[mike777]

I mentioned this before in other threads. I find the auction 1c=1d=1h rare enough, now add on wanting to play in the 4-3 fit as even more rare.

I would be willing to change my mind if this auction comes up more often and I am looking for it. Until then I think the 4sf is too confusing.

In fact since this discussion has come up I have not even had one auction of 1c=1d=1major.

[awm]

Many top American pairs who use natural systems play Walsh, although at the top levels you see some transfer walsh (1♦=♥, etc in response to 1♣). Very few top European pairs seem to use Walsh (in particular Garrozzo doesn't seem to like it).

There are some substantial disadvantages to the Walsh style of responses. Some of these include:

(1) When responder is weak, it is more difficult to reach a 4-3 major fit at the one-level. This is because responder will often bid a major and opener will rebid 1NT. Bidding up the line, responder can bid 1♦ and pass opener's 1M rebid.

(2) When opener has substantial extras, the Walsh response sometimes preempts your own side. For example, suppose partner bids 1♣ and I respond 1♠ with four weak spades and five decent diamonds (and a fairly weak hand). Now partner rebids 2♥. If my hand is very weak, without Walsh I could've bid 1♦ and passed partner's 1♥ (if pd has less than game force) whereas now we're at the three-level at least. If my hand is more intermediate, we're at the 2♥ level and I have not mentioned my best suit. Can I convince partner that he needs to have a spade stopper for us to play 3NT? Can I expect to find slam in diamonds (the fourth suit) when partner is 1435? It seems awkward to say the least.

(3) It's not always clear that a Walsh auction to 3NT carries less information. For example, bidding up the line we might see 1♣-1♦-1NT-3NT. Certainly the opponents know that opener has no four-card major, but responder could have one or even both four card majors, and responder could have anywhere from four diamonds upwards. In contrast, after 1♣-1♦-1NT-2♠-2NT-3NT, opponents know about responder's four-card spade suit and five-plus card diamond suit.

(4) Getting to responder's minor can become more difficult. If you open 1♣ with 4-5 minors, you often miss a diamond fit. Opening 1♦ with this shape carries lots of problems of its own. Also, responder needs to be able to distinguish between 5♠-5♦ and 4♠-6♦ invitational hands over 1NT (you can do this but it puts more pressure on some other sequences).

(5) Bidding up the line, you can often determine if you have all suits stopped, and protect the fourth suit in the hand with a stopper if needed for 3NT. Playing Walsh, opener will often rebid notrumps on a balanced hand regardless of stoppers. You now need special methods to determine if a suit is wide open, and you may well wrong-side a notrump contract.

(6) Missing a 4-4 spade fit by rebidding 1NT over 1♣-1♥ can be quite expensive. However this isn't strictly part of Walsh.

(7) From a strictly mathematical point of view, it's inefficient to have your lowest response be less frequent than higher responses. Walsh does this by making 1♦ the least frequent one-level response to 1♣. Of course transfer walsh solves that issue.

[mike777]

In general all I can add is that yes Walsh has some issues. But most of these posted have to do with responder and opener having no hcp......or finding minor suit slams.

[mikeh]

awm, on Aug 15 2006, 01:56 AM, said:

Many top American pairs who use natural systems play Walsh, although at the top levels you see some transfer walsh (1♦=♥, etc in response to 1♣). Very few top European pairs seem to use Walsh (in particular Garrozzo doesn't seem to like it).

There are some substantial disadvantages to the Walsh style of responses. Some of these include:

(1) When responder is weak, it is more difficult to reach a 4-3 major fit at the one-level. This is because responder will often bid a major and opener will rebid 1NT. Bidding up the line, responder can bid 1♦ and pass opener's 1M rebid.

(2) When opener has substantial extras, the Walsh response sometimes preempts your own side. For example, suppose partner bids 1♣ and I respond 1♠ with four weak spades and five decent diamonds (and a fairly weak hand). Now partner rebids 2♥. If my hand is very weak, without Walsh I could've bid 1♦ and passed partner's 1♥ (if pd has less than game force) whereas now we're at the three-level at least. If my hand is more intermediate, we're at the 2♥ level and I have not mentioned my best suit. Can I convince partner that he needs to have a spade stopper for us to play 3NT? Can I expect to find slam in diamonds (the fourth suit) when partner is 1435? It seems awkward to say the least.

(3) It's not always clear that a Walsh auction to 3NT carries less information. For example, bidding up the line we might see 1♣-1♦-1NT-3NT. Certainly the opponents know that opener has no four-card major, but responder could have one or even both four card majors, and responder could have anywhere from four diamonds upwards. In contrast, after 1♣-1♦-1NT-2♠-2NT-3NT, opponents know about responder's four-card spade suit and five-plus card diamond suit.

(4) Getting to responder's minor can become more difficult. If you open 1♣ with 4-5 minors, you often miss a diamond fit. Opening 1♦ with this shape carries lots of problems of its own. Also, responder needs to be able to distinguish between 5♠-5♦ and 4♠-6♦ invitational hands over 1NT (you can do this but it puts more pressure on some other sequences).

(5) Bidding up the line, you can often determine if you have all suits stopped, and protect the fourth suit in the hand with a stopper if needed for 3NT. Playing Walsh, opener will often rebid notrumps on a balanced hand regardless of stoppers. You now need special methods to determine if a suit is wide open, and you may well wrong-side a notrump contract.

(6) Missing a 4-4 spade fit by rebidding 1NT over 1♣-1♥ can be quite expensive. However this isn't strictly part of Walsh.

(7) From a strictly mathematical point of view, it's inefficient to have your lowest response be less frequent than higher responses. Walsh does this by making 1♦ the least frequent one-level response to 1♣. Of course transfer walsh solves that issue.

1. True but outweighed by the far more common dilemma faced by responder over an up the line 1♣ 1♦ 1M sequence when responder lacks a true stop in the 4th suit and holds 3+♣...he has NO idea of how many ♣ opener holds.

2. To some degree, a repeat of 1, subject to the same rebuttal. As for missing a ♦ slam after 1♣ 1M (walsh) and a reverse by opener: well, I will sell you all my rights to such a contract very cheaply .Firstly, after 1♣ 1♦ 1M, you are a long way from finding that slam if it exists (altho it will be easier than after 1♣ 1M) but, far more importantly, that slam is extremely unlikely to exist. Remember we are positing a 5-3 ♦ fit, with a responder who lacks opening values opposite no more than a reverse, and we are presumably going to have to give up on 3N along the way.

3. The first point is valid, the second is not. I generally do not reverse into 2♠ over 1N unless I have very strong suit orientation: I prefer, with balanced and semi-balanced hands, to use 2♦ as a gf bid, asking opener to describe his hand. Now, if we have a fit, we find it, and if not, we play 3N. If opener has no major suit, then as responder I have still not shown mine.

4. Valid point: but many (most?) NA experts use a 1N response to 1♣ as 8-10 or 7-10, and use 1♦ routinely with weaker hands including 3=3=3=4. So most pairs will strain not to raise 1♦ to 2♦ even if playing up the line, and, when they do, they may not like the result.

5. This cuts both ways. Careful exploration of precise stoppers in non-competitive auctions can hurt in two ways: you may miss a good 3N because of xxx opposite xxx, or you may guide the opps to the best defence.

6. As you note, bypassing a ♠ suit over a 1♥ response is optional. I like it and experience has shown that the loss of the ability to play precisely 2♠ is a low cost (altho real) while the benefits from getting a ♠ lead into opener's suit is greater.

7. While this point has some superficial validity, the fact is that a proper system will focus on a balance between disclosure and concealment. Such a system will maximize the transmission of relevant information while attempting to conceal information from the opps when that info will be of more benefit to them than to the bidders. Walsh is far more successful at this than is up the line. Walsh conceals the probable declarer's major suit holdings when opener rebids 1N (the most common sequence) without ever risking the loss of a 4-4 fit (other than if you play the optional bypass of ♠ over 1♥). At the same time, it ensures, on distributional hands, that responder is not left guessing. Any method that treats a 4=3=3=3 hand in precisely the same way as a 4=3=0=6 hand at its second bid is not about to earn praise for maximal transmission of information .

[awm]

mikeh, on Aug 15 2006, 10:27 AM, said:

1. True but outweighed by the far more common dilemma faced by responder over an up the line 1♣ 1♦ 1M sequence when responder lacks a true stop in the 4th suit and holds 3+♣...he has NO idea of how many ♣ opener holds.

2. To some degree, a repeat of 1, subject to the same rebuttal. As for missing a ♦ slam after 1♣ 1M (walsh) and a reverse by opener: well, I will sell you all my rights to such a contract very cheaply .Firstly, after 1♣ 1♦ 1M, you are a long way from finding that slam if it exists (altho it will be easier than after 1♣ 1M) but, far more importantly, that slam is extremely unlikely to exist. Remember we are positing a 5-3 ♦ fit, with a responder who lacks opening values opposite no more than a reverse, and we are presumably going to have to give up on 3N along the way.

3. The first point is valid, the second is not. I generally do not reverse into 2♠ over 1N unless I have very strong suit orientation: I prefer, with balanced and semi-balanced hands, to use 2♦ as a gf bid, asking opener to describe his hand. Now, if we have a fit, we find it, and if not, we play 3N. If opener has no major suit, then as responder I have still not shown mine.

4. Valid point: but many (most?) NA experts use a 1N response to 1♣ as 8-10 or 7-10, and use 1♦ routinely with weaker hands including 3=3=3=4. So most pairs will strain not to raise 1♦ to 2♦ even if playing up the line, and, when they do, they may not like the result.

5. This cuts both ways. Careful exploration of precise stoppers in non-competitive auctions can hurt in two ways: you may miss a good 3N because of xxx opposite xxx, or you may guide the opps to the best defence.

6. As you note, bypassing a ♠ suit over a 1♥ response is optional. I like it and experience has shown that the loss of the ability to play precisely 2♠ is a low cost (altho real) while the benefits from getting a ♠ lead into opener's suit is greater.

7. While this point has some superficial validity, the fact is that a proper system will focus on a balance between disclosure and concealment. Such a system will maximize the transmission of relevant information while attempting to conceal information from the opps when that info will be of more benefit to them than to the bidders. Walsh is far more successful at this than is up the line. Walsh conceals the probable declarer's major suit holdings when opener rebids 1N (the most common sequence) without ever risking the loss of a 4-4 fit (other than if you play the optional bypass of ♠ over 1♥). At the same time, it ensures, on distributional hands, that responder is not left guessing. Any method that treats a 4=3=3=3 hand in precisely the same way as a 4=3=0=6 hand at its second bid is not about to earn praise for maximal transmission of information .

1. It's not clear to me why playing 1NT when opener rebids it without a stopper in a side suit (bypassing a major because of walsh) is okay, but playing 1NT when responder rebids it without a stopper in a side suit (bidding 1NT up-the-line over a 1M rebid) is somehow a disaster. In either case a 5-3 club fit can easily be missed. In fact there is a style where bidding is generally up the line but opener often rebids 1NT with a precisely 4333 shape (arguing that with this particular pattern a 4-4 major fit may not even play well). In this case opener promises 4+♣ by bidding a major, the same number of clubs that a walsh bidder has promised.

2. We've seen a bunch of hands on these forums where many good players open 1m with up to 23 high card points on awkward patterns. And most Walshites will bypass the major on 10-11 points since it's not a game force. I don't think this slam is so far-fetched, especially given opener's singleton opposite responder's weak major. And there's still the problem with finding a bad 3NT.

3. Not much information difference between 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♥!-2NT-3NT (up the line) and 1♣-1♦-1NT-2♦!-2♠-3NT (Walsh) then is there? In fact the up-the-line auction conceals whether responder has four hearts. The Walsh auction indicates that opener is balanced with four spades and no four hearts, and that responder has five diamonds and four hearts and a game force. In any case, while it's certainly true that Walsh sometimes conceals information from the opponents, this is more often true in auctions that end in 1NT, and not so often true when you wind up in game.

4. My personal opinion is that the stronger 1NT response range to 1♣ is greatly overrated. In fact I suspect this is to some degree an attempt to get something back for the ridiculously low frequency of a Walsh 1♦ response. It might be true that most Walshite NA pairs use this method, but I wouldn't say it's dominant among up-the-line bidders (who like their diamond bids showing diamonds).

5. I haven't found that bidding 3NT with a suit wide open works out that well. I understand the theory that opponents "might not lead it" but in practice they seem to do so most of the time even if the auction is 1NT-3NT. It's also not clear that with the 25 (or even 24) hcp where many people bid game at imps, that we necessarily have nine top tricks even if they don't lead the unstopped suit. Of course, your mileage may vary.

6. It's not only the inability to play precisely 2♠. Just yesterday I held T8xx AQ9x xxxx A. Partner opened 1♣, I bid 1♥ (despite an up-the-line style I don't feel compelled to introduce four bad diamonds when holding both majors). If partner rebids 1NT I would pass; this is hardly an "invitational" hand over 12-14 balanced. But when partner rebid 1♠ I showed a limit raise and partner bid game. Partner held AQxx KTx xx KQxx. I think this is a pretty good game at IMPs, and it would've been missed if partner bypassed the major. There are many similar hands to this, where responder has a little shape and would like to limit raise spades, but wants to pass 1NT in the face of a possible misfit. The supposed advantage of concealing opener's spades rarely kicks in when you're going to game anyway, since responder often has one of five hearts or four spades and has to use checkback.

7. Opener does, after all, usually get a third bid in the up-the-line style. Since the auction is still pretty low it's easy to distinguish hands then. This is much the same as in relay systems where the lower bids carry less information and are more frequent, whereas the higher bids carry more information and are less frequent. If the opponents haven't found a call by the time we bid 1♣-P-1♦-P-1M, they're pretty frequently passing for the rest of the auction.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Your argument about having to work out whether 1or 2♠ is 4SF is a true straw man argument. You are arguing that we have to use an inferior method (2♠) and that that renders your poor sequence more attractive. I prefer to use an integrated method that builds on the walsh principles and thus I get to use 2♥ as non-forcing, showing (usually) 3 chunky ♥, no ♠ stop, a ruffing value (usually in ♣) and a non-rebiddable ♦ suit.... and I get to play 2♥ when it is correct and to position notrump appropriately. Where is the flaw?

1C-1D-1H-1S

Opener: KQxx, AJxx, x, KQ10x.

2S-3S Game force showing real spades at the 3 level I assume?

However, if 1S instead is natural and game force:

Opener's options (others exist with agreement): 2S minimum suitable for slam, 3S (max, good trump), 4D (max, splinter). 4S mini unsuitable for slam.

The other case:
1C-1D-1H-2H: 3-card support and non-forcing. Allows 1N to show spade stop.
Guess you have to bid 1S with: xxx, KQ, Jxxxx, Kxx or rebid that dandy diamond suit?
Isn't it simpler to just bid 1N?

The other I think is troublesome here:
1C-1D-1H-1S
2S-3H (Are we cuebidding for spades or playing hearts?)



When 1C-1D-1H-2H if played as forcing saves a level and trumps are fixed - plus you can now use 3H and 4H to differentiate hand types.

Also, when you know 1S is natural opener has an easier bid with:
KQx, AJxx, x, KJxxx. Opener can raise to 2S. Overall, I think it makes more sense to allow opener to bid 2S on this hand than to worry about whether a 9-count has a spade stop for a 1N bid. And it really gets impractical to waste this whole useage on such a rare hand: you can pass 1H if real weak, so now the only hand 2H shows is in the range of 8-10 with 3 hearts and no spade stop - not to mention you now have to untangle for game tries if the raise is really 3 or is it 4?

A lot of work for little return it seems.

I do not see enough advantage for the 2H non-forcing approach to incorporate an artificial sequence when one is not necessary.

[starfruit]

1 problem that when I'm playing walsh is this sequence :

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♠) - ?

What should X show?
1)The other major
2)Support double for ♦
3)Extra values, can't bid NT

The first time it came out, I tried X intending it to be support X since if partner does have 4♥ he'll clarify later. Well maybe I'm too optimistic since LHO gets in with 3♠ and after partner shows his 4♥ the last place for a positive score, 3NT, is out of sight. (he do have a ♠ stop, but he thought I'm showing ♥s)
Since then I've been playing X as showing the other major but I'm not sure what is best.

[Walddk]

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

Roland

[mike777]

starfruit, on Aug 15 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

1 problem that when I'm playing walsh is this sequence :

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♠) - ?

What should X show?
1)The other major
2)Support double for ♦
3)Extra values, can't bid NT

The first time it came out, I tried X intending it to be support X since if partner does have 4♥ he'll clarify later. Well maybe I'm too optimistic since LHO gets in with 3♠ and after partner shows his 4♥ the last place for a positive score, 3NT, is out of sight.   (he do have a ♠ stop, but he thought I'm showing ♥s)
Since then I've been playing X as showing the other major but I'm not sure what is best.

As usual it is best to discuss this in terms of your whole system.
I play x here as support x...promising 3D.

[mike777]

Walddk, on Aug 15 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

Roland

Not sure if Walsh will ever catch on in Europe but he has lived in Europe for decades.

If Europe opens 44 with one club than I can guess they will not open 1d with 4d5c

It may be helpful to say what the logic is for one style over another rather than say one is simply better than the other because a great player says so.

I can say I play Walsh because it is the style I learned when I came back to bridge and I feel comfortable with it and the logic. I do not make any claims it is better in theory compared to bidding up the line.

I open 1d with 44 or 45 hands almost always, in a Walsh context. I know many forum posters disagree strongly but I have not seen a convincing argument to change or favor another style.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Aug 16 2006, 04:26 AM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 15 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

There is a reason (or many rather) why most European top pairs don't play Walsh. They don't think the upsides outweigh the downsides. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned here, unless I missed something, is that in most European countries they open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

I know that I can have a long debate with MikeH about this, but as he knows, I never did and never will understand the wisdom of opening 1♦. Garozzo and Richie Reisig are on the same wavelength, and what's good enough for them is good enough for me.

Let me add that Bocchi - Duboin and Lauria - Versace also open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. One pair plays transfer responses to 1♣, the other does not, but they both believe that it's best to open 1♣.

I repeat: what's good enough for them is good enough for me. Walsh will never catch on in Europe, not because it's an American invention (Americans have invented many useful conventions) but because "we" don't think that it's particularly good.

In my view it's much better to bid your suits up the line, and I do not like the idea that responder might have a canape when he responds 1MA to my 1♣ opening. After 1♦ and 1♥ openings it's a completely different issue, because responder is cramped for room with a weakish hand and a longer club suit (also longer diamonds after 1♥ - 1♠).

Roland

Not sure if Walsh will ever catch on in Europe but he has lived in Europe for decades.

If Europe opens 44 with one club than I can guess they will not open 1d with 4d5c

I don't understand your point regarding Garozzo. Yes, he lived in Europe for decades, but he has been living in Florida for a long time now, and he is still not a subscriber to the Walsh principle.

You are right about 4-5 in the minors. Europeans who play a natural system do not open 1♦ with longer clubs, and I suspect that the majority of Americans don't either. Precision? That's obviously different when 1♦ - 1MA ; 2♣ can be 5-4 or 4-5. I don't like it, and that is one of the reasons why I don't play Precision.

Roland

[mike777]

The "he" in my sentence refers to Walsh and was meant to be humorous and factual. Not Garozzo.

And yes I open 1d very often with 45 shape so I can rebid 2clubs. That way my rebid of my minor suit openings are very often 6 cards in length.