[rogerclee]

Here's a link to a scheme I just wrote up over the sequence

1♣-1♦
2NT

for Walsh style responses to 1♣. It's a little rough and I'm sure can be improved. I've attached a link to a simplified version, since I think the full version is not very useful.

http://www.its.calte...rlee/walsh2.txt

[mikeh]

I like it: doubt that i can get any of my partners to play it, but it looks good. Main problem will be the low frequency of the method, and hence the memory load, but it all seems logical enough that one might be able to get it right if, as sometimes happens, one were to remember that one played a gadget but forgot the details Especially if one already plays transfers over 2N, which I really like to do anyway.

[jdonn]

If you switched the
3♣ 3♦
4♣

auction with the
4♦

auction, then wouldn't this entire system exactly be transfers? I mean you are playing transfers and simply explicitely defined the followups, which is good. I don't even think it's that hard to memorize.

[Phil]

Very nice. Similar to "Weichsel".

[MarkDean]

I notice that 3 red shows the next major and 5+ diamonds. Is it standard to bypass diamonds with 4 diamonds and a 4 card major regardless of strength/suit quality etc? I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ with:

QTxx
Kx
AKJx
JTx

Is that non-standard?

[rogerclee]

MarkDean, on May 25 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

I notice that 3 red shows the next major and 5+ diamonds.  Is it standard to bypass diamonds with 4 diamonds and a 4 card major regardless of strength/suit quality etc?  I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ with:

QTxx
Kx
AKJx
JTx

Is that non-standard?

In a Walsh context, you would respond 1♠. This might be a system loss but it's unclear to me.

[mike777]

rogerclee, on May 25 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

MarkDean, on May 25 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

I notice that 3 red shows the next major and 5+ diamonds.  Is it standard to bypass diamonds with 4 diamonds and a 4 card major regardless of strength/suit quality etc?  I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ with:

QTxx
Kx
AKJx
JTx

Is that non-standard?

In a Walsh context, you would respond 1♠. This might be a system loss but it's unclear to me.

yes in true Walsh you respond 1s.......granted this is pretty rare....but in walsh you expect to lose the d suit often.

[skjaeran]

MarkDean, on May 26 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

I notice that 3 red shows the next major and 5+ diamonds. Is it standard to bypass diamonds with 4 diamonds and a 4 card major regardless of strength/suit quality etc? I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ with:

QTxx
Kx
AKJx
JTx

Is that non-standard?

I would also respond 1♦ with this hand, playing Walsh. I'd always respond 1♦ with GF values and a good 4-card suit. We had* methods to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced hands with a 4-card major after responding 1♦. (*I've played T-Walsh for years now, where we responds 1♥ with this hand.)

[hanp]

I think Roger's structure is very natural for those playing transfers over a 2NT rebid already.