Thanks, this is what I was missing.
nullve, on 2021-March-22, 04:07, said:
It is possible to combine T-Walsh (aka transfer responses to (a natural or short) 1
♣) with a completely standard (5533) opening structure. (See e.g.
this convention card belonging to young Norwegian internationals Grude-Bakke.)
But some like to open 1
♣ with 18-19 BAL a little more often than in standard. In the Norwegian
BOA system, for example, 1
♣ is also opened with 2443 and 4243. And I mentioned in another thread that Brogeland-Lindqvist, perhaps inspired by the (locally very influential) BOA system, open 1
♣ also with 4342 in their otherwise natural 5542 system.
But opening 1
♣ on more strong balanced hands, especially hands with only two clubs, puts extra pressure on Responder who no longer has an easy pass on subpositive hands without an actual club suit.
Of the two dominant T-Walsh styles that mikeh described, the one where
1
♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 18-19 BAL (or 17-19 BAL in an opening structure with 14-16 NT), 2-3 M,
is undoubtedly the one better suited to handle responses on subpositive hands, because the bidding can now go e.g.
1
♣-1
♦*
1N**-P
* 4+ H
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 H
instead of
1
♣-1
♦*
2N**-P
* 4+ H
** 18-19 BAL, 2 H
with, say, 18 hcp and 4234 opposite 3 hcp and 3442; and either
1
♣-1
♥*
1N**-2
♠***
P
* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 S
*** to play
or
1
♣-1
♥*
1N**-2
♥***
2
♠-P
* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 S
*** transfer to spades
instead of (say)
1
♣-1
♥*
2N**-P
* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2 S
with 19 hcp and 2335 opposite 2 hcp and 5341.
mikeh, on 2021-March-21, 17:56, said:
There are two main schools of thought, divided by what accepting the transfer into 1M shows.
For many, it promise 3 card support. With a minimum and 4, just bid 2M, as you would have done had partner made a natural 1M response.
For others, including in my two expert partnerships, accepting the transfer shows 2 or 3 card support, usually a balanced or semi-balanced minimum.
The main implications of this have to do with the 1N rebid. The first school will treat it as minimum, balanced (one sub-school permits a stiff in the major, if no other bid appeals, while the other has 1N always delivering a doubleton)
The main reason we prefer the acceptance to be 2-3 cards is that it allows 1N to be a big hand. If you play 15-17 notrump, then the rebid is 18-19. We play 14-16, so the rebid is 17-19. The fact that we play 14-16 is a good reason for this style, since having to jump to 2N with a 17 count can lead to some bad contracts...we stretch to respond to 1C.
Another dividing line amongst transfer players is how many clubs one promises with 1C.
With one partner, it is 2+, and we will not open 1C with 4-2 minors. We will with 3=3=4=3 minimums. In the other partnership, we are more aggressive, because we want to increase the frequency of the transfer auctions, plus we play 1D is usually 5 cards.
Ok, say you play our style. There are 1level responses to consider. We shall take them in order.
1C 1D
Shows 4+ hearts.
1C 1D 1H shows 2-3, balanced or semi-balanced, minimum opener.
Play 2C forces 2D, for all invitational hands. 2D is artificial, forcing to game. Note, meanings for various jumps by responder are a matter for discussion. We have specific agreements but they’re too long to post here.
1C 1D 1S promise 4+ spades and longer clubs. It does not deny 2-3 hearts, but shows an unbalanced hand. Don’t play xyz here....responder, with a weak hand, may need to bail out in 2C, so play 4SF here with good hands.
1C 1D 1N: 17-19 (or 18-19) balanced fewer than 4 hearts.
In one partnership I play xyz here. In the other I play transfers....2C through 2S are all transfers, but 2C doesn’t promise diamonds....it may be invitational. 1C 1D 1N 2D is a transfer, either to play or game force. This allows for setting trump low for slam exploration. Note...we are very much an imp-oriented partnership
1C 1D 1H 1S. This can be played in various ways. We use it to show 4 spades, non-forcing. We may have up to invitational values.
1C 1H 1S...as above
1C 1H 1N...as above
1C 1S:
This is a little tricky. It denies a major unless responder has longer diamonds and game force values, but it does not promise diamonds. For example, with say xxx Qxx KJx Jxxx, we can’t raise clubs, since partner may have 2 and often has only 3. We open virtually all flat 11 counts, because of our 14-16 notrump range, so our 1N response to 1C shows 9-11. Thus 1S is either diamonds or 5-8 balanced. If 1N is 8-10, then 1S, if balanced, is 5-7.
Opener will usually bid 1N, and can do it with a stiff diamond if the hand is otherwise suitable. Or opener can bid 2C or reverse, etc.
Any pair wanting to try this out should ideally spend a bit of time at something like the bbo partnership bidding tables, programming various hands, the constraints depending on which approach or approaches you like.
You’re going to come up with some difficult situations. Here’s one we encountered recently
I don’t remember the cards, but I was 3=4=1=5 with a solid opening hand, about 16 hcp....just on the borderline of a reverse, but my honour distribution was not good.
1C 1H
I had to bid 1S even though that is usually balanced or semi-balanced minimum
Partner bid 2C, puppet to 2D. He will often have 4 spades, longer diamonds, and plans to pass 2D.
We now have an agreement that with a minimum hand I bid 2S and with extras, more than he’s expecting, I bid 2H, specially showing this shape and approximate values.
One last point: not needing the jump to 2N as balanced, you can use it for something else. We use it to show a strong hand with long clubs and precisely 3 card support...the Bridge World nightmare hand, which is unbiddable in standard methods
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!” Anders Vistisen
Help
