[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jun 19 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

I don't play walsh but with 4-4 and a hand that might be interested in slam I will bid 1D. I also open 1C with 4-4 and 4-5 in the minors usually (sorry mike!)

Don't be sorry, Justin... playing that style is punishment enough

[skjaeran]

I always bypass 1♦ to show my major suit if I'm below GF strenght.
With GF strenght I might bypass 1♦ if I'd need a ♦ reverse from partner to look for a ♦ slam.
On other hands I might bid 1♦ holding a 4cM if it's essential to know about a balanced 11-14 (where I won't explore for slam) or an ubalanced hand with opener.

So below GF strenght always bypass, with GF+ strenght sometimes bypass.

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jun 19 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

If opener is shapely, it is usually possible to get back to ♦s eventually when either hand has the significant extras needed for slam.

Maybe. But I prefer to bid 1♦ straight away and avoid clouding the issue... you never know when pard is going to reverse into a 3-card diamond suit , after which there's no telling what can happen

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on Jun 19 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

what bid do you use for strong balanced hands?

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Jun 20 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 19 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

what bid do you use for strong balanced hands?

In T-Walsh, 1♠ is a transfer to notrump and is unlimited. So you can bid strong balanced hands with diamonds and no major this way. Whether 1♠ also includes strong unbalanced hands with long diamonds and a 4-card major depends on style. We bid via 1NT (artificial!) to show a four-card major and via 1♠ to show a feature.

But with a four-card diamond and a four-card major, I think everybody starts with a transfer to the major. Then the diamond fit can be found with subsequent relays.

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Jun 20 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 19 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

what bid do you use for strong balanced hands?

Over 1♣ we respond 1♠ with 6-9 "balanced" or GF hands with ♦'s (with or without 4cM). With 44 in M+♦ we transfer to the major.
1NT=10-12 balanced
2NT=13+ balanced (excluding hands that bid 3NT)
3NT=15-17 3334/3343

[Fluffy]

1NT 10-12, I like the idea a lot, will tell daddy. We were playing a kind of support for clubs that used to wrongside 1NT.

[foo]

skaeran, on Jun 20 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 20 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 19 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Btw, I've switched to T-Walsh a few years ago (our own version). We show the ♦'s with GF strength only, and only with 5+ lenght.

what bid do you use for strong balanced hands?

Over 1♣ we respond 1♠ with 6-9 "balanced" or GF hands with ♦'s (with or without 4cM). With 44 in M+♦ we transfer to the major.
1NT=10-12 balanced
2NT=13+ balanced (excluding hands that bid 3NT)
3NT=15-17 3334/3343

I've found a slight twist to this improves it.

1♣-2N also shows 18+ (don't worry, it doesn't come up often)
and
1♣-1♦! becomes a PLOB usually (~95-% of the time actually) showing ♦'s and rarely being made with a hand with ♣'s that is too weak for 1♣-1N
This is alerted as "rarely, but may be, short in ♦'s"

I've also seen the 1C-1N range be dropped to 9-11, and 1♣-2N= 12-14.

[han]

When playing Walsh I always respond 1M with 4-4.

Cherdano and I play T-Walsh, at least half of us are very happy with it.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Jun 23 2007, 06:29 AM, said:

Cherdano and I play T-Walsh, at least half of us are very happy with it.

I can independently confirm this.