[Free]

Playing Walsh or T-Walsh, what do you respond with the following hand after partner opens 1♣?

---

Do you make a difference between regular Walsh and T-Walsh, and if yes, why?

If you show the Major in both cases, is there any situation where you would show ♦ rather than the Major?

[the_clown]

I would bid 3♦ preemptive if available

[Siegmund]

Playing most any majors-first method, you will have some way to show 4-and-only-4 spades and longer diamonds at your rebid. If you are willing to get to 3D later, you might as well explore on the way.

On the other hand, if you make a response which suggests no major, partner is going to suppress his 4-card spade suit to (for instance) bid 1NT over regular 1D or transfer 1S.

[mike777]

1s

playing xyz I can still get to 2d if pard rebids 1nt.

If pard rebids 2c(6) I can always just pass and bid d if the opp balance.

[FrancesHinden]

With 7 of them I will just show this as a diamond single-suiter and give up on spades (unless partner is keen on the suit anyway)

[Stephen Tu]

It's going to be hard to get to diamonds if partner raises spades on 3 cds with any frequency, or if 4th hand overcalls 2H and partner makes a support double. Also I was taught it's often better to play 7-4s in the long suit unless having NINE cd fit in the other suit. Else you often get tapped, and unable to enjoy the long diamonds after drawing trumps unless partner shows up with the perfecto Ax of diamonds.

[rhm]

Siegmund, on 2013-June-01, 10:26, said:

Playing most any majors-first method, you will have some way to show 4-and-only-4 spades and longer diamonds at your rebid. If you are willing to get to 3D later, you might as well explore on the way.

On the other hand, if you make a response which suggests no major, partner is going to suppress his 4-card spade suit to (for instance) bid 1NT over regular 1D or transfer 1S.

The question is whether you want to find your 4-4 fit in spades at all costs.
I don't.
I want to play Bridge and in this game what counts are tricks. I can easily see how to take at least 2 tricks more in diamonds than spades or if partner is strong taking more tricks in notrumps than spades.
The dogmatists don't care.

Rainer Herrmann

[broze]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-02, 13:42, said:

With 7 of them I will just show this as a diamond single-suiter and give up on spades (unless partner is keen on the suit anyway)

The problem is after 1C-1D-1S isn't 2S now game forcing? I suppose you might not mind that too much with this unexpectedly would distribution.

[PhilKing]

broze, on 2013-June-04, 04:11, said:

The problem is after 1C-1D-1S isn't 2S now game forcing? I suppose you might not mind that too much with this unexpectedly would distribution.

The chances of this auction taking place are very low (as is the 1♣-1♦-1NT OMFG-we-have-missed-our-spade-fit auction suggested by Siegmund), and I do not believe it is forcing in Walshe. I haven't looked for the reference, but the way I learned it:

2♠ = 3 trumps and a singleton somewhere (presumably in clubs), unsuitable for 1NT
3♠ = forcing

If that is true, we can bid 2♠ and correct most removals back to spades.

I did a short sim which suggested that responding 1♠ works constructively pretty much never. On one occasion it kept them out of a heart partscore, except if we did something really daft such as puppet to 2♦ over partner's 1NT rebid to let them back in.

[CSGibson]

Walsh is a bidding style, not a suicide pact. While I believe in that style in general, I am not going to suppress my good 7 card suit in favor of my crappy 4 card suit ever, because I also have an overriding principle of letting partner know about the primary feature of my hand as soon as possible, helping in both the bidding and the defense if it comes to that. Here, that's my diamond suit.

[aguahombre]

broze, on 2013-June-04, 04:11, said:

The problem is after 1C-1D-1S isn't 2S now game forcing?

Not for most Walshites, but it is for us. And so, when I break dogma and respond 1D here, I must not raise spades on the second round. Gonna rebid the diamonds even if she shows her unbalanced hand with a 1S rebid. Let's see how it works.

[Thiros]

I don't have any firsthand experience with Walsh, but 1♠ in the first case looks like taking it too far. If partner has spades, he can bid them himself. If a big heart preempt on our left is coming, we might still belong in diamonds even if we have a 4-4 fit in spades.

Playing T-Walsh, the picture is changed by the fact that the spade bid isn't forcing the bidding. Is the completion of the transfer to 1♠ forced? Or does it promise three-card support, or four? However it goes, we should be able to land in a playable place, and we can run to diamonds if we need to.

[PhilKing]

Thiros, on 2013-June-06, 00:57, said:

Playing T-Walsh, the picture is changed by the fact that the spade bid isn't forcing the bidding. Is the completion of the transfer to 1♠ forced? Or does it promise three-card support, or four? However it goes, we should be able to land in a playable place, and we can run to diamonds if we need to.

The designation "T-Walsh" is unfortunate. It is not really a transfer. For the most part opener just rebids what he would have done over 1♠.

A common meaning for completing the transfer is to show a weak no trump with three spades (a pretty useless method, but whatever), which will never happen when we have this hand unless the opponents are somehow barred from bidding. So I don't think T-Walsh makes much difference to the problem.

[aguahombre]

Actually, a T-Walsh 1H would give the opponents even more options (ways) to show their heart suit ---making that equivalent of a 1S response even less adviseable.

[fromageGB]

I have never played Walsh but with Twalsh it depends on your continuation agreements. While I would be delighted to show the spades and then escape to diamonds, I cannot. I can show diamond game forcing after a major, I can show diamonds game invitational, but I cannot show diamonds weak. So on this hand I of course ignore the spades, and show diamonds weak.

[aguahombre]

What is referred to as "Walsh" in this thread is merely the agreement that the first response will bypass longer diamonds to bid a 4-card major unless G.F.

The question addressed is whether the given hand is carrying that agreement too far. If my methods could never show 4-6 in the major and Diamonds with less than G.F. strength, I would not agree to use Walsh or T-Walsh at all, and revert to the old up-the-line style.

[awm]

Hands like this are a big reason why I don't play Walsh.

Sure, if you bid 1♠ and partner rebids 1NT and opponents are passing you should be able to sign off in diamonds. But on this sort of hand, it's much more likely that opponents bid over your response, or partner rebids 2♣. In either case you could miss your best fit.

The problem with bidding 1♦ on this hand playing Walsh is that you could very easily miss a 4-4 spade fit when partner bypasses the suit to rebid 1NT. But I think I'd bid 1♦ here anyway; it's not all that likely partner is minimum balanced and opponents are passing (since if partner is balanced opponents have a significant heart fit and points).

[aguahombre]

awm, on 2013-June-06, 20:11, said:

Hands like this are a big reason why I don't play Walsh.

I don't understand that. If 4-7 with a weak major is your poster child against the method, don't use it with this hand. Why would it be a reason to chuck the method?