[Flame]

Its nice to play conventions but whats the point of bidding 1M with 4M and 5♦.
I dont find the point and only suffer from rebid problems with 5D4M 10-11 while i have plenty of space if i begin with 1D instad of 1M.
Im thinking of chaning to
bid 1M with 4-4 M diamond unless GF
bid 1M with 4M 5D unless 10 hcp
this mean with 10-11 and 4M i will bid 1M if i have 4 diamonds but 1D if i have 5 diamonds.
The rebids will be eaiser. we play 2 way checkbacks so
1C-1D-1NT
2M will show 4-4 GF
with 10-11 5D 4M we'll bid 2C and then 2M
with 5D4M GF we'll bid 2D GF checkback
what do you think ?

[FrancesHinden]

This is what I play*, so you won't get any arguments from me.

*as responder's first bid, that is

[MickyB]

Yup, a definite improvement. Might even be worth responding 1D on 4-4 and invitational values.

[temp3600]

Possible problematic sequences :

1♣    (pass) 1♦  (1♠)
pass   (3♠)    ?

1♣    (pass) 1♦  (4♥)
pass (pass)  ?

[FrancesHinden]

If I have four cards in the other major, 5 diamonds and 10+ HCP I double both of these auctions for take-out. I actually feel happier than if I'd responded 1M, because I've managed to bid my longest suit before the auction got competitive.

[mike777]

Flame, on Nov 6 2005, 08:33 AM, said:

Its nice to play conventions but whats the point of bidding 1M with 4M and 5♦.
I dont find the point and only suffer from rebid problems with 5D4M 10-11 while i have plenty of space if i begin with 1D instad of 1M.
Im thinking of chaning to
bid 1M with 4-4 M diamond unless GF
bid 1M with 4M 5D unless 10 hcp
this mean with 10-11 and 4M i will bid 1M if i have 4 diamonds but 1D if i have 5 diamonds.
The rebids will be eaiser. we play 2 way checkbacks so
1C-1D-1NT
2M will show 4-4 GF
with 10-11 5D 4M we'll bid 2C and then 2M
with 5D4M GF we'll bid 2D GF checkback
what do you think ?

With 10-11 hcp and 5D and 4Major, just bid your major and pass 1nt wtp? Partner could not rebid 2clubs and choose to not give you a 3 card support raise. Keep in mind partner will open 1nt very often with 2=4=2=5 shape and 14-16 hcp. So we expect 1nt to be 11-13 very often.

With Walsh you may get an advantage of hidden suit.

[mikeh]

If you open 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors (an approach some excellent players endorse) then your suggestion is probably preferable to walsh. However, if (like me and many others) you open 1♦ with 4=4, then walsh is an excellent structure for several reasons.

The true benefit of walsh is within the context of an integrated system. 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.

The defenders (and opening leader in particular) have no immediate clue to opener's shape. I have had many, many hands on which the lead has been into my 4 card major: giving me a tempo and a trick.

If responder passes 1N, 4th chair has a much more dangerous balance decision, becaue I could be sitting there with 4 useful cards in his major.

This type of advantage is often overlooked when just considering walsh, but it is very powerful.

Walsh players can get back to the long ♦ fit after opener's common 1N rebid over a major response. (I play that opener rebids 1N over 1♥ with a 4 card ♠ suit and the appropriate balanced strength,,, once in a while you play 1N rather than 2♠... on the whole these missed ♠ fit hands represent a net loss, but the gains when responder lacks ♠ offset that, while we can always find the fit if responder has gf or invitational values). After 1♣ 1M 1N 2♣ puppets to 2♦: and, let's face it, with most 5422 or even 5432 hands, responder would prefer to play 1N rather than 2♦.

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♥. And, of course, the immediate major response may allow the partnership to find their fit before 4th chair can preempt them out of it (1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) ?)

I would not like walsh if not playing 2♣ puppet to 2♦ over 1N rebids and 2♦ gf over 1N rebids (often referred to, confusingly, as two way new minor), but if using that approach, walsh is a very good, well-integrated method.

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.

And ♦ (when responder lacks gf values) is a suit that is rarely costly to lose. I really do not understand the concern with 10-11 4M 5♦ hands. Are you ever proposing to play in ♦ (unless you open 1♣ with 4=4)? There will be hands on which the answer is yes (say, opener is 2=2=4=5), but on a practical level, such are so infrequent that you can have all of my such hands for the price of a used subway token.

[mike777]

Ditto.

I only add that with many 2=2=4=5 hands one will open 1nt again with 14-16 or open 1d planning on rebidding 2clubs or simply rebid 2clubs over one of a major response all depending on Hcp location.

[Kalvan14]

I play Walsh, w/o checkback. Obviously, I open 1♦ everytime I have 4/+ cards (including 4♣-4♦ and 5♣-4 ♦).
The advantage are pre-emption (the classic 1♣-1♠), and making balancing more difficult after 1♣-1♦-1N.

Frankly, I do not remember unduly suffering caused by the loss of the ♦suit

[Fluffy]

Advantages are 3:

Play 1NT/3NT on the right hand.

Find the major suit fit quick.

Find responder's unbalanced shape at the 1 level.

[Winstonm]

MikeH's answers are elegant and I cannot hope to duplicate either his knowledge, experience, or skill level - but I too use walsh and have found it to be of use.

I use a simplistic approach - first encouraged by Marty Bergen I believe - in that in any 1 over 1 over 1 auction that 2C is the only 4th bid that is forcing and is used on invitional or stronger hands. This means that all other bids are natural and canape' like. For example, 1C-1H-1N-3D is natural and invitational, wheras 2D would be natural and weak. Other sequences are up to the partnership to determine - I would think that 1C-1H-1S-2D would be invitational strength as it is bid without a known or likely fit. Weak hands can pass or bid 1N.

No system is perfect, but Walsh sure does solve opener's rebid problems.

KJ9x, AJ9x, xx, KJx. 1C-1D-1N....what's the problem?

Winston

[MickyB]

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

[Winstonm]

MickyB, on Nov 6 2005, 09:16 PM, said:

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his  hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

I think you are right. Misunderstood.

For me, I don't see the problem with 1C-1S-1N-2D as natural and invitational and 1C-1S-1N-3D as weak 4/6. With other hands it's usualy right to pass 1N. Obviously I'm not a fan of so-called 2-way checkback.

For GF 44 majors: In our methods partner will rebid 1S with 4 over 1H so it is not a problem - we sacrifice the unbalanced meaing of this bid to reduce the artificiality that is needed when bidding 1N over 1H with 4S and a balanced hand.

Winston.

[Kalvan14]

MickyB, on Nov 6 2005, 09:16 PM, said:

I think that some people have either not read Flame's post, or have misunderstood it. The way I understand it, the only hands that will instead respond 1♦ are those with 5♦, 4 major, and invitational strength opposite a 1NT rebid. When opener is unbalanced, you are leaving him more room to show his hand rather than forcing him to rebid 2♣; When opener is balanced, the auction can start 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M. This gives opener the chance to play in a 4-3 major fit or a 5-3 diamond fit instead of 2NT, should he decide to reject the invitation. Walshers would just bid 1C:1M, 1N:2N, pass.

I did not misunderstan Flame's question.
I just feel that the pre-emptive value of Walsh should not be discarded even for invitational hands.
This said, it is not a sin to bid up the line, nor going the other way around and anticipate 1M with a GF hand (MAFIA). It's a matter of partnership style.

[Chamaco]

mikeh, on Nov 6 2005, 05:43 PM, said:

If you open 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors (an approach some excellent players endorse) then your suggestion is probably preferable to walsh. However, if (like me and many others) you open 1♦ with 4=4, then walsh is an excellent structure for several reasons.

The true benefit of walsh is within the context of an integrated system. For example, playing walsh, opener bypasses a major to rebid 1N with all balanced hands of appropriate shape.

Ditto.

Playing Walsh, opener can safely rebid 1NT, hiding a possible other major.
1NT gets to played from the right side, responder can better evaluate the potential of the hand, opps often don't know opener's distribution, etc etc.

[Flame]

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.

[Chamaco]

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 :-)

[Al_U_Card]

Another "advantage" about not bidding 1 ♦ up-the-line is that when you do, the ambiguity of your possible holding is reduced. Pard knows that you either have a GF type hand or that you have bid ♦ despite the knowledge that he may not have any......

[mike777]

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.