BBO Discussion Forums: 1C = transfer walsh, what is your 1D open? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1C = transfer walsh, what is your 1D open? Natural or" shortage" ?

Poll: 1C = transfer walsh, what is your 1D open? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

If you play transfer walsh, what is your 1D open?

  1. Natural - ie longer minor or equal minor (15 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. Long suit or shows an outside shortage - clubs may be longer than diamonds (13 votes [43.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.33%

  3. Other - please describe (2 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

When you open 1C (twalsh) what are the relative lengths in the minors?

  1. Diamonds will be shorter than clubs, or same length (2 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  2. Diamonds will be shorter than clubs (2 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  3. Either suit may be shorter (25 votes [83.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 83.33%

  4. Clubs will be shorter (1 votes [3.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.33%

What is the minimum length in clubs for a 1C open?

  1. 0 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 1 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 2 (28 votes [93.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 93.33%

  4. 3 (2 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  5. >3 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2012-May-24, 09:49

This question is intended for those who play (maybe sometimes, in only some partnerships) transfer walsh In the context of a natural system such as 2 over 1. I'd be interested in seeing what the general methods are when deciding between a 1C open and a 1D open. Can you just "bolt on" transfer responses to 1C to whatever you did before with the minors, so that your 1D bid does not change?

I was asked this by people thinking of adopting transfer walsh. On my part, I quickly changed the 1D open so that this shows either a long suit (6 card in my case) or a hand with a shortage (singleton or void outside diamonds), and as a consequence diamonds may be longer than clubs, but I am sure many play it with no change to the diamond open. What is usual? What would you recommend?
0

#2 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,778
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2012-May-24, 10:02

We play that 1 is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

This means that 1 openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1 promises five diamonds.

I think that those who play transfer responses to 1 but still open 1 with balanced hands with four diamonds are missing an opportunity, unless they are looking to split the notrump ranges like I believe mickyb does.
0

#3 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,176
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2012-May-24, 12:30

I posted 'other'. We open as follows:

- With a strong NT, open 1NT
- With a weak NT, open 1D with 4 diamonds and fewer than 5 clubs unless either (i) the hand is 3343 (sub)minimum, or (ii) the diamond suit is so bad we don't want partner to compete in the suit, or (iii) 3rd hand we tend to open the suit we want led
- With a super-strong NT, open 1C on all hands including those with 5 diamonds

This is non-standard, but we like this because:
- When you have a weak NT the auction is more likely to be competitive, and we want partner to be able to raise & compete in diamonds if we have a fit even if opener has a weak NT. The club suit is sadly defunct either way, but we should at least find a diamond fit if there is one
- When you have a very strong hand you are more likely to have an unopposed auction, and more likely to have a slam on; the additional space you get from the T-Walsh sequences gains a great deal. You also have more benefit from transferring the declarership to opener.
- You can play 1D - 1M - 2NT as artificial; removing 18-19 balanced from the 1D openings helps in a lot of sequences.

The most common 'spit' agreement I know of is the reverse of this, opening 1C on all weak NTs and opening 1D on the strong hands, but I think this is the wrong way round.
1

#4 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,176
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2012-May-24, 12:31

View PostfromageGB, on 2012-May-24, 09:49, said:

Can you just "bolt on" transfer responses to 1C to whatever you did before with the minors, so that your 1D bid does not change?


Yes. That is how we started. As we got more used to playing T-Walsh the system started to evolve.
0

#5 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Unanimously Voted Best Bridge Theorist of the Year by BBO
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,182
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2012-May-24, 15:11

I love unbalanced diamond, and I would define it as a hand I would not open 1NT (if the range for 1NT was appropriate). Thus, a 6-card diamond suit might still give cause for a 1 opening, and I might also open 1 with a stiff King, as examples.


So, with K AQxx Axxx 10xxx, for example, I'd open 1. For that matter, I'd open 1 with that same hand but with the club being the stiff King and the spades being 10-x-x-x.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#6 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,562
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-May-30, 02:39

View Postpaulg, on 2012-May-24, 10:02, said:

We play that 1 is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

This means that 1 openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1 promises five diamonds.

I agree, except that in my current version 1 can also be 1444. 4144 and 4414 are opened 1.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#7 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,341
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-30, 03:22

View Postmgoetze, on 2012-May-30, 02:39, said:

4144 and 4414 are opened 1.

Michael, how do you deal with the 4144 hands in NT range after the auction: 1 - (1) - X - (P) (or whatever the equivalent of this is in your methods)?
(-: Zel :-)
0

#8 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,562
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2012-May-30, 03:45

View PostZelandakh, on 2012-May-30, 03:22, said:

Michael, how do you deal with the 4144 hands in NT range after the auction: 1 - (1) - X - (P) (or whatever the equivalent of this is in your methods)?

Never had that come up yet... I would just go for the smallest lie, usually 1NT or 2. Of course it's not impossible to have a pass here either.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#9 User is offline   Quantumcat 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: 2007-April-11
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bathurst, Australia
  • Interests:Archery, classical guitar, piano, watercolour painting, programming, french

Posted 2012-June-02, 00:49

View Postpaulg, on 2012-May-24, 10:02, said:

We play that 1 is either natural or a balanced hand outside of our notrump range (lower or higher); these balanced hands include hands with five diamonds. We don't think of these as hands with longer diamonds than clubs, we think of them as balanced hands.

This means that 1 openers are unbalanced and we'll only have four diamonds in 4441 hands. Otherwise 1 promises five diamonds.

I think that those who play transfer responses to 1 but still open 1 with balanced hands with four diamonds are missing an opportunity, unless they are looking to split the notrump ranges like I believe mickyb does.


In my old system, I used to do the same, but 1 was weak balanced, and 1 was strong balanced. i.e. if 1NT was 15-17, 1 was 12-14 if bal and 1 is 18-19 if bal. Then, responder is free to raise to 2 assuming a 5-card suit is opposite as long as they are at least a little bit constructive (i.e. 5-HCP minimum) so can make 2NT opposite 18 balanced HCP. I think Gumby & Lazer came up with the split ranges first, they have been playing it for years and years, but for them, 1 is their weak balanced and 1 their strong. Not sure why.
I Transfers
0

#10 User is offline   Gerben42 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,526
  • Joined: 2005-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany
  • Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
    Nuclear power

Posted 2012-June-16, 07:45

I also chose "other":

With 14 - 16 NT, open 1NT
With 11 - 13 or 17 - 18 NT: With 4 at least QTxx open 1. Worse suits open 1.
With 19 - 20 NT: Open 1 only on 5332

1 is allowed on hands with 4 good and 5 bad (less than reverse)

4=4=4=1 distribution is the only way to open on a bad 4-card suit.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!
My Bridge Systems Page

BC Kultcamp Rieneck
0

#11 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,713
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2012-June-25, 08:27

View PostFrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 12:30, said:


The most common 'spit' agreement I know of is the reverse of this, opening 1C on all weak NTs and opening 1D on the strong hands, but I think this is the wrong way round.


It developed this way as a matter of chance. Originally, I played 2 split-range systems. The one you describe for teams events (with Steel and Rosen from about 1996) and another related system with Garvey and McIntosh from 1995 for pairs play. The Pairs system was slightly more off the wall: 1H/1S/1NT on all weak no trumps with a 1NT opening denying a major (cooperative double over interference after 1H/S/NT), 1C nat or 15-17 bal and 1d nat or 18-20 bal.

Since it's obviously unplayable to play 1D 15-17 in case partner is inconsiderate enough to respond 1NT, the 1D response had to show the 18-20, and it seemed natural to retain this usage when playing the other system.

As it happens, opening 1C on 12-14 balanced works very well with transfers, giving accuracy you simply can't achieve after opening 1D. After (say) 1c-1d(4+H) we now play 2H as a terrible raise (usually min weak NT with 4 or 5431 types with 11-13 and 3 card support. Responder can now snap-pass with 11 points and 4 hearts. Better raises bid 1H (many hand types) and then clarify on the next round: partner generally bids 1S (breakable puppet), then 1NT = 12-14 bal, 2D 14-16 unbal with 3H (5431 or 63, enabling responder to move aggressively with a club fit and 8+), 2H decent 4 card raise (over which responder drives game on any 11 or shapely 9+). So there are THREE ways of raising to 2H, thus little need to ever try for game at the three level.
1

#12 User is offline   bluecalm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,555
  • Joined: 2007-January-22

Posted 2012-July-01, 21:34

Quote

- With a strong NT, open 1NT
- With a weak NT, open 1D with 4 diamonds and fewer than 5 clubs unless either (i) the hand is 3343 (sub)minimum, or (ii) the diamond suit is so bad we don't want partner to compete in the suit, or (iii) 3rd hand we tend to open the suit we want led
- With a super-strong NT, open 1C on all hands including those with 5 diamonds


Sounds like the thing to do regardless if it's T-Walsh, Walsh or up the line bidding imo.
Including 18-19 bal hands in both 1D and 1C is design mistake imo. It's better to have 1D unbal if strong, especially in competition but also, as you said, in constructive bidding. It's also better to start those hands with 1C and gain from all transfers and what not to follow.

I am really surprised it's not standard, especially among T-Walsh crowd (which I suppose invest more time in work on their systems).
0

#13 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2012-July-02, 03:43

View Postbluecalm, on 2012-July-01, 21:34, said:

Sounds like the thing to do regardless if it's T-Walsh, Walsh or up the line bidding imo.
Including 18-19 bal hands in both 1D and 1C is design mistake imo. It's better to have 1D unbal if strong, especially in competition but also, as you said, in constructive bidding. It's also better to start those hands with 1C and gain from all transfers and what not to follow.

I am really surprised it's not standard, especially among T-Walsh crowd (which I suppose invest more time in work on their systems).

Certainly I agree with you that it's better to put the unbalanced strong hand into 1, but I am surprised you are surprised on the last sentence. With a weak NT I think it better to put the unbalanced hands into 1, and bid a 1 that says nothing about the comparative length in the minors, to get the same benefits of major suit definition. Guaranteeing the 1 open as unbalanced or long, at all strengths, has advantages too.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users