limited. In particular, 1M (p) 4M is extremely useful, especially when catching 4th seat with an opening hand and short in the major. He’d have a routine double against standard bidders, but responder may hold a good hand as well, and disaster ensues.

 

As far as ‘moving’ hands up, in a natural system, to 1D, I agree. In one partnership we routinely open 4342/3442 hands 1C, and even 3=3=5=2 17-19. In my other partnership, partner prefers 1D unless 4=3 minors, minimum

 

Actually, I think we agree with each other in terms of the OP. Opening 1D on 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5 is horrific in principle

[pescetom]

It might be moved to Natural Systems, though the definition is fuzzy. The last truly natural system I'm aware of is EHAA as originally devised--everything else depends on a greater or lesser degree of artificiality. My thought for the 21st century definition of "Natural System" is:

1. All one level openings are non forcing .
2. 1NT shows a balanced hand.
3. 1M shows at least four cards in the suit.
4. 1m shows either at least four cards in the suit or a balanced hand.
5. The suit bids do not suggest length in another suit (though they need not deny it).
6. "Opening Pass" is not forcing.

No distinction is made on the basis of any other call except the the opening bid.

Yes I agree that the forum folders should either abandon or better define the natural/non-natural distinction.

I like your list, except for '1NT shows a balanced hand' which is hardly 21st century :)

Maybe '1NT shows a hand prepared to play in NT and includes most or all balanced hands within the specified range'.

[Gilithin]

The nebulous 1D isn’t hard to defend against. We play, for example, 2D is natural. Note that after a standard 1C, overcalling 1D gives the opps extra bidding space because they have the double, and they usually weren’t about to bid 1D. So having to bid 2D is usually better than 1D unless one has a chunky hand with only 5 not great diamonds, and one can’t bid 2N nor double. So on balance, to me, it breaks even.

In a Precision context, when you have that hand for a 2♦ overcall Responder can more or less envision an 11-15hcp (14)35 hand opposite, which is usually precise enough to make a good decision. And when Responder happens to be weak, you are really going to miss the difference between (1♣) - 1♦ and (1♦) - 2♦! The situation is somewhat different when Opener is unlimited, which was the main point being made.

 

We lose Michael’s but we play 2H as Michael’s, limited range, and bid 1S or double with stronger hands. Since 1S is rarely passed out, and it’s often a decent result when it is, this isn’t a big negative.

I quite like (1♦) - 2♥ to be limited range Michaels/Roman even after a natural 1♦ opening, so count me in on this one. :)

 

Oh, and I don’t understand your argument about finding a 4=4 major suit fit. Last time I checked, I wasn’t experiencing problems doing so after opening 1C, lol.

The point being made was similar to the one above, the limited openings make handling competitive auctions somewhat easier. That is admittedly less true compared to systems where 1♦ is always unbalanced, or 5+/(4441), than for Standard. But that is just another reason to play 1♣ as natural or balanced.

 

I’ve heard some good 1C players say 1C is the weak point, while others say it’s 2C. Frankly, who cares? Both are weaknesses, offset (to the big clubbers) by the undoubted gain from 1M being limited. In particular, 1M (p) 4M is extremely useful, especially when catching 4th seat with an opening hand and short in the major. He’d have a routine double against standard bidders, but responder may hold a good hand as well, and disaster ensues.

I would say that 2♣ is a weakness in traditional Precision (5♣4M or 6+♣) but something of a 2-edged sword in Modern Precision (6+♣) and even a slight strength in AUC (6+♣no4M). Bidding 2♣ on the first round with tight strength limits and 6+♣ often enough makes life difficult for the opps as (nearly) to offset the lack of space when Responder has a big hand. I think the specific range can make a big difference here - 10-15 is (imho) too wide, particularly when 2♣ can be 5♣4M, but 11-14 and 6+♣ is not really a weakness at all.

 

As far as ‘moving’ hands up, in a natural system, to 1D, I agree. In one partnership we routinely open 4342/3442 hands 1C, and even 3=3=5=2 17-19. In my other partnership, partner prefers 1D unless 4=3 minors, minimum

 

Actually, I think we agree with each other in terms of the OP. Opening 1D on 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5 is horrific in principle

We do. That is probably the main thing to take away from the previous post. The rest is really just my quibbling on the difference between a nebulous limited 1♦ opening and a nebulous unlimited 1♦ opening. As you have already pointed out, the unlimited system pretty much ends up with all of the disadvantages and few, if any, advantages.

[DavidKok]

In a Precision context, when you have that hand for a 2♦ overcall Responder can more or less envision an 11-15hcp (14)35 hand opposite, which is usually precise enough to make a good decision. And when Responder happens to be weak, you are really going to miss the difference between (1♣) - 1♦ and (1♦) - 2♦! The situation is somewhat different when Opener is unlimited, which was the main point being made.

I don't understand this. Doesn't precision 1♦ also include weak NT below your 1NT range, or hands with 4-4 or (43) majors? How do you pin opener to a (14)35?

[nullve]

The notion that an acceptance of the transfer at the one level shows 2-4 hearts strikes me as close to unplayable.

So e.g.

 

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

 

looks close to unplayable, too?

 

Responder now needs an artificial way to ask whether opener has real support, largely wasting the bidding room that is being ‘saved’ by having to jump to 2H with 4 card support (as, literally, every version of T-Walsh I’ve ever seen requires)

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

 

E.g.

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♣*

2♥**

 

* marionette to 2♦

** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♦*

2♥-2♠/2N/3♣/3♦

3♥

 

* GF relay

 

As for wasting bidding room, the point for me, at least, is to avoid invitational sequences ending in 3♥ after

 

1♣-1♦

2♥-invite.

[DavidKok]

So e.g.

 

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

 

looks close to unplayable, too?

You're really stretching the limits of 'good faith reading' here. You can take any relatively common form of T-Walsh, add, remove or swap one particular hand type, and get another playable form of T-Walsh. In your case you've added 3=4=3=3 11-counts. That hand type by itself is rare enough to not have an impact on how playable the system is, and I'm confident you are aware of that.

 

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

 

E.g.

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♣*

2♥**

 

* marionette to 2♦

** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

Normal XYZ uses 2♣* as a relay to 2♦*, so you give up the option to play there. But arguably that's fine, although giving up a feature of Walsh bidding in T-Walsh seems questionable.

Assuming you break the relay on a number of hands, what does opener rebid over 2♣* with 3-card support, both with a minimum and a maximum? How do you distinguish, say, 4=2=(43) where you may well have a 4-4 spade fit, from 3=3=(43) where you may have a 5-3 heart fit, from 4=3=(any) where either may be best, without bypassing 2NT opposite a minimum without a guaranteed fit?

[nullve]

You're really stretching the limits of 'good faith reading' here. You can take any relatively common form of T-Walsh, add, remove or swap one particular hand type, and get another playable form of T-Walsh. In your case you've added 3=4=3=3 11-counts. That hand type by itself is rare enough to not have an impact on how playable the system is, and I'm confident you are aware of that.

3433 11 counts were just an extreme example. The basic idea in my case is to remove some balanced hands from

 

1♣-1♦; 2♥

 

so that the range becomes more manageable.

 

Normal XYZ uses 2♣* as a relay to 2♦*, so you give up the option to play there. But arguably that's fine, although giving up a feature of Walsh bidding in T-Walsh seems questionable.

If your transfer accept denies 4c support and 2♣ over 1♣-1♦; 1♥ is a puppet (= relay, the way you're using the term?) to 2♦, then how can I possibly give up something by playing 2♣ only as a marionettte to 2♦ but forcing Opener to bid 2♦ unless he has 4c support?

[mikeh]

So e.g.

 

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

 

looks close to unplayable, too?

 

I have no idea what the 1C -1D; 1H/1S; 2H line is supposed to mean. If you are trying to say that opener can accept the initial transfer with a bad hand and 4H, then bid 2H over a nf 1S, that makes a little…a very little…sort of sense. However: firstly, responder rarely bids 1S, so the opportunity will rarely arise and, secondly, that gets you to 2H anyway: the thing you were trying to avoid.

 

Yes, opener is now limited but bear in mind that our 1N is 14-16, so our range on balanced hands is 11-13. It’s going to be rare that we have a terrible hand and partner will try for game, hoping we have 13, and the three level is too high. Rare is not never, but we have far more important things to do than to change our methods to cater to such rare hands

 

Of course, as I said, responder rarely bids 1S anyway, so now you’re catering to a rare holding in a rare sequence

 

 

 

 

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

 

E.g.

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♣*

2♥**

 

* marionette to 2♦

** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-2♦*

2♥-2♠/2N/3♣/3♦

3♥l

 

* GF relay

 

As for wasting bidding room, the point for me, at least, is to avoid invitational sequences ending in 3♥ after

 

1♣-1♦

2♥-invite.

 

Now you’re piling on more artificiality to deal with extremely rare hands and wasting some bidding space as well. If responder has a game force opposite the 1H acceptance, which might be on as few as 2 hearts and an 11 count, he certainly has a gf opposite an 11 count with 4 hearts, so having opener bid 2H over 1D doesn’t hurt game chances and may enhance them….funnily enough responder usually likes learning of 4 card support.

 

Plus now you’re having to waste an entire round of bidding just to show 4 card support, which in our methods we did on opener’s second bid.

 

If you try to argue that your method may keep us out of a bad slam, responder being warned that opener has a very weak hand, then I suspect that you don’t know much about slam bidding. There is a huge amount of room between 2H and 4H and good players know how to use it. Bad players don’t.

 

Finally, we pretty much play only imps. This was largely true pre-COVID but has become 100% these days. Indeed, our first live bridge in over two years will be in Salsomaggiore in March.

 

So we design our approach with a view to bidding games and slams. Yes, playing 2H making rather than 3H failing is important but we play ‘invite heavy, accept light’ as our style. Thus if responder invites over 2H, he’ll have good values. We don’t stretch to invite…we stretch to accept.

 

The difference between invite heavy, accept light and it’s alternative of invite light, accept heavy, is subtle. I’d say that both styles bid the same way on 90% of hands.

 

Both reach or miss the same number of games…just on slightly different hands. Both fail or succeed in their games at the same rate. The key is that our style (which we did not invent of course) avoids the occasional 3H going down on a bad lie of the cards

 

What this means in practice is that responder will pass 2H if he has a borderline invite, thus largely negating your concerns (and argument)

[nullve]

I have no idea what the 1C -1D; 1H/1S; 2H line is supposed to mean. If you are trying to say that opener can accept the initial transfer with a bad hand and 4H, then bid 2H over a nf 1S, that makes a little…a very little…sort of sense. However: firstly, responder rarely bids 1S, so the opportunity will rarely arise and, secondly, that gets you to 2H anyway: the thing you were trying to avoid.

 

Yes, opener is now limited but bear in mind that our 1N is 14-16, so our range on balanced hands is 11-13. It’s going to be rare that we have a terrible hand and partner will try for game, hoping we have 13, and the three level is too high. Rare is not never, but we have far more important things to do than to change our methods to cater to such rare hands

 

Of course, as I said, responder rarely bids 1S anyway, so now you’re catering to a rare holding in a rare sequence

Sorry, I meant to write

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠/1N; 2♥,

 

not

 

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥.

 

:(