[dorisga44]

Hi all,
Me and my partner are looking to incorporate the transfer responses to 1C. Our general system at the moment consists of a weak NT and 2/1GF. our 1C can be 2 cards and 1D promises 4. Would it be advisable to play 1D promising 5, meaning 1C open could be on a 4=4=4=1 ?

Furthermore, we really want a good method for these responses over 1C, has anyone got suggestions/advice/links for this system?

Anything is much appreciated.

[1eyedjack]

I would just say that *in my opinion* TWalsh responses mesh much better with a strong 1N opening structure than weak. It is a source of some irritation for me because I like the weak 1N generally. But I also like TWalsh. Given a partner willing to play TWalsh I would rather ditch the weak 1N. But (for me) it is close.

[MickyB]

Your 1C opening should show either clubs or a 15-19 NT; 1C (2S) 3C should be to play opposite a minimum with clubs, but for conversion to NT opposite most balanced hands. As such, 4-4-4-1 11-14 should definitely not open 1C.

The advantages of transfers over 1C are smaller playing weak NT. This is because 5D4M (8)9-11 can respond 1D to 1C without missing a 4-4 major fit when playing weak NT.

[Vampyr]

dorisga44, on 2012-December-12, 12:07, said:

Our general system at the moment consists of a weak NT and 2/1GF.

I think that this is not best, but I forget why. Perhaps it is because with the weak NT taken out of the mix, a 2/1 response will frequently be GF anyway. The weak part of the system, the forcing 1NT response is better, though, because the weak NT will have been opened and will not have to come up with a rebid with this hand. Does anyone else know more about this?

[glen]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 19:14, said:

Does anyone else know more about this?

Kokish

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 19:14, said:

I think that this is not best, but I forget why.

I think the weak NT and 2/1 GF are distinct concerns, and playing one doesn't have that much impact on the other relative to other consequences of these choices.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 19:14, said:

I think that this is not best, but I forget why. Perhaps it is because with the weak NT taken out of the mix, a 2/1 response will frequently be GF anyway. The weak part of the system, the forcing 1NT response is better, though, because the weak NT will have been opened and will not have to come up with a rebid with this hand. Does anyone else know more about this?

There is an issue with 4=4=4=1 and 12-14 points. Partner needs to repond something different from 1NT with (9)10 points so a 2♣ response can hardly be a game force.

Then again, strong notrump with 1♦-2♣ being a GF has an issue with 4=4=4=1 and 15-16 points. You are badly placed if p responds 1NT. The weak-notrumpers can just pass.

So I think weak NT and 2/1 is an OK combination.

[PhilKing]

I played weak NT and over 1 with a forcing NT with Rosen in the early nineties (basically Kaplan/Sheinwold with frills). 1♦-2♣ was not GF and we would open 1♣ if a 1NT response to 1♦ was going to screw us. It was fine.

Martel/Stansby still play it (though with NF NT). Anyway, the Italians don't open 1NT with five card majors, so their major suit openings including all ranges of balanced hands. They seem to do OK.

Same applies for transfer responses. They work fine independently of NT range.

I think transfers can clean up some of the issues involving the clunky raises to 2M that weak NT and 5CM tends to involve, since you can have two different ways of raising a transfer response to two. You can and should play completing the transfer as forcing in order to facilitate this.

[Kungsgeten]

I play the following transfer structure over 1♣ (found here, but in Swedish). Note that we play "strong" NT though (14-16, but I guess it would work over with 1C being natural or 15-19 balanced (no 5+ major) aswell:

1C; (unbalanced 4+C or 15-17 balanced or 18-19 balanced, the ranges may be adjusted to perhaps 15-17 and 18-20)
1D      = 4+H, 0+hcp, may be longer minor if not GF
1H      = 4+S, 0+hcp, may be longer minor if not GF (with 4-4 majors, transfer to hearts)
1S      = Negative NT or INV+ with 5+D (GF if 4+M)
1NT     = GF, balanced without 4+M or unbal with 5+C
2C      = Standard raise, about 5-9 hcp, 5+C
2 other = Weak, 6+ suit with 4-8 hcp
2NT     = INV
3C      = INV with 6+C (suspects 15-17 bal)
3 other = Preemptive, 7+ suit
3NT     = 13-14 bal, no 5+ suit

1C-1red;
1M   = 15-17 bal without 4+ support or club minimum with 3+ support
1S   = Unbal with clubs, unlimited in strength
1NT  = 18-19 bal without 4+ support
2C   = Unbal 11-15, 5+C without 3+ support
2D   = Reverse
2H   = Reverse
2M   = 15-17 bal with 4-card support
2S   = 16+ unbal with 4 heart support and 5+ clubs
2NT  = 16+ unbal, 6+ clubs but 18+ if 3-card support
3C   = 15-17 hcp with 6+ clubs and 3-card support
3D   = 16+ unbal with 4 spade support and 5+ clubs
3red = 18-19 bal with 5-card support
3M   = A good "weak" unbalanced hand with 4-card support
3S   = Void splinter
4C   = Long running clubs and 4-card support, slammish
4D   = Void splinter
4H   = Void splinter
4M   = 6+C, 4M, 4 of 7 keycards (the aces, the club king, the queen and king of the major)

1C-1red; 1M--
1S   = 4+H, 4S, invitational or worse
1NT  = To play
2C   = Puppet to 2D (INV or to play)
2D   = Artificial GF, natural cont.
2H/S = Weak and natural
2NT  = INV

1C-1red; 1M--2C; 2D--
2M  = Light INV with 5 card major
2oM = Natural INV, at least 5-4 majors
2NT = Heavy INV with 5 card major
3m  = 5+m, 4M, INV (canapé)
3M  = 6+M, INV
3NT = Choice of games with 5 card M

1C-1red; 2NT--
3C = Weak, suggestion to play
3D = GF Relay
  3M  = 3-card support (and thus 18+)
  3oM = Not sure about 3NT
  3NT = Suggestion to play
  4C  = Slammish
3M  = Forcing with 6+M
3oM = Stopper
3NT = Suggestion to play, normally only 4-card major
4C  = Slammish

1C-1red; 3red--
3M   = Weak, to play
3NT  = Mildly slammish
New  = More slammish than 3NT
4red = Puppet to 4M

1C-1red; 2S/3D (16+ unbal with 4-card support)--
3red  = Transfer to 3M (weak or to play in 4M or slammish)
3M    = INV
3NT   = To play (only 4-card major)
Other = splinter

1C-1red; 3C--
Pass  = weak hand
3red  = Puppet to 3M (weak or to play in 4M or slammish)
3M    = INV
3NT   = To play (only 4-card major)
Other = splinter

1C-1S;
1NT = 15-17 bal
  2C = 5+D, 4+C, F1
  2D = INV with 6+D
  2M = GF with 4M and 5+D
  2NT = INV
  3C = GF with 5-5 minors
  3D+ = GF with 6+D (splinter if higher than 3D)
2C = 11-15 nat
  2D = Relay, opener respond as below
2D = 18-19 bal
  2H = INV to 3NT
  2S = Puppet to 2NT, GF and nat cont.
2H = Reverse
2S = Reverse
2NT = Reverse with diamonds
3C = Strong and 6+ clubs

1C-1NT;
2C = 11-15 nat
  2D = Relay, responses as below
2D = 15-19 bal
  2H = Relay
    2S = 15-17
    2NT = 18-19
    3m = 18-19 with 5 card minor
  2S = 5+C, 4S
  2NT = 5+C, 4H
  3C = 6+C
  3D = 5+C, 4D
  3M = 6+C, splinter
  3NT = To play against 15-17, slammish against 18-20
  4C = 6+C, slammish without splinter
  4D = 6+C, splinter
  4M = 6+C, void splinter
2M = Reverse
2NT = Reverse with diamonds
3C = Reverse with 6+C and no splinter
3X = Reverse with 6+C and splinter

[fromageGB]

Whether Twalsh with a weak NT or a strong NT depends on what your prime reasons are for using Twalsh, and what your philosophical opinion is of the 1NT open.

I use Twalsh particularly for the benefits of finding and describing the major fits. When you open 1NT with say 12-14 you need partner to have 11+ before he dares open his mouth (or pull out anything but green). This means that you miss many major fits. OK a weak NT is preemptive, as its proponents like to say, but it preempts your partner too.

This means that in my view 1NT is a bad opening. I want to open it as little as possible, and 15-17 means it occurs much less frequently than 12-14. The use of Twalsh means that you do not have a problem showing 17/18 as distinct from 19 when you open 1♣, so taking 17 out of the reckoning restricts 1NT to 15-16, improving the situation even more.

As to the ways to continue after a 1♣ open, there are probably as many treatments as there are players that use Twalsh. There have been a number of threads on Twalsh discussing options and you should be able to use the search facility to find them. If you wanted my specific treatment I would be happy to send you my notes if you email me via my profile.

As to the use of the 1♣ and 1♦ openings and how many cards they guarantee in that suit, I started Twalsh years ago with standard minors, but found that it is better for the 1♣ opening to guarantee at least 2 cards in each major. This makes the major fits better,and the exact length can be shown as well as the strength (ie does responder have 4, 5 or 6 when he is weak, invitational, or game forcing?) To achieve this, it means that 1♦ is either long (6+) diamonds, or has a shortage in another suit. This approach, which has a number of hidden benefits, fits well with Twalsh.

[wodahs]

I think TWalsh should be mandatory for weak notrumpers, and I think you should also stuff every 5332 hand into your 15+ 1C opener (although 5M 5332 hands still make me nervous, for the most part they seem to work just fine .. you do miss the occasional 5-3 fit). The transfers have the effect of right-siding almost all of your major-fit and notrump contracts with the lead coming into the 15-19 hand, and I think that benefit is often overlooked.

[fromageGB]

As I said, I bid 1♣ with 12, so the strength distinction is not so important for me in right-siding. What is often overlooked, though, is that when responder has a major or both majors, you are getting a minor lead, and it is much better for that to come round into the hand that has maybe double the length in the minors. Lead into length is as important as lead into strength.

[Zelandakh]

Fromage, if you require your partners to have 11+ to make any call other than Pass opposite your weak NT opening then I agree, it will be bad. Luckily, most weak NTers have managed to come up with methods that allow them to bid with a little less on occasion.

Wodahs, if your 1♣ is 15+ you are presumably using something like a Precision 2♣ opening. In this case, it is probably better to call your system a strong club rather than natural, so TWalsh does not really apply. You can also play a 1♦ negative over such a 1♣ opening, or go with a structure based around semi-positives. The pure transfer approach is possible but generally more complicated.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-17, 05:00, said:

Fromage, if you require your partners to have 11+ to make any call other than Pass opposite your weak NT opening then I agree, it will be bad. Luckily, most weak NTers have managed to come up with methods that allow them to bid with a little less on occasion

Of course people play weak takeouts, but we are talking about finding 4-4 major fits after opener bids a weak (12-14) NT. As I used to play it, and people still do, the only way of doing this was Stayman, and when partner does not have the right major, bid 2NT. However, this is the only way of showing a game invitational hand with a 4 card major, so opener will certainly bid 3NT with a good 13 or 14. If you have a 9 count, you are likely to be getting a very poor score. Consequently, a balanced 9 count with a 4 card major, or even a 10 count, will pass 1NT. Let alone weaker hands.

Contrast this with the easy 1♣!(may be doubleton) 1♦!(hearts) 1♥!(only 2 or 3) 1♠!(puppet to NT) 1NT pass of Transfer Walsh
or 1♣ 1♦ 2♥ pass if there is a major fit.

If you have a method of responder showing a balanced 9 count with a 4 card major over 1NT, so that you end in 2M with a 4-4 fit, or 1NT with no fit, then I would be interested in hearing of it.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, there are times when opening 1NT buries a 4-4 major fit, for us as well as them. This is often not a bad thing as on these occasions the points are likely to be evenly distributed. Sometimes the major fit takes an extra trick, sometimes not. It evens out. Contrast that with opening 1♣ and allowing them to make a 1M overcall. Now they find their fit and force us to 2♠/3♥ anyway. The point of a weak NT is that it puts our side in a (hopefully) good position for the not unlikely part score scrap that will follow. That comes at a cost in other sequences but the 1NT opening itself is a good thing.

[wodahs]

Zelandakh: I should have added 'balanced' to my sentence, so it would read "... should stuff every 5332 hand into your balanced 15+ 1C openers .. ". My major point was TW allows a weak notrumper to rightside most of his contracts when he has 15+ balanced, and opens 1C with it.

fromageGB. Obviously you cannot start with 1NT, devise some system that probes for a 4-4 major, then return to 1NT if you can't find one. We open all balanced and unbalanced 11+ hands, our 1NT range being 11-14. If we start 1NT in 3rd or 4th hand, partner cannot (or will very rarely) have an invitational-strength hand. With that in mind, we change up our responding system to locate our best partial with unbalanced hands, particularly the very common 54xx hand. After 1NT, then

2C = at least 54MM, Garbage Stayman, opener's 2D = same length
2D = any single-suiter, opener's 2H is P/C
2M = 4M and 5+m, opener asks with 2NT, can also bid 5-card suits up the line
2NT = at least 54mm with better diamonds
3C = at least 54mm with better clubs

That gets us to our optimal partial when passed-hand responder is unbalanced.

We use the same system defending against Capp 2C (Capp is so bad ... you want to jam the Capper before he can show his suit) when X shows our 54MM hand, and we us it also against the DONT X.

Yes you play some 4-4 M fits in 1NT, even some 5-4 M fits if you include 5M in your 1NT basket. Your difficult range is when partner is say 6 to 11 or so (assumes the opps will be bidding if partner is weak). But strong notrumpers have the same issue when partner's range is 0 to 8 or so.