[Flame]

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 7 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.
But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.
I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.
I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.
also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

I think your last sentence says it all. You believe after partner opens one club there are many hands that belong in 3NT when responder has 9-11 hcp and D. I do not! I think there are very very few hands.

If in your style you end up frequently in 3nt with that responder hand, Walsh may not be for you.

For me if partner opens 1club and I have 9-11 hcp this will be a part score battle or on rare occasions partner will have a big hand and getting to 3nt is not a problem. Why? Because partner will seldom have 14-19 HCP and a balanced hand and often not a semi-balanced hand. As MikeH said it depends on your intergrated system.

This is something i wanted to tell you many time,adjust, adjust yorself.
Syac and 2/1 opening defined as 12+ hcp your opening is 9 or something, thats ok but you should always adjust, this mean if i say 9-11 u should read it as 11-13 or something like that.
Dont lose the point because of this non sense range.

[FrancesHinden]

Mikeh made a lot of good points, but I would like to give the other side for some of them.

Quote

For example, playing walsh, opener bypasses a major to rebid 1N with all balanced hands of appropriate shape.  This has enormous advantages, both when responder passes or when responder raises.

This is a slight red herring. The style being advocated is not pure up-the-line, but to respond 1D with 5D+4M and a hand that will move over partner's 1NT rebid. So the discussion about the defence to 1NT is irrelevant.

The integrated system point raises its head here: if you raise a 1M response to 2M on weak NT (ish) hands with 3-card support (with an outside low doubleton) then you also give information away bidding 1m-1M-2M-3NT (or enquiry-3NT).

Similarly, you may do better as responder showing your 4-card major after 1C-1D-1NT rather than using some form of checkback/NMF so that opener's distribution remains concealed.

Quote

Walsh gains as well, should 4th chair intervene: After 1♣ (P) 1♦, 4th chair may have an easy 1♥. Had responder bid 1♠, 4th chair may be unable (or ill-advised) to bid 2♥.

True. This is an advantage of responding 1M.
In fact, it's also an argument for opening 1M with a 4-card major, a 5-card minor and a minimum hand.... we've just re-invented the Soloway/Hamman opening bid style!

Quote

Consider another, lesser advantage: if responder has less than gf values, and opener a good hand, responder may become declarer in a 4=4 major game, with a hidden longer ♦ side suit. Once again, defence becomes tougher than when declarer has bid out his pattern.

True. But against that, if opener has a unbalanced good hand, slam bidding is much better if responder can describe his shape. 6M should be easier to bid when opener knows responder has 5 diamonds, 4 of the fitted major and 10+ points early in the auction, than when responder has bid 1M on the first round and could have virtually any shape.

On the rare occasions when opener has a strong hand with 3 diamonds, or a diamond reverse, you are probably going to miss your diamond slam.

Quote

And ♦ (when responder lacks gf values) is a suit that is rarely costly to lose.

True in an uncontested auction. Not true when the opponents start bidding.
As I think I mentioned before, if the auction starts

1C - P - 1x - 1S
P - 3S - ?

and I have a 1453 distribution, I'm considerably happier if I resonded 1D than if I responded 1H because when I double I have already bid my longest suit, and partner isn't going to be guessing.

To summarise: every time you quote an advantage from concealing your distribution from the defence, there is a corresponding disadvantage in your constructive bidding. This is the 'do you open 1NT with a 5CM/5422/5431' discussion in different clothes.

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances: I was not attempting to pesuade anyone that the walsh style is cost-free, nor that it is necessarily the 'best' method. The original poster expressed the view that he or she simply did not understand what benefits flowed from walsh at all, and I was addressing that issue.

What counts is that your method, whatever it may be, is an integrated whole: not merely a collection of conventions or agreements adopted with insufficent regard for how they interact.

I also agree that perhaps the real original complaint related only to the bypass of 1♦ with 4M 5♦, invitational values. In that specific case, I can readily see using the approach that one bids 1♦ and then shows the major and invitational values over 1N.

However, and a point I did not make earlier: what if partner does not rebid 1N?

1♣ 1♦ 2♣:

what does responder bid with no ♠ stopper and, say, 2=4=5=2?

One can use 2♥ as only a one round force, but I prefer the effect of using such a reverse (into a major) as a full gf. Thus, this is a problem auction for me if responder could be 4=5 in the reds with invitational values. I would need to adjust this auction if I were to abandon my style of walsh.

I do not have the same problem after 1♣ 1M 2♣, because (and I appreciate that this is 'kludge' or system tweak) I use 2♦ here as a 1 round artificial force.

I also like 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ as full gf (with or without ♠), and I would need to adjust this if responder could be 4=5 with invitational values.

My reference to this is not an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of walsh, as I play it, but to further illustrate the importance of anticipating how auctions may develop, and the problems that your approach may create or solve. There are, obviously, other approaches: using a reverse by responder as merely a 1 round force is one such, but then, you need to tinker with your true gf sequences.

[mike777]

Flame, on Nov 7 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 7 2005, 05:00 AM, said:

First of all im almost sure walsh is bad design system, because its just not make sense to jump over our lowest bid freqnetly, i believe this is the power of T-walsh making 1D the most common bid.
But this wasnt my point as im not playing T-walsh either.
I dont think when we open and response we should think in premptive waves, we are more likely to prempt our side.
I still play 1NT rebid with balance hands, and dont see the prolem with it since partner with invite hand has another bid. Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid, i do play 2 way chkback and think this dosnt support walsh, because when you play 2 way you have the 2D to show those hands you hide the 4 card major, but you have also the 2M and 2C directly to show major but sadly you dont need them anymore.
also i dont think the problem with 5D 4M is only with playing the diamond suit on 5-4 fit, there are many 9-11 hcp hands that need to decide wather we belong in 3NT or not, and the best way to help opener know this is by showing him that we have diamonds and let him evaluate his hand accordingly.

I think your last sentence says it all. You believe after partner opens one club there are many hands that belong in 3NT when responder has 9-11 hcp and D. I do not! I think there are very very few hands.

If in your style you end up frequently in 3nt with that responder hand, Walsh may not be for you.

For me if partner opens 1club and I have 9-11 hcp this will be a part score battle or on rare occasions partner will have a big hand and getting to 3nt is not a problem. Why? Because partner will seldom have 14-19 HCP and a balanced hand and often not a semi-balanced hand. As MikeH said it depends on your intergrated system.

This is something i wanted to tell you many time,adjust, adjust yorself.
Syac and 2/1 opening defined as 12+ hcp your opening is 9 or something, thats ok but you should always adjust, this mean if i say 9-11 u should read it as 11-13 or something like that.
Dont lose the point because of this non sense range.

OK but as I said I did adjust, with 11-13 hcp, XYZ or 2 way checkback kicks in? As I have said before the problem hand is long minor and invite hands. You must choose to live with this problem. Most of the time, bid XYZ or 2NT or the opp bid 60% of the time and you just bid natural.

Again what is the problem you are trying to solve by bidding 1D with these hands?
Walsh g/f is far from perfect but I really think the problem hands are rare.

I think everyone knows by now the most common problem hand with walsh g/f and forcing nt is the long minor and invite hand. Live with it or do not play Walsh.

[Flame]

mike777 as you say the problem hand is invite with long diamond, and i asked the forum what you think of bidding 1D with that hand.
Got some good replys and i thanks everyone.

[luke warm]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 05:05 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 7 2005, 10:00 AM, said:

Maybe the correct defination of 1D is : cannot have 4 card major unless has another bid,

That's similar to the way I used to play Walsh, except that I'd bid diamonds only with a genuine GF, and not with an invitational-only hand :-)


But I certainly won't argue the statement that T-walsh is more efficient :-)

the way i play it, which is the way bergen taught (at least way back in 'better bidding' days), is to bid 1d with longer diamonds and a 'responsive reverse'... that's defined as (10)11+ hcp...

the main thing is, with a hand worth only one bid, show the major... with 6-9 hcp, 4M and 5/6 diamonds, bergen's famous quote was "diamonds are for children"