[dekalog]

Hello all,
As you know the transfer walsh-style response to short club opeeing in natural system as follows,
1♣(2+)-?
1♦=>♥4+
1♥=>♠4+
1♠=>♦4+ or ♦5+ or No M4,etc
I wonder if transfer walsh response meet the restrictions of the ACBL general convention chart?
Thank you for kind answer.
Abehymann

[Stephen Tu]

GCC not legal, but ACBL is switching to new charts next month and you will be able to use responses in "open/open+" events.
https://www.acbl.org...nd-regulations/
New charts 2018-11-22

[dekalog]

Thank you Stephen.

[dekalog]

I saw a post on bridgewinners by Barry Rigal as follows,
===========================
GF relays in Transfer Walsh
by Barry Rigal June 5
I'd be interested in checking with ther world at large who play transfer-walsh.

There is basically no 'standard' so sooner or later someone (hopefully not me) will feel obliged to start collecting methods.

So... hands up anyone who

1) plays a GF relay over a two-card 1♣ opener (1♠ or 1NT?)

2) plays a relay of sorts over 1♣-1♦-1♥

3) plays a relay after 1♦-1NT (or 1♦-2♣ I suppose).

Thanks!
==========================
But,I could not read the answers,who can help me with that?
I am interested with these answers too.
Thanks,

[paulg]

Ten years ago I blogged about my implementation of transfer walsh at https://thebeercard....sfer-walsh.html

We still play something like this, although all the two-level responses have changed, 1♠ is a limited hand with no major, and 1NT is a game-forcing relay. We also use 1NT as a game-forcing relay over 1♦ too.

It is worth looking up the notes of Auken-Welland to see their implementation of similar methods.

[fromageGB]

dekalog, on 2018-October-31, 21:25, said:

There is basically no 'standard' so sooner or later someone (hopefully not me) will feel obliged to start collecting methods.

If you are talking about a relay method after 1m for a "standard" that people will play with casual partners, I think this is impossible. Methods are far too complex for anyone but dedicated partnerships.

If you are talking about a "standard" transfer method after 1♣ then I expect a simple basic one might emerge, but there are so many possibilities that most partnerships will be rolling their own.

[paulg]

fromageGB, on 2018-November-01, 08:38, said:

If you are talking about a "standard" transfer method after 1♣ then I expect a simple basic one might emerge, but there are so many possibilities that most partnerships will be rolling their own.

I agree. I will only play transfer walsh with my regular partner and juniors who I am mentoring and have stolen my notes. Playing it with anyone else is just a disaster waiting to happen.

[dekalog]

Thank you Paul.
I failed to open your linkage "the Beer Card".would you please copy and paste your blog to us?
Thank you once again,

[dokoko]

You might be interested in this: http://bridge.mgoetze.net/21twalsh.pdf

[paulg]

dekalog, on 2018-November-02, 00:00, said:

Thank you Paul.
I failed to open your linkage "the Beer Card".would you please copy and paste your blog to us?
Thank you once again,

To be honest I'm lazy and it would need some reformatting to put it here. Try this link (without the https:)

thebeercard.blogspot.com/2008/09/transfer-walsh.html

or go to thebeercard.blogspot.com and search for transfer walsh.

[dekalog]

Thank you Dokoko and Paul.

The introduction to Transfer walsh as follows,
Transfer Walsh is a bidding convention used in contract bridge.After a 1♣ opening bid, responses of 1♦ and 1♥ show heart and spade suits respectively. The "Walsh" terminology refers to the fact that these bids may conceal an equal or longer diamond suit. It allows opener to play a greater proportion of major-suit and no-trump contracts, particularly when using five-card majors.
Transfer Walsh is used in responding to partner's 1♣ opening bid:

1♦: Shows at least four hearts
1♥: Shows at least four spades
1♠: Shows at least four, alternatively five diamonds
1NT: Shows 6-9 HCP and a balanced hand without a four-card major
(a variation is to use 1♠ show either diamonds or 6-9 HCP balanced, with the 1NT response showing 10-11 HCP balanced.)
Although responder's one level bids are not forcing a completed transfer from opener. In fact, over the 1♦ and 1♥ responses, opener will only accept the transfer holding minimum three-card support, otherwise bidding naturally. With four-card support, it is normal to accept the transfer at the 1-level holding a minimum hand and making a jump response with a maximum (or higher with very strong hands). With three-card support the transfer is always completed at the 1-level, with less than three-card support another natural response is given.
After 1♣-1♠, however, the transfer is only completed with four-card diamond support.

Advantages:
Transfer Walsh in a very early stage of bidding determines the possibility of a fit, giving good control of further game and slam bidding.
It becomes significantly easier to find 3-5 major suit fits.
Opener (usually the stronger hand) becomes declarer in most major suit and NT contracts.

(These are from WIKIPEDIA)

[paulg]

It is not very popular in my experience that the 1♠ response solely promises diamonds. These days it is most often just a transfer to one no trump, sometimes containing the option of a game-forcing hand with diamonds.

Some do split the one no trump response between 1♠ and 1NT, but an increasing number are using 1NT as a game-forcing response (followed by lots of artificiality).

[fromageGB]

I would also add that I don't think transfer completion with three cards is that common. I play it as 2 or 3 and I have come across that more.

Agree with Paul about the 1♠ response, and responses of 1NT/2♣/2♦ are often artificial. After all, opener can be a doubleton in either minor, and if you did want to "support" you can do so after a 1♠ response with practically no loss of pre-emptivity, while if you did have a weak long minor, jumping to 3m is much more effective.