[Wackojack]

I have been glancing through the T Walsh debate in the Non-natural section. What is noticable is that there are almost as many variations as there are contributors to the debate. Some point out their perceived advantages over other variations and some just say that they like one method without any further comment. Back to basics:

A few years ago "BBO advanced" was devised by a few dedicated experts intending it to be an "expert standard". It adopted "2-way check-back", which had some popularity then as it was clearly better than "new minor forcing". It seems now that the popularity of this with experts has declined in favour of T walsh.

My questions are:
1. What are the advantages of transfer responses over lets say natural responses with a simple 2♣ check back? Could you give examples of specific hands where the simpler natural approach falls down and T Walsh succeeds?

2. Is T Walsh a temporary fad or is it the expert standard of the future? Is there any chance of T Walsh settling down to a mainstream expert standard will there continue to be as many variations as there are now?

3. In short, will transfer responses over 1 minor become fully evolved?

[Phil]

Am I alone in trying to determine why Jack is comparing and contrasting T-walsh with 2 way checkback?

I think you just need to read some of the posts on the other thread to see why T-walsh makes a lot of sense to many players.

[32519]

Off topic but perhaps indirectly related.

This is what the introductory paragraph says to BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard)

Bridge World Standard (BWS) encapsulates common American expert practices, determined by polls, as a set of partnership agreements (and, where there is no consensus, non-agreements). It is used as a framework for problems in the Master Solvers’ Club, by impromptu partnerships, and as a basis for discussion by those who wish to formulate their own system.
Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system. Where there are competing popular approaches, alternative methods, called leaves, are listed. Where one treatment is marked [default] and another (or others) [leaf], the one marked [default] is the most popular in the voting and the one that is assumed if partners have agreed simply to play BWS. Anything marked [leaf] is an alternative that received sufficient support in the polls to be worthy of listing; partners can agree explicitly to adopt any particular leaf and still be using BWS.

This is what BWS says about Minor Suit Openings:

H. After Our Minor-Suit Opening
(See also section I., below)

Responder is unpassed except where otherwise stated.
Responses:
After a one-club opening, responder normally bids one diamond with longer diamonds than either major, or with four-four in diamonds and a major in a hand worth at least a game invitation; but the normal response is in a four-card major with a minimum-range response and four-four in a major and diamonds.

A one-notrump response to a minor opening shows 6-10 points.

A two-club response to one diamond is forcing to game except where responder rebids his suit simply after opener has not promised extra values. (Thus, in particular, one diamond — two clubs — three clubs and one diamond — two clubs — two diamonds — three diamonds are forcing. With three=six in the minors and invitational strength, responder’s normal plan is two clubs followed by three clubs.)

A two-notrump response to a minor opening is natural and invitational.

A single minor-suit raise is game-invitational or stronger and denies a four-card or longer major; a double raise is preemptive (but of sufficient strength to support a contract of three notrump or four of the minor opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP); a double jump-shift is a game-forcing splinter.

A jump-shift response shows more than ordinary game-going strength (the equivalent of 16-plus HCP), a substantial suit (at least five-card length with at least two of the top three honors), and one of three hand-types: balanced, one-suited, support.

A three-notrump response to a minor-suit opening shows a balanced hand, 16-17 HCP, and little suit-slam interest.

A triple jump-shift response to a minor-suit opening is natural (an exception to “one level above a splinter is Exclusion Key-Card Blackwood”).

The full system can be found here http://www.bridgewor...bwsall.html#IVH

Nowhere in all this is there any mention of T Walsh. The questions posed in the OP are relevant and/or BWS needs to be updated (it is now 11 years old, bridge continues to evolve).

[mikeh]

It is an error to speak of 'transfer responses to 1 minor'. I read some time ago an interview with one of the italians....he said that they were working on a transfer response to 1♦, but weren't sure it would be workable. I don't know of such a scheme in current use....I am morally certain that none was in play in the BB last year.

As for 1♣, there are imo significant advantages to transfer responses to 1♣. As with any gadget, there are costs as well, and the nature of both the costs and the advantages depends on the details.

My method, when I played it was that after 1♣ - 1♦/♥, opener accepted only with a weak notrump type hand or an unbiddable 1=3=4=5 (over 1♣ 1♦) or 3=4=1=5/3=1=4=5 (after 1♥).

In all cases, responder used 2♣ and 2♦ as two way checkback, on the idea that opener's hand was (usually) a hand that would have rebid 1N in a standard response scheme. So we hadn't lost much, if anything, and we had transferred the major into opener.

This also allowed, as some of the other thread users have suggested, the use of 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ as weak, non-invitational, with 1N being 17+-19...the hand that would in standard bid 2N. One could flip the 1♠ and 1N bids, as some suggest.

In turn, that frees up the 2N rebid, and as Frances said, it makes little sense, and is no fun, to limit that call to a single meaning. You can do a number of things with it, including using it to deal with the so-called BW Nightmare hand, which invariably begins 1minor 1 major, and finds opener with gf values, 3 card support, a 6+ minor, and a hand inappropriate for any number of notrump.....it is unbiddable in theory, in that it doesn't meet the defintions for ANY call in standard.

So: are transfer responses to 1♣ going to become expert standard? I doubt it, just as Precision hasn't replaced standard. Is it going to remain fairly common amongst top players and become more prevalent amongst lessers....my guess is that it will, but I don't expect it to ever dominate.

The advantages are there...the costs are as well....and the net gain is probably very small in the grand scheme of things. There will be other areas on which expert partnerships may feel they get more bang for the buck, in terms of rewarding effort.

[glen]

mikeh, on 2012-February-02, 18:42, said:

... a transfer response to 1♦ ... I don't know of such a scheme in current use ...

Some of your opps in recent years used flip-flop (1M=OM) after the 1♦ opening

[MickyB]

Two-way checkback is still popular, including amongst those who play transfer responses to 1♣. Like Phil, I am unsure why you consider these to be mutually exclusive.

I have seen transfer responses to 1C derided as "a solution looking for a problem". This is true, to an extent - compared with regular Walsh, it clearly gives our side more useful bidding space, as you have made your two most frequent responses the least space-consuming; however, it is unclear what the best use of that space is. That is why there are so many alternative schemes. Until one becomes dominant, it has no chance of becoming an expert standard.

Transfer responses to 1D are much less common. They do not create more useful bidding space in the same way as transfer responses to 1C do, so have fewer advantages. I play transfer responses to 1C in all of my partnerships, but I only play transfer responses to 1D in one partnership.

[Cthulhu D]

This is just an uninformed observation, but it seems there is much less agreement over 'standard' for things if they are not GCC legal in the ACBL. I suspect they are much less widely played and discussed as a result so things fall through the gap. The recent example for me was responses to the Kaplan inversion - it seems transfer responses are the way to go, but there isn't any expert concesus on this.

[Codo]

Maybe transfer response will be less important in the future because the advantages for the opponents are there too. It is much easier to bid if the opps bid 1 ♣ 1 ♥ to show spades then when they bid 1♣ 1 ♠. F.E. you can use x of 1 ♥ as weak take out and 1♠ as strong take out. Or you can use the double to show hearts, but too weak for a 2 ♥ bid.
But who knows, maybe the advantages will outscore the disadvantages in the long run.

[paulg]

32519, on 2012-February-02, 14:13, said:

The full system can be found here http://www.bridgewor...bwsall.html#IVH

Nowhere in all this is there any mention of T Walsh. The questions posed in the OP are relevant and/or BWS needs to be updated (it is now 11 years old, bridge continues to evolve).

Whilst transfer responses to one club remain Mid-Chart they are unlikely to be adopted widely in the ACBL.

[gwnn]

MickyB, on 2012-February-02, 19:08, said:

but I only play transfer responses to 1D in one partnership.

Do they work? Do you need flannery replies to make them work? And then some?

[MickyB]

gwnn, on 2012-February-03, 09:21, said:

Do they work? Do you need flannery replies to make them work? And then some?

It is quite system-dependent.

If you play otherwise fairly standard methods without Flannery responses, then swapping the majors at the one-level [so 1D:1H, 1S = D+H unbal] means you don't miss 5-4 fits in the other major when responder has 5-5 majors and the field bids 1D:1S, 2D:P.

If you play fairly standard methods with Flannery responses, then this swap [including switching 1D:2H to showing 5+H4S not 5+S4+H] makes your Flannery bid better defined [6-4 is still possible but 5-5 is not] and solves the standard auction of 1D:1H, 1N where responder has a weak hand with 5H4S and opener could still have four spades.

Our 1D opening is either natural unbal or any 11-13 NT, so we play 1D:1H, 1S as the 11-13 NT and 1D:1H, 1NT as D+H unbalanced, because we like to attempt to play 1S in the 5-2 or 5-3 fit - this has bigger gains than you might expect. Obviously, it has losses for the D+H unbalanced hand, but we accept those just on frequency. We also play something resembling transfers at the two-level, including 1D:2C as 5+diamonds, any strength.

Of course, there is also the issue of right-siding. When opener shows an 11-13 NT and responder is unbalanced we go into full relays [responder describing], so it is advantageous for us to try to get opener to declare.