# BBO Discussion Forums: After transfer Walsh - BBO Discussion Forums

Page 1 of 1

## After transfer Walsh

### #1Ant590

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 726
• Joined: 2005-July-17
• Gender:Male
• Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 2010-January-01, 12:30

Ok, I'm not sure what the usual treatment is for completing a transfer Walsh bid, but suppose it's as follows:

1 - 1
1 showing
(1) 11-13 balanced without 4 hearts
(2) unbalanced minimums without rebiddable clubs or a spade suit

1 - 1
1 showing
(1) 11-13 balanced without 4 hearts
(2) unbalanced minimums without rebiddable clubs
(3) 1=4=4=4 minimum

Suppose further that a simple raise is to play.

Under which circumstances should responder pass the completion (rather than raise)?
o All hands without game interest?
o No game interest and a five-card suit (the type of hand that would transfer and pass after a weak NT opening)
o Sub-minimums with 5+ cards
o Some other set of hands?
0

### #2Fluffy

• World International Master without a clue
• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 17,353
• Joined: 2003-November-13
• Gender:Male

Posted 2010-January-01, 13:29

I know this is not what you wanna hear but completing the transfer is used to show some kind of support (3 cards) and some even might have 4 cards.

Using it as no-fit seems to wrongside 1NT often.
0

### #3helene_t

• The Abbess
• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 15,730
• Joined: 2004-April-22
• Gender:Female
• Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2010-January-01, 13:58

I think responder should pass with all hands without game interest. To see why, look at it from opener's point of view: he can complete the transfer with various hands that are not strong enough to have missed game if responder passes.

BTW, would you ever complete the transfer with shortness in the suit? Presumably,
1-1
1
could be 1435. But with 4135, it would go
1-1
1
and with 45 I think you should either open 1 or rebid 2 (depending of the quality of the clubs).

That said I personally prefer Fluffy's style where accepting the transfer shows 3-card support.
... most of the new ideas I get are pretty "boring", mostly focusing on constructive methods rather than destructive ones --- Kungsgeten
0

### #4hanp

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 2,987
• Joined: 2009-February-15

Posted 2010-January-01, 15:59

I prefer the method outlined by Ant. I dont often pass, and I don't remember ever passing with only a 4-card major. With a 5-card major and 6 or fewer points I typically pass.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
0

### #5Ant590

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 726
• Joined: 2005-July-17
• Gender:Male
• Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 2010-January-01, 18:13

The meaning of the completion may not be optimal, but in the context of the system it works ok for us.

The big issue, for me at least, is that we play in the UK, where weak NT openings are common. So if we were to pass with whatever subset of minimums, we're often making it easier for the opps to balanced compared to the field who are opening 1NT and transferring with at least some of the hands we open 1

Of course, if we pass with 5+ suits at the 1-level and it goes P-P-P we're usually in a good place, especially if opener has a 1=4=4=4 type hand.
0

### #6karlson

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 974
• Joined: 2005-April-06

Posted 2010-January-01, 18:21

I also play the same way you do.

I usually bid 2M with 6 of them.

With 5, I would usually bid 1n, but not always, and be more likely to bid the more strength I have (so almost always with 10 points, almost never with 4). I think that a mixed strategy there is not unreasonable in order to keep the opponents from balancing too freely.
0

### #7MickyB

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 3,289
• Joined: 2004-May-03
• Gender:Male
• Location:London, England

Posted 2010-January-01, 18:43

Most hands with 5M and no game interest should pass IMO, I've scored +80 here a few times, no need to go running around just because they might protect. Guess you might bid again with 5M4C or 4S5H if you can offer a choice of part-score - e.g. with methods like -

1S puppets 1NT then checkback structure applies
1NT shows 4S4H NF
2C is 5H4C NF
etc
0

### #8FrancesHinden

• Limit bidder
• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 8,476
• 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 2010-January-04, 14:31

I don't quite play the same way you do, I play a completion shows either
(i) minimum balanced (11-13 in one partnership, 12-14 in another) without 4-card support, or
(ii) minimum unbalanced with 3-card support

Thus in theory I don't have a singleton when I complete, although any hand on which I would rebid 1NT with a singleton (usually 4441 with a singleton honour or something 5431 with a singleton honour and poor 5-card suit) will complete here.

I don't worry too much about passing out the completion when I have a very weak hand with a 5-card suit. However, in one partnership I kept nearly the same continuations over a completion that I used to play over a 1NT rebid (and still do over the new 1NT rebid which shows 18-20 balance) i.e. transfers. So if I want to play at the 2-level I can bid 1C - 1D - 1H - 2D - 2H - P.

But in practice I never have the auction 1C - P - 1red - P - 1complete - P - ? when I have a weak hand. Someone else has always bid by then. Either that or I have a 9-count or so, when I don't mind passing and seeing what develops.
0

### #9mikeh

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 10,570
• Joined: 2005-June-15
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2010-January-04, 15:11

Fluffy, on Jan 1 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

I know this is not what you wanna hear but completing the transfer is used to show some kind of support (3 cards) and some even might have 4 cards.

Using it as no-fit seems to wrongside 1NT often.

I disagree with this as, it seems, do most.

One of the major advantages of transfer walsh is the economy of bidding space, and this is added to by using the transfer acceptance to show 2-3 card support, usually a balanced notrump hand or, less commonly, 3 card support and an otherwise problematic hand: say 3=4=1=5 after a 1 response.

When I toyed with the method, we used and actually had the auction of 1 1 1 1 showing 4=4 (might be 4=5) in the majors and weak....1 was non-forcing, non-invitational.

We play that responder assumes the weak notrump hand for the acceptance and bids 2 puppet to 2, to play or most invites, and 2 as gf.

If opener holds 4 card support, he 'raises' rather than accepts the transfer.

Since no one in my neck of the words plays T-Walsh, I ended up spending a lot of time worrying about sequences, and while I am far from an accomplished theoretician, I think that allowing a simple acceptance with 4 card support is a very inefficient way to construct a method. For one thing, you lose the (very useful) ability to rebid 1N by opener as a hand on which everyone else jumps to 2N. And you lose the ability to lay a jump to 2N as some unusual, but strong, hand type.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 4,393
• Joined: 2005-October-09
• Location:Netherlands

Posted 2010-January-08, 09:23

There are two (probably more) entirely different concepts underlying T-Walsh. The only thing that they have in common is that responder skips the diamond suit which enables him to make a transfer bid.

The first concept was to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support. (Henk Uijterwaal was one of the early proponents of this concept.) Essentially the idea behind this came from the support double. In its crude form, completing the transfer shows the same as a support double would have if the opponents would have entered the bidding. Genuine raises are then made on four cards.

The other concept (such as in the Scanian Club, I think Anders Wirgren and Mats Nilsland) is to use the acceptance of the transfer to show a mimimum balanced hand, without true support. This made it possible to rebid 1NT with 17-19 HCP balanced hands.

Both concepts use a similar mechanism (the transfer) but have entirely different goals and philosophies. To compare them to each other is like comparing apples and... car fuel.

To mix them up is like mixing apples and car fuel.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

### #11hanp

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 2,987
• Joined: 2009-February-15

Posted 2010-January-08, 09:48

Ant590, on Jan 1 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

The big issue, for me at least, is that we play in the UK, where weak NT openings are common. So if we were to pass with whatever subset of minimums, we're often making it easier for the opps to balanced compared to the field who are opening 1NT and transferring with at least some of the hands we open 1

First of all, stop worrying about what other tables will do, just play what you think is best. It is true that by passing you make it easier for the opponents to compete, but keep in mind that they have already had ample opportunity to overcall. You are playing such a different system from the rest of the field that it is too late to worry about that, just make the decisions you think are best.
and the result can be plotted on a graph.
0

### #12fromageGB

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 2,414
• Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2010-January-08, 14:46

I play T-Walsh with 2 frequent partners, and we place emphasis on the length of support of the major. Finding all the major fits at the right level is the main purpose of the method, for us.

1 1 1 shows 3 hearts, absolutely forcing, unlimited, otherwise unspecified.
1 1 2 shows 4 hearts, up to about a 16 count and more than 5 losers.
Any other bid is natural (or what you would normally do over a natural heart) and has only 2 hearts, ie
1 1 1 is natural 4 card.
1 1 1NT = 12-14 without 4 spades (responder may be weak 45 or longer in both majors).

As we play a different sequence for invitational 5 hearts, for us the bidding 1 1 1NT 2 is invitational-ish (9-11) with 6 (we don't make a further relay as 2 here is used for a weak x46x), and a weak 6 carder would go 1 2.

To answer Ant's original questions with this approach :
- game interest hands with fewer than 6 cards would start with a 1 transfer to 1NT
- with only 5 cards and no interest, if opener completes the transfer (showing 3) we raise to 2, and if he doesn't, we pass (of course if we had a sort of hand that wanted to then bid 2 we would have treated it as 6 and bid 2 in the first place
- our initial 2 bid is 5-8 count.
0

### #13fromageGB

• Group: Advanced Members
• Posts: 2,414
• Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2010-January-08, 14:50

By the way, "non-natural system discussion" - I class transfer Walsh as natural, these days :-)
0