[sceptic]

Can some one explain in simple terms the advantages of Walsh style advances (I hope that is the right exp[ression) please

pros and cons as well if you dont mind

[paulg]

After opener's 1♣ bid, a minimum hand will always show a 4-card major in preference to a 4-, 5-, possibly 6-, card diamond suit if using Walsh responses.

A (natural) 1♦ response to 1♣ denies a 4-card major unless the hand has game values (typically with 5+ diamonds and 4+major).

The key advantage of Walsh is that opener can rebid 1NT with a balanced hand, bypassing any 4-card major suit, as you will not lose the major fit. This is because partner does not have a 4-card major unless strong enough to reverse into it on the next round.

The disadvantages of Walsh include missing diamond fits, and missing 4-4 spade fits in the auction 1♣-1♥-1NT.

Personally I've always preferred the Walsh style.

Some additional sequences are shown on this random site that I found.

Paul

[mikeh]

Long story

Summarizing, and maybe leaving out stuff:

1♣ 1♦ denies a 4 card major unless strong enough to force to game: note that this is 'strong walsh'; others play that responder may have invitational values, and I will leave it to others to describe the differences that flow.

Opener now bids a major only with an unbalanced hand: with the most common 1♣ type hand, a balanced 12-14, he rebids 1N even with one or two 4 card majors.

Advantages:

1♣ 1♦ 1M promises shape (5422 or 4441 being the least distributional).

Give responder xx Jxx KQxxx Jxx

Partner opens 1♣ and you bid 1♦. Partner bids 1♠.. what do you bid?

If playing standard, he may have 4=3=2=4 shape. Or he might be 4=2=2=5 or wilder.

Maybe 1N is best: maybe 2♣ is beat: you are guessing. Play walsh and you know that he has at least 5♣ so 2♣ is clearly best.

Give responder a much better hand, and maybe he can aim for a club game or slam, confident that he has a real fit... whereas with standard treatments, it may take a while to determine opener's shape.

And what if the opponents compete or balance? Once again, knowing that 1M rebid shows shape, allows responder to compete with more confidence than if opener could be 4333.

Then there is the advantage that comes from the 1N rebid possibly concealing majors. Let's say responder has a balanced 13 count and raises to 3N.

Now opening leader will usually lead a major: but doing so may be fatal... it may be into opener's major, costing a trick and/or a tempo. Oftentimes, a close 3N is a race to establish the requisite number of winners, and attacking opener's well-stopped 4 card major will usually put the defenders a tempo behind even when it doesn't cost an immediate trick.

Or let's look at 1♣ 1♦ 1N p...now 4th seat will not want to let 1N play, but if opener could be 4=4 in the majors, how can 4th seat compete as safely? He can't.

So in summary (and this is not the full story), strong walsh:

1) wins when opener rebids 1N. This may be because the lead against the notrump contract, be it partial, game or slam, is less-well-informed than had opener bid up the line. It also wins when the opps make a poor balance, into opener's major, or fail to balance out of fear.

2) wins when opener bids up the line, because this shows shape. This avoids guesswork for responder on weakish hands with only 3♣, and allows responder to better judge degree of fit early on strong hands with game/slam interest.

Personally, I play that 1m 1♥ 1♠ shows shape as well: bypassing 1♠ to rebid 1N with the balanced hand of appropriate strength. This has a more concrete downside: you will miss some 4=4♠ fits: essentially you miss all such fits where responder lacks invitational values: if he has invitational values, he can check back for a ♠ fit over 1N, but if he is weakish, he passes. I and my partners believe that the gains consequent on this approach are worth this cost... however, we are all very much imp oriented and a mp pair may choose to place more emphasis on this issue than we do.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

not a disadv., but playing walsh needs a lot more discussion,
than playing natural style, i.e. it is only suited for serious
partnerships, which play regular together.
You need to discuss the implications playing NMF, 2-way ...,
e.g.

1C - 1H (1)
1NT - 2D (2)

(1) walsh style, longer diamonds possible
(2) classical walsh, this shows longer diomonds
and is a sign of bid
playing 2-way checkback (?!) this is artifica,
... one option is, to use 3D instead of 2D
as weak with diamonds

If they interfere in the other mayor, you may have a problem,
to show partner, that you have interest to compete in diamonds

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

The way I learned Walsh is you always, 99.99%, of the time bid 1s over 1minor=1heart. In other words....1c=1h=1s does not promise an unbalanced hand. I was taught finding the 4-4 spade fit with weakish hands is too important to lose and the gain in hiding it is too small.

That means 1c=1d=1nt may hide a major if balanced but never 1minor=1h=1s.

Wayne keep in mind that even though Walsh has been around for at least 40 years many top class players love it but many hate it. So try it out and see if it is a fit for you.

In general Walsh is helpful if you want to play a get and then get out quick style. That means bid your weak hands fast, show your major and then shut up.

In practice as opposed to theory I find getting the major bid fast and then shutting up is helpful. Surprisingly the 1c=1d=rebid a major as an unbalanced hand rarely comes up at the table. This may be due to active opp always bidding something.

Another issue with this style is getting used to getting in fast with weak hands and then shutting up or knowing how to show a minimum or maximum rebid on some auctions esp. when the opp start bidding. I still have problems with this issue.

Btw you should add 2 way checkback or some version of XYZ if you are going to play Walsh.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Aug 13 2006, 04:33 PM, said:

Btw you should add 2 way checkback or some version of XYZ if you are going to play Walsh.

Indeed. If you play 2 way checkback, you won't miss a 5-3 or 4-4 major suit fit.

[kenrexford]

Although I use Walsh, and like it, you asked for the "cons" as well. One that I have noticed is in the reverse.

Assume an auction like 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♠.

This sounds like an advantage, being able to force game at the two-level. But, is it really?

If we have a spade fit, Opener must either raise to 3♠ or raise to 4♠, I would imagine. This preempts us, actually, as the standard auction will be 1♣-P-1♥-P-2♥. If Responder is slammish, non-Walsh gains a level of auction. The compensating feature of Walsh is that diamond slam tries are now enhanced.

What else is lost? If not playing Walsh, 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♠ is probably not used as natural. Rather, it establishes some variety of game force. Using flags, 2♥ is probably GF with club support, and 2♠ GF with long diamonds. In any event, these two calls are not possible with Walsh.

All that said, Walsh gains from the distributional indicators, IMO, as mentioned.

[mike777]

I suppose those that love to cuebid may get upset losing one level but think about it. If the bidding goes:
1c=1d
1nt=2s
3s

In my style I know pard has a balanced hand 11-13 hcp 3 or 4 clubs and 4 spades and less than 4D I should add. With 44 in minors would have opened 1D.
I would think it is almost never that I miss that extra level of cuebidding.

[kenrexford]

It is not partner's balanced shape that interests me, it is my unbalanced shape. As I must be 4♠/5+♦, I very well may have a fit-dependent hand.

Give me something like ♠AQxx ♥x ♦Axxxx ♣Kxx.

Opener might have:

(A) ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦KQx ♣Axx, or
(B.) ♠Jxxx ♥Axx ♦Qxx ♣AQx

After 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♠-P-3♠, we have little space to find things out. After 1♣-P-1♠-2♠, the auction to slam has a lot more space.

The real problem with my assessment, however, is that the auction is not going to be as I described. Rather, I would bid 1♦ as Responder, then hear 1♠ from Opener. Hence, I cannot make a slam move after my major is raised -- I raise Opener's major. I suppose this is actually a benefit to Walsh.

[mike777]

Staying out of slam on hand 2 would not be an issue.

As for hand one do you not need 2 3-2 suit breaks which makes it less than 50%?

In any case trying to bid 25 hcp slams with no voids is something I can live without.
Make the responder hand 64 and it looks much better.

[HeartA]

kenrexford, on Aug 13 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

It is not partner's balanced shape that interests me, it is my unbalanced shape. As I must be 4♠/5+♦, I very well may have a fit-dependent hand.

Give me something like ♠AQxx ♥x ♦Axxxx ♣Kxx.

Opener might have:

(A) ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦KQx ♣Axx, or
(B.) ♠Jxxx ♥Axx ♦Qxx ♣AQx

After 1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♠-P-3♠, we have little space to find things out. After 1♣-P-1♠-2♠, the auction to slam has a lot more space.

The real problem with my assessment, however, is that the auction is not going to be as I described. Rather, I would bid 1♦ as Responder, then hear 1♠ from Opener. Hence, I cannot make a slam move after my major is raised -- I raise Opener's major. I suppose this is actually a benefit to Walsh.

For hand !), the bidding would go like
1C - 1D
1N - 2S
3S - 4C
4D - 4H/4N
......

With hand (,
1C - 1D
1N - 2S
3S - 4C
4H - 4S

[Winstonm]

I believe Marty Bergen best summarized the advantages of Walsh-style responses and it is clearly in opener's rebids. In Walsh style, opener has very few rebid problems with minimum hands - he can either raise, bid a suit, or bid 1N - the key is the 1N bid in that over a 1D response it is shape/hand showing and does not deny a major.

The other advantage IMO to "pure" walsh is that it is a very natural style for the most part and 4-4 major suit fits are found immediately. Another minor help is you at times take away a cheap 1H overcall by lurker (4th seat) when the auction starts 1C-P-1S-.

An important concept to clear up with partner is this sequence: 1C-1D-1H-2H. In theory, this should be game forcing in Walsh as should this: 1C-1D-1H-1S. If these are indeed game forcing, it allows another level of bids to separate hand types: 1C-1D-1H-2H-3H verses 4H etc.

The disadvantage is you have trouble playing in clubs, especially at the 2-level, and you almost certainly have to adopt some type of checkback - either 2C, 2-way, or x,y,z. IMO, complete x, y, z is the best fit with Walsh, complete meaning that even in 1C-1D-1H-2C/D it should still apply.

[Cascade]

A disadvantage of Walsh is that after 1♣ 1M opener will be less inclined to raise with three-card support since responder will be less likely to have a five-card suit and more likely to have four cards in a poor suit than if the partnership uses an up-the-line approach.

[kgr]

Two additional questions from me (most interested for an answer to the 1st question):
1) Do most World Class pairs, that play a natural system, play Walsh?
2) I've seen pairs using 1♣-1NT denying 4cM ; 1♣-1♦ promising a 4cM ; 1♣-1M is a 5cM. Any comments on that method. (probably is more useful playing MP's than IMP's).

[kenrexford]

The method you just described is commonly called the "Montreal Relay." It is how I learned to play 26 years ago.

The idea is a sort of early solution to the support double problem. Immediate discovery of the 5-3 major fit solves a world of hurt in competitive auctions, and 5-4's are often immediately known. Of course, the 1♦ response creates the need for a negatuive double by Opener if there is intervention over 1♦, but that is often not problematic.

The secondary benefit is in having Opener declare 4-4 major fits more often, as Opener bids the major first.

A lot of experts seem offended by the concept of five-card major responses, whereas a lot of Flight B players love it and even use short club openings to increase the frequency of the five-card-major probes.

Although I do not use Montreal Relays with any stronger partners, I have opportunity to use it with some weaker players and like it. I cannot really understand the objections to the approach or why most experts I know hate the idea so much. Perhaps it is nomenclature. Instead of "montreal relay," perhaps the convention would be more favored if a 1♣ opening was described as Puppet Stayman??? LOL

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2006, 11:31 PM, said:

An important concept to clear up with partner is this sequence: 1C-1D-1H-2H. In theory, this should be game forcing in Walsh as should this: 1C-1D-1H-1S. If these are indeed game forcing, it allows another level of bids to separate hand types: 1C-1D-1H-2H-3H verses 4H etc.

Not true... we had a recent thread here in which this misunderstanding was apparent. It is true that there is some logic behind using this sequence as forcing, but that logic is flawed.

It rests on the fallacy that a partnership may not voluntarily select a 4-3 fit.

Give me xxx KQx KJxxx xx and 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ and my bid as responder is 2♥. Tell me yours if you play 2♥ as gf?

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Aug 14 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2006, 11:31 PM, said:

An important concept to clear up with partner is this sequence: 1C-1D-1H-2H.  In theory, this should be game forcing in Walsh as should this: 1C-1D-1H-1S.  If these are indeed game forcing, it allows another level of bids to separate hand types: 1C-1D-1H-2H-3H verses 4H etc.

Not true... we had a recent thread here in which this misunderstanding was apparent. It is true that there is some logic behind using this sequence as forcing, but that logic is flawed.

It rests on the fallacy that a partnership may not voluntarily select a 4-3 fit.

Give me xxx KQx KJxxx xx and 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ and my bid as responder is 2♥. Tell me yours if you play 2♥ as gf?

1NT. What is the value of misdescribing the hand with a raise to 2H when a competely natural call is available? There is also a case to be made for an immediate 1N over 1C - why waste time bidding diamonds when what you have is a 1N responding hand? If partner holds a strong minor hand, he will know there is either a club or diamond fit and can reverse. If he reversed into diamonds, that's when I'd want to bid 2H.

[mikeh]

wow... positional considerations play no role in your game???? 1N on xxx in ♠ with a decent 5 card suit? Not for me, thanks.

If partner is going to jump to 3N over 1N, I'd much, much rather have bid 1♦ and raised 2N to 3N. I love to get my hands on dummy: I'm a pretty good declarer, but I hope I'm an even better partner... let him play with Kx or AQ of ♠, not me.

And calling 2♥ a misdescription is plain wrong. It is only a misdescription if your system says that you can't raise a 4 card major with 3 card support. And the vast majority of posters play that you can in an analogous auction:

1m 1M 2M... almost all the posters here allow that to be a minimum with 3 card support and a ruffing value. Guess what 2♥ shows for me in the given sequence?

I recognize that most players learn that this auction should show 4 cards and then, when they learn walsh, they mistakenly think that this means that 2♥ has to be game force... but that is the result of lazy thinking. We can and should use 4SF to prepare for gf ♥ raises. And doing so allows us to make bridge bids.... such as a natural, non-forcing 2♥ on this hand.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Aug 14 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

wow... positional considerations play no role in your game???? 1N on xxx in ♠ with a decent 5 card suit? Not for me, thanks.

If partner is going to jump to 3N over 1N, I'd much, much rather have bid 1♦ and raised 2N to 3N. I love to get my hands on dummy: I'm a pretty good declarer, but I hope I'm an even better partner... let him play with Kx or AQ of ♠, not me.

And calling 2♥ a misdescription is plain wrong. It is only a misdescription if your system says that you can't raise a 4 card major with 3 card support. And the vast majority of posters play that you can in an analogous auction:

1m 1M 2M... almost all the posters here allow that to be a minimum with 3 card support and a ruffing value. Guess what 2♥ shows for me in the given sequence?

I recognize that most players learn that this auction should show 4 cards and then, when they learn walsh, they mistakenly think that this means that 2♥ has to be game force... but that is the result of lazy thinking. We can and should use 4SF to prepare for gf ♥ raises. And doing so allows us to make bridge bids.... such as a natural, non-forcing 2♥ on this hand.

The other side of this argument is that by bidding in a more natural fashion one does not become slave to that bastardization called 4th suit forcing. And yes, I very much believe in positional calls - when there is a position worth protecting. But here we are not talking about a game try hand. We have what we started with, a 9-count with no good fit. I'm not all that interested in right-siding 1N if by doing so all subsequent auctions become more convoluted than is necessary. Could this lead to a poor 3N because of wrong-siding? Certainly. But when partner can only bid 1H the likelihood of him then bidding game is substatially reduced. To me, the benefit of being "allowed" to bid 2H on this hand is so minimal as to be non-existent - since if I do this I have to now fall back on an artificial bid to create a force.

Is it 1S or 2S here that is the artificial bid? Hmmm....seems we've had to figure that one out, too. If 1S, then I have no natural bid with diamonds and spades. If 2S, then I can't show the game forcing nature of my hand until I get to 3H - where is the savings of Walsh?

However, if 1C-1D-1H-2H is forcing, there is a real benefit - I have gained a level to find the best game/slam. I can use 3H/4H as picture bids. The risk of wrong-siding NT here is exagerated. I would rather play NT with xxx opposite xxx in spades than play in hearts where the 4th round of spades uppercuts me in my 4/3 fit.

Simply makes no logical sense to me - if you adopt Walsh style then seems you should take advantage of what it allows instead of simply playing a modified standard with 4th suit forcing - in case you haven't guessed, I have no use for 4th suit forcing as a solve all, end all answer to every bidding problem. Walsh "allows" the auction in discussion to be played as forcing - what value is there to Walsh if I give back this benefit? I might as well simply play up the line with 4th suit forcing.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Aug 14 2006, 08:17 PM, said:

The other side of this argument is that by bidding in a more natural fashion one does not become slave to that bastardization called 4th suit forcing.  And yes, I very much believe in positional calls - when there is a position worth protecting.  But here we are not talking about a game try hand.  We have what we started with, a 9-count with no good fit.  I'm not all that interested in right-siding 1N if by doing so all subsequent auctions become more convoluted than is necessary.  Could this lead to a poor 3N because of wrong-siding?  Certainly.  But when partner can only bid 1H the likelihood of him then bidding game is substatially reduced.  To me, the benefit of being "allowed" to bid 2H on this hand is so minimal as to be non-existent - since if I do this I have to now fall back on an artificial bid to create a force. 

Is it 1S or 2S here that is the artificial bid?  Hmmm....seems we've had to figure that one out, too.  If 1S, then I have no natural bid with diamonds and spades.  If 2S, then I can't show the game forcing nature of my hand until I get to 3H - where is the savings of Walsh?

I have no problem with which bid is 4SF after 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, nor should any strong walsh player: 1♠.

This works regardless of responder's ♠ holding: if he has 4, then he has a game force hand by definition, since he bid 1♦. If he has fewer than 4, then the worst that can happen is that partner raises (thus showing 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4) and now responder gets to make a natural, descriptive bid at 2N or the 3-level.

So to use 2♥ as gf here makes no sense... it is close to a zero use of the sequence: gaining only when partner is 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4 and even then it is not clear that we are worse off: responder will know opener's shape to a greater degree than if he had raised 1♥ to 2.

As for game still being on, of course it is: opener requires a truly big hand to jump to 2♥ over 1♦... that sequence is usually played as gf, so opener can have up to 18 hcp for the 1♥ rebid.

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?