[awm]

Suppose you play a Walsh style of responses to 1♣, where you would always bid a four card major before a longer diamond suit unless holding game-forcing strength.

Would you still play this approach by a passed hand? It seems like there are a few issues, for example:

(1) Presumably a passed hand can't have a game force, so you'd be bidding majors first always.
(2) Since a passed hand response can be passed by opener, there is more danger in responding a weak four-card suit.
(3) A lot of sequences like P-1♣-1♦-1NT-2M have no real meaning now.

On the other hand, if you would sometimes respond 1♦ with a 4cM as a passed hand, should opener now bid up the line or continue to bypass?

[helene_t]

If responder's reverse is a GF then it doesn't have a meaning by a passed hand, regardless of whether you play Wals or not.

(2) actually makes it safer to play Walsh by a passed hand than by an unpassed hand, since some of opener's hands that would raise on 3-card support opposite an unpassed hand, will pass now. I am not afraid of playing in a 4-3 fit at the 1-level.

So yes, Walsh applies by a passed hand for the same reasons as why it applies by an unpassed hand.

Whether T-Walsh should apply is less clear

[Fluffy]

Ilove to be able to bid 1♦ + 2♠ as a passed hand, describers it prefectly

[mike777]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

If responder's reverse is a GF then it doesn't have a meaning by a passed hand, regardless of whether you play Wals or not.

(2) actually makes it safer to play Walsh by a passed hand than by an unpassed hand, since some of opener's hands that would raise on 3-card support opposite an unpassed hand, will pass now. I am not afraid of playing in a 4-3 fit at the 1-level.

So yes, Walsh applies by a passed hand for the same reasons as why it applies by an unpassed hand.

Whether T-Walsh should apply is less clear

ditto

I would only add if you open sort of light, example 11 balanced or shapely ten in first and second seat you rarely even have an invitational hand after you pass and pard rebids 1nt....

[Jboling]

Similar to 2/1 by passed hand I would play pass-1♣-1♦-1z-2M as invitational, and thus bypass longer diamonds unless invitational strength.

When I used to play Walsh I combined it with xyz-Checkback, and I thus allowed
responding 1♦ with 5+♦-4M and inv strength also with an unpassed hand (1♣-1♦-1z-2♣-2♦-2M showed such a hand). Showing shape is relevant also for an invitational hand.

For the moment I play transfer Walsh, and what I miss the most from the old Walsh structure is that it is more difficult to show these invitational 5+♦-4M-hands.

And in response to Helenes post regarding t-Walsh, I need it by a passed hand to show 17-19 balanced with opener. Or maybe I'm just getting old, I want to play it as simple as possible, with no changes to the response structure for a passed hand.

[mike777]

Jari, on Aug 27 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

Similar to 2/1 by passed hand I would play pass-1♣-1♦-1z-2M as invitational, and thus bypass longer diamonds unless invitational strength.

When I used to play Walsh I combined it with xyz-Checkback, and I thus allowed 
responding 1♦ with 5+♦-4M and inv strength also with an unpassed hand (1♣-1♦-1z-2♣-2♦-2M showed such a hand). Showing shape is relevant also for an invitational hand.

For the moment I play transfer Walsh, and what I miss the most from the old Walsh structure is that it is more difficult to show these invitational 5+♦-4M-hands.

And in response to Helenes post regarding t-Walsh, I need it by a passed hand to show 17-19 balanced with opener. Or maybe I'm just getting old, I want to play it as simple as possible, with no changes to the response structure for a passed hand.

When playing Walsh, game force style as in the OP one just needs to accept you may lose the D suit. This is more a problem with magazine/forum bidding quizes than at the table.

Again for me after passing in first or second seat, I almost never can have an invite hand in the minor suits and rarely in the majors.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on Aug 27 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

Jari, on Aug 27 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

Similar to 2/1 by passed hand I would play pass-1♣-1♦-1z-2M as invitational, and thus bypass longer diamonds unless invitational strength.

When I used to play Walsh I combined it with xyz-Checkback, and I thus allowed 
responding 1♦ with 5+♦-4M and inv strength also with an unpassed hand (1♣-1♦-1z-2♣-2♦-2M showed such a hand). Showing shape is relevant also for an invitational hand.

For the moment I play transfer Walsh, and what I miss the most from the old Walsh structure is that it is more difficult to show these invitational 5+♦-4M-hands.

And in response to Helenes post regarding t-Walsh, I need it by a passed hand to show 17-19 balanced with opener. Or maybe I'm just getting old, I want to play it as simple as possible, with no changes to the response structure for a passed hand.

When playing Walsh, game force style as in the OP one just needs to accept you may lose the D suit. This is more a problem with magazine/forum bidding quizes than at the table.

Again for me after passing in first or second seat, I almost never can have an invite hand in the minor suits and rarely in the majors.

you are fortunate....but we could have an invite in the minors..and, thus only a couple things change when Partner is a passed hand.

1) Like it or not, we don't pass a 1/1 response. Third seat opener has a rebid.
2)2/1 promises a rebid and cannot be passed. Therefore:
3) 1nt/1M is still a one-round force.
4)1M/2NT by passed hand is the minor 2-suiter, not quite invitational.

As I said, you might not like our style, but we often win the race to 1NT by not passing 1/1 and we don't give the opps cheap options. I don't ever remember a bad result from the auction:

P P 1C P
1H P 1NT P
3D (weak 4-6)

[kgr]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

Whether T-Walsh should apply is less clear

After 3th hand opening 1C we don't play T-Walsh. (We also alert that 1C opener because it can be very weak, not sure if that alert is needed...Maybe that alert helps us more then the opps)