[gwnn]

You decided to play t-walsh with a pickup pd* and you open 1♣.

Unfortunately, LHO doubles and CHO bids 1♥.

Assuming your partner is a pretty good player, would you take it as 4+ ♥ or 4+ ♠? Is there a clearly right answer to this? If you were responder, would you try nonetheless to avoid bidding over 1♣-x-? to avoid an accident?

*-probably a mistake but it's too late now!

[Codo]

I would expect spades and I had bid 1 ♥ to show spades with a lot of confidence too.

After

1 ♣ X 1 ♥ pass
2♥

I may regret my descission.

[mgoetze]

Personally I strive to play system on over enemy doubles whenever plausible. I mean, if we open 1NT and opponent doubles, we pretty much don't care what double means, 2♥ still shows spades, right? So it's spades here as well for me. But it's hard to guess what other people think about this. I mean, if I agree to play Bergen with a pickup partner, I will face essentially the same problem when it goes 1♠-(X)-3♣.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't it off after interference? I do not think there is a clear right answer.

Edit: Yeah, I'd take it as off, though maybe it should be on.

[gwnn]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-March-01, 06:35, said:

Isn't it off after interference? I do not think there is a clear right answer.

Hence the thread. My question is: would you take it as 4+♥ or 4+♠?

[mich-b]

I would assume it shows ♥s.
It is possible to play transfer responses (perhaps including XX) after their DBL , but imo this is outside the scope of T-Walsh and requires separate agreement.

[helene_t]

I thought everyone played system on.

It is even more beneficial to have opener declare after a double.

And the case for playing system off after 1NT-(x) doesn't apply here. It is not like you need a natural 1♦ bid because you might want to play 1♦. (For those who play non-forcing shifts at the 1-level after double it would be different).

[karlson]

I would expect everyone to assume transfers are still on over the double.

[mikeh]

It's a guess.

I'd guess spades since I think that better positions me for the post-mortme...tho, if I am wrong, I'll start the PM with an apology for nothaving asked before we played: 'on over doubles?'

[MickyB]

I'd assume spades, but yes I would try to avoid bidding here as responder.

[fromageGB]

Absolutely system on. Why abandon the benefits of playing twalsh just because someone makes a call that doesn't interfere with your bidding one iota? In fact it gives you the ability to transfer to ♦ (with a redouble).

So I would take it as spades without thinking about it, and have no qualms bidding 2♠ with 4, or doubling with 3 after 4th seat's 2♦ (eg). First time partnership or not.

[FrancesHinden]

It's obviously a guess, but I would guess spades.

You've got another problem with rebids. I would assume 'system on', but it's a pretty common agreement to play

1C - 1H - 1S as a weak NT, and 1C-1H-1NT as super strong

but

1C - (x) - 1H - 1S as 3-card support, and 1NT as a weak NT after intervention.

...and I've then got to guess which of those I'm playing.

[bluecalm]

Not many people play TWalsh here, but many play transfers after double so my guess would be spades as it's difficult to imagine for me someone playing the other way around (transfers without dbl but natural after dbl).

[phil_20686]

I think its normal to play system on after dble, 1d or 1h overcalls, but system off from 1s and up. I would assume this was standard with an expert partner.

[mgoetze]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-01, 13:15, said:

I think its normal to play system on after dble, 1d or 1h overcalls, but system off from 1s and up. I would assume this was standard with an expert partner.

I dunno I've found so far that system on is fine after double but has some problems after 1♦ (haven't even tried after 1♥). Maybe it depends what the system is exactly. Unfortunately it's all been a while so I don't recall clearly what the problem hands were.

[Flameous]

Noting the problems with sys on after 1♦ and 1♥ overcalls is quite straightforward. If we assume the standardish interpretation that 1C (1D) X shows both majors, with sys on we don't have a direct way to show both majors and are at disadvantage there. However noting the frequencies sys on comes out ahead quite a bit. (Even more so if you happen to play reverse flannery or such)
With 1C (1H) 1S/X the situation is about differentiating directly between 4 and 5 spades compared to having X be 4+ and reserve 1♠ for other hands. Here I still play the standard way of X being 4 and 1S 5+, I see merits in both but I think standard copes a bit better in competition which is more important than having our some very good structure when opps won't bid anymore.

Sidetracking a bit, what do you use XX for after double? Transfer to diamonds was already mentioned but it seems bit backwards as the whole point of transfer walsh was to show the majors. Atm I play penaltyish but it seems just as rare as it always does. I guess going 2-under transfers could do some funny things but I'm not sure if it's worth it.

[Mbodell]

I would assume it is on. I'm not sure I'd agree on what XX means, but the red suits are transfers.

[JLOGIC]

I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't a transfer. I mean, we agree we should play transfers and have a full system here but when they double giving us more room we shouldn't? It does not make any sense to me.

I agree that it is far more common for some people to play transfers after a double, but not when they don't double. Doing the reverse just seems lol.

[fromageGB]

 Flameous, on 2012-March-01, 17:13, said:

Noting the problems with sys on after 1♦ and 1♥ overcalls is quite straightforward. If we assume the standardish interpretation that 1C (1D) X shows both majors, with sys on we don't have a direct way to show both majors and are at disadvantage there...

If you have a direct bid that shows both majors then system on has no problem. I used to play 1♣ (p) 1NT = weak 44xx and of course did the same thing after (1♦). Now I play 1♣ (p) 1NT = weak (54)xx, and when the opponents come in with (1♦) extend that to be maybe 44xx. Partner will bid a 4 card major over (2♦) if he has one, or pass for me to transfer to a 5 card suit if I have one. If it goes 1♣ (1♦) 1NT (pass), opener rebids 2♣ with no 4 card major, or passes if he has diamonds and poor majors. Over 2♣ I can pass, or transfer to a 5 card suit if I have one. I don't think this is any worse than standard without system on.

Quote

With 1C (1H) 1S/X the situation is about differentiating directly between 4 and 5 spades compared to having X be 4+ and reserve 1♠ for other hands. Here I still play the standard way of X being 4 and 1S 5+, I see merits in both but I think standard copes a bit better in competition which is more important than having our some very good structure when opps won't bid anymore.

If you play 1♠ as 5+, but without the intervention use it as a relay normally to 1NT, which can then be followed with "other things", then using it as natural loses the ability to get opener to play in NT when you are happy with that, and loses the ability to show "other things". It doesn't sound that beneficial, as usually "X = 4+♠" together with possibly a support double, works ok.

Quote

Sidetracking a bit, what do you use XX for after double? Transfer to diamonds was already mentioned but it seems bit backwards as the whole point of transfer walsh was to show the majors. Atm I play penaltyish but it seems just as rare as it always does. I guess going 2-under transfers could do some funny things but I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Of course you show minors in transfer walsh. I see no reason why the normal one-under transfer can't be used for the majors as normal, so the XX is a completely free option. Normal methods allow me to show invitational or better hands with 5+ minor, and a direct 2♦ is a less than invitational 6 card suit, but I cannot show a less than invitational hand with 5 diamonds. The redouble plugs that gap.

[gwnn]

Typical thread: everyone is waiting for helene_t's reasoning and then copy her answer. Very classy.