[ahydra]

 gordontd, on 2014-February-26, 07:09, said:

What about 3D? Wouldn't you expect that to show the strength of the former with the shape of the latter?

Hmm, a valid point... I'll have to discuss this with partner The way we play 4D would be the SPL. But with 2D being a reverse, it makes sense to allocate some other meaning to 3D than "NAT, better than a reverse". I quite like this idea of "opener mini-splinters"; I guess other uses would be showing singleton vs void, or perhaps showing some specific shape (like 4405, here).

ahydra

[gordontd]

 ahydra, on 2014-February-26, 07:13, said:

I quite like this idea of "opener mini-splinters"; I guess other uses would be showing singleton vs void, or perhaps showing some specific shape (like 4405, here).

I have one partner with whom I had agreed that 4D would be a singleton splinter, 3D would either be a mini-splinter or a void splinter, and the hand with the void would go on after partner signed off. What we didn't discuss (and led to us missing a slam this week) was what calls by opener show the stronger hand after partner has cue-bid. I think it could be sorted out using some version of serious/frivolous 3NT.

[PhilKing]

Best use for 3♦ imo is to show exactly 18-19 bal with 4 hearts (if such hands open 1♣.

[paulg]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-February-25, 14:01, said:

Depends on your agreements. Just saying you play "Transfer Walsh" doesn't define the system.

This is the only possible answer.

I would hope that anyone who decides to play Transfer Walsh will put in the necessary effort to gain from adopting such a non-standard method. It is not something that you get for free, but it comes up more often that practically any other convention you will play and is worth investing time and effort to get a set of solid agreements. But even before you start agreeing on Transfer Walsh you need to decide what hands will open 1♣.

There are two or three popular approaches with respect to accepting the transfer. There are probably a multitude of approaches when you do not accept the transfer, either with or without support. I fear that those who say, "just do the same as 1♣-1♥" appear to be encouraging a quick-and-easy approach that will not take significant advantage of the method but will incur a lot of pain with the 1♠ transfer response. On the other hand it is possible that a mini-splinter is the best use for the call, but it is just so dependent on the rest of your methods (and hands that open 1♣).

(As it happens I play 3♦ the same way as Phil)

[MickyB]

Accepting on any hand with precisely three hearts strikes me as an attempt to play "natural" rebids with little regard for theory. The "complete = 11-13 NT" method is decent but I am fairly sure it's better to play the transfer completion as artificial and forcing. It's much like any number of other auctions - the cheapest bids should be used for hands that are still looking for a fit, most higher bids [and this may well include 2♦ or even 2♣] should be used to show various hands with support.

[FrancesHinden]

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-26, 01:55, said:

There are two basic styles on what accepting the transfer at the one level shows:

The Scandinavian style (published by Anders Wirgren and Mats Nilsland) is that it shows a weak NT without 4 card support (a 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT). But I don't think you are working with that style.

The Central European style (published by Henk Uijterwaal) is that accepting the transfer at the one level shows three card support (any strength).
There are variations to this style where accepting the transfer at the one level can contain hands with four card support, but only when they are maximum, never when they are minimum.
This approach is possible since accepting the transfer at the one level is absolutely forcing. It means that you don't need to jump to 4♥ with balanced GF hands with four card support. This will enable you to sort out whether 3NT might be a better contract (despite the 4-4 fit) and it makes slam exploration easier.
However, if at first you stick to the principle that you raise as if responder would have bid his major naturally, you will quickly learn to play (and appreciate) Transfer Walsh.

Rik

It's true that there are two main styles. It's certainly not true that in every case accepting the transfer is forcing. Along with a lot of other people, I play accepting the transfer as non-forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

 PhilKing, on 2014-February-26, 07:45, said:

Best use for 3♦ imo is to show exactly 18-19 bal with 4 hearts (if such hands open 1♣.

I used to play that before I played T-Walsh. Now I put all strong 4-card raises into the 2NT rebid.

Both with Jallerton and my other regular partner we play 3D as showing a game forcing hand with clubs. So not very suitable on this hand.
I repeat: T-Walsh is not a system and opener's rebids are not defined.

[bluecalm]

Quote

It's true that there are two main styles. It's certainly not true that in every case accepting the transfer is forcing. Along with a lot of other people, I play accepting the transfer as non-forcing.

T-Walsh isn't very popular in my country but people I know who play it play accepting as NF.
Bocchi-Duboin played it as NF as well (although containing some hands up to 16-17hcp).
I find the idea of accepting being forcing theoretically unsound.

Quote

I used to play that before I played T-Walsh. Now I put all strong 4-card raises into the 2NT rebid.

Aren't you afraid to end up in 2N when holding 8-9card major fit when partner is too weak to bid after 2N ?
I didn't have any experience with T-Walsh but it seems to me handling 18-19bal opposite near busts is one of its biggest gains over standard.

[Zelandakh]

 bluecalm, on 2014-February-26, 08:19, said:

Aren't you afraid to end up in 2N when holding 8-9card major fit when partner is too weak to bid after 2N ?

Is this not similar to asking whether a pair is worried about finishing in 2NT when playing Jacoby?

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2014-February-25, 21:58, said:

It might help to tell us what transfer walsh is ..how it works ...and why we should care?


I do understand that transfer walsh is the bbo flavor of the year.

At the most basic level, transfer Walsh applies transfers to a Walsh style response structure to a 1♣ opening.

(Once again simplifying) playing a Walsh style over a 1C opening, responder will prioritize a 1M response over 1♦ with hands that are only worth one bid.
As a practical example

After a 1♣ opening, Walsh players would respond 1H holding either of the following two hands

♠ J54
♥ KT72
♦ QJ52
♣ 54

♠ J54
♥ KT72
♦ QJT52
♣ 5

In contrast, players who bid "up the line" would typically show Diamonds first.

Playing a "transfer" Walsh style, players would advance 1♦ with hands that Walsh players would bid 1♥ and bid 1♥ with hands that Walsh players would bid 1♠.

On the "why is this a good idea" front:

1. A transfer Walsh style is more efficient at using bidding space because it does a better job aligning the frequency of the response with the level of the response. (Playing standard Walsh, 1D responses are significantly less frequent than 1♥ responses)

2. A transfer Walsh style is better at supporting very light responses to 1C openings

3. A transfer Walsh style solves some thorny problems that plague more traditional response structures (think Bridge World Death hand)

[bluecalm]

Quote

Is this not similar to asking whether a pair is worried about finishing in 2NT when playing Jacoby?

I don't know what Jacoby is in the context.
If you mean transfer after 1N then no, because you only end up in 2N with 5-2 trumps and invitational hand (so 23-24pc)
If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural. Responder doesn't know if opener has 2 or 4 cards in M and with something like Kxx JTxxx Jxx xx is stuck.

[Zelandakh]

 bluecalm, on 2014-February-26, 09:44, said:

If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural.

Read Frances's post again blue. Her 2NT rebid contains all of the strong 4 card raises, precisely as most play a 2NT response to a 1M opening. I would assume from this that she has an alternative rebid for the strong balanced hands without 4 card support, most likely 1NT but this part was not stated.

[aguahombre]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-February-26, 07:02, said:

Another possibility is (roughly) to accept with 0-2 hearts, raise with 4 hearts and bid something else with precisely 3 hearts. I do think the quoted method is better than accepting with 3 card support.

As an outsider looking in to T-Walsh first responses, and after learning that Opener's rebids are not prescribed as part of the system --- it seems that the chief advantage to T-Walsh would be the ability to rebid 1 of Responder's suit to show exactly 3, eliminating that issue from all future checkbacks when Opener has the normal minimum opening range.

I cannot see how accepting with 0-2 and bidding something else with precisely 3 hearts would do anything other than clog up our auction (Do we then make "delay" reverses?). It might kill us when Responder is very light and we can no-longer bail out at 1H (an alleged advantage we don't have to begin with unless playing T-Walsh Responses).

[Zelandakh]

 aguahombre, on 2014-February-26, 10:02, said:

As an outsider looking in to T-Walsh first responses, and after learning that Opener's rebids are not prescribed as part of the system --- it seems that the chief advantage to T-Walsh would be the ability to rebid 1 of Responder's suit to show exactly 3, eliminating that issue from all future checkbacks when Opener has the normal minimum opening range.

I cannot see how accepting with 0-2 and bidding something else with precisely 3 hearts would do anything other than clog up our auction (Do we then make "delay" reverses?). It might kill us when Responder is very light and we can no-longer bail out at 1H (an alleged advantage we don't have to begin with unless playing T-Walsh Responses).

The core idea is to stay low without a fit and bid more when a fit is available. Stopping in 1♥ with a weak hand and a long suit is actually safer than a method where all hands with 3 cards accept the transfer, since the latter types might grow up to make game whereas we have nowhere to go other than 2♥ opposite the misfit. Note that this is the same reason why accepting on a weak NT is better than accepting on 3 cards - these hands are just very likely to want to play here opposite the weak one-suiter and this also makes for a method good at differentiating between hand types.

[karlson]

 PhilKing, on 2014-February-26, 07:45, said:

Best use for 3♦ imo is to show exactly 18-19 bal with 4 hearts (if such hands open 1♣.

I play the same style, but it seems right to me to swap (play 3♥ as 18-19 bal with 4 hearts, and 3♦ as an unbalanced 4-card raise). I think rightsiding is more likely to matter opposite the balanced hand (but it's probably not a big deal either way).

[32519]

Mr. Willey, maybe you should start taking a closer look at T-Walsh and see how you can rehash it into your MOSCITO system; firstly to get the system legal, and secondly to jam the auction. How about this for a starter:
1♣ = 10-11 HCP, balanced (that should be legal even in the ACBL)

Partner’s responses are T-Walsh
1♦ = 4+ Hearts
1♥ = 4+ Spades

Now you can try and jam the auction by bidding 2♥/2♠ on a potential 4-3 fit. The opponents have no idea of responder’s actual hand strength and after 2♠ need to balance on level-3. Every time partner has real values he simply keeps on bidding over 2M.

You can come and post your new system here and the forum members will help you with the continuation bidding structure. Maybe you can call it “Upside Down MOSCITO,” or "Inside-Out MOSCITO."

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2014-February-26, 11:07, said:

Mr. Willey, maybe you should start taking a closer look at T-Walsh and see how you can rehash it into your MOSCITO system; firstly to get the system legal, and secondly to jam the auction. How about this for a starter:
1♣ = 10-11 HCP, balanced (that should be legal even in the ACBL)

Partner’s responses are T-Walsh
1♦ = 4+ Hearts
1♥ = 4+ Spades

Now you can try and jam the auction by bidding 2♥/2♠ on a potential 4-3 fit. The opponents have no idea of responder’s actual hand strength and after 2♠ need to balance on level-3. Every time partner has real values he simply keeps on bidding over 2M.

You can come and post your new system here and the forum members will help you with the continuation bidding structure. Maybe you can call it “Upside Down MOSCITO,” or "Inside-Out MOSCITO."

FWIW, I pointed out the similarity between transfer Walsh and the MOSCITO opening structure years back.
It was not a fruitful discussion.

[FrancesHinden]

 bluecalm, on 2014-February-26, 09:44, said:

I don't know what Jacoby is in the context.
If you mean transfer after 1N then no, because you only end up in 2N with 5-2 trumps and invitational hand (so 23-24pc)
If you mean 1M - 2N then no because this is forcing to game while 1m - 1M - 2N is not forcing in standard bidding regardless if you play T-Walsh, Walsh or just natural. Responder doesn't know if opener has 2 or 4 cards in M and with something like Kxx JTxxx Jxx xx is stuck.

Sorry that I wasn't clear. In the version of T-Walsh where you complete the transfer with a weak NT and rebid 1NT on strong balanced hands, 2NT is 'free' and we use it as a forcing bid containing various strong hands with 4-card support.

[bluecalm]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-February-26, 12:54, said:

Sorry that I wasn't clear. In the version of T-Walsh where you complete the transfer with a weak NT and rebid 1NT on strong balanced hands, 2NT is 'free' and we use it as a forcing bid containing various strong hands with 4-card support.

Thanks for the clarification, that version makes lot of sense to me.

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-February-26, 10:21, said:

The core idea is to stay low without a fit and bid more when a fit is available. Stopping in 1♥ with a weak hand and a long suit is actually safer than a method where all hands with 3 cards accept the transfer, since the latter types might grow up to make game whereas we have nowhere to go other than 2♥ opposite the misfit. Note that this is the same reason why accepting on a weak NT is better than accepting on 3 cards - these hands are just very likely to want to play here opposite the weak one-suiter and this also makes for a method good at differentiating between hand types.

If you have a weak hand and a long suit, and partner shows 12-14 balanced, do you actually want to stop in 1♥? The chance that 1♥ is the last makeable contract by either side is almost zero. I'd want to bid 2♥ just to make the opponents' lives more difficult.