[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2014-February-27, 03:05, said:

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.

And where do you want to be opposite Opener's minimum 3145? If you are accepting the transfer with 0-2 hearts then it would be difficult to stop in 1♥ with the weak balanced hands of 3+ hearts, so we are only talking about those weak NTs with 2 hearts here.

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2014-February-27, 03:05, said:

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.

I think if you have 7-9 HCP and 5 hearts, and the opponents have not bid yet despite at least three opportunities, then the chances of 1♥ being the last makable contract has gone up significantly. It still may not be high, but it is well above zero.

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2014-February-26, 03:27, said:

No it is just so badly written. If it wasn't because I know everything that is in the article already, I wouldn't understand one word. OK maybe one. But not much more than that.

Which word was that?

The article is extremely useless and does little except note that the concept exists. To be fair, I think it is not an easy subject for an article, as there are so many flavours and styles you can adopt. If I updated this article with a section to accommodate my methods, you would need a section for each partnership that uses twalsh. As my notes cover 7 pages, I don't think the idea of revision is a starter.

[fromageGB]

hrothgar, on 2014-February-26, 08:27, said:

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

I see no connection between the Walsh style and transfer walsh. It should really have a different name. Walsh to me implies that a good hand with diamonds and a major will show diamonds first. I don't know any twalsh player who does this.

[fromageGB]

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).

Quote

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.

I don't agree that showing exactly 3 is best. I am a strong adherent of the "completion shows a 12-14 without 4 card support" camp, so it will be 2 or 3. It will not be fewer than 2 if you play that a 1♦ open is long or has a shortage outside diamonds; now the 1♣ open guarantees you have at least a doubleton in both majors.

12-14 is not guaranteed, as for me a 1♣ open may have a shortage in diamonds, so it could be 15/16 in that case.

Playing a completion as non-forcing is better in my view. When responder is a minimum hand with a 5 card suit, I am happy to be able to pass. OK, going further is an option when 4th seat protects, but it is useful to have distinctions between various responder rebids/recalls(!).

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-27, 05:57, said:

And where do you want to be opposite Opener's minimum 3145?

Don't open 1♣!

[fromageGB]

My agreements say that 1♣ 1♦ 3♦ is 15/16 4 card support with diamond shortage, while 4♦ is 17-19. The OP hand is 4♦ for me.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-27, 11:31, said:

Don't open 1♣!

Don't we want to open 1♣ more often playing TWalsh rather than less?

[fromageGB]

Well, I do, but not with a shortage other than diamonds. For example, 3352 or 4252 are 1♣ open for me, and that may not be standard with others.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2014-February-27, 03:05, said:

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.

This demonstrates the problem of talking about bits of system in isolation.
If I have a weak hand with a long suit (hearts), I responded 2♥ WJS in response to 1♣ so that isn't a possible hand. If I have a stronger hand, I can raise the 1♥ completion to 2♥ which I play as constructive. This isn't the only possible scheme, of course.

But my empirical evidence suggests that with a weak hand with a 5-card suit opposite a weak NT, you get to play at the 1-level surprisingly often and you often gain imps compared to the 1NT or 2M contract selected in the other room. You don't have to be that weak to pass - in the NEC we bid 1C - 1H - 1S - P and responder had a 5422 9-count. This was our last making spot opposite opener's 2443 11-count and they could make nothing. (2H was off, in spite of it being a bigger fit.)

[FrancesHinden]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-27, 11:15, said:

I see no connection between the Walsh style and transfer walsh. It should really have a different name. Walsh to me implies that a good hand with diamonds and a major will show diamonds first. I don't know any twalsh player who does this.

eh? With a game forcing hand with 5 diamonds and a 4-card major I show diamonds in response to partner's 1C opening. This strikes me as completely normal (I've certainly seen other t-walsh players doing this).

[glen]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-27, 11:15, said:

I see no connection between the Walsh style and transfer walsh. It should really have a different name. Walsh to me implies that a good hand with diamonds and a major will show diamonds first. I don't know any twalsh player who does this.

It was called Walsh because of the Walsh convention/style, in response to a one club opening, to bypass diamond suits in favour of major suits, unless holding game forcing values

[fromageGB]

Thanks, both. I thought it was normal to show the major first in twalsh, but then, that's the beauty of a method that has no standard definitions!

[glen]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-28, 11:46, said:

Thanks, both. I thought it was normal to show the major first in twalsh, but then, that's the beauty of a method that has no standard definitions!

certainly a lot of twalsh partnerships follow MAFIA (majors first always) but in the BRUWIL bridge book that first described T-Walsh in detail (the non-swedish version), the sequence 1♣-1♠ showed diamonds, and could have a four card major if 11+ and longer ♦s

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2014-February-28, 11:46, said:

Thanks, both. I thought it was normal to show the major first in twalsh, but then, that's the beauty of a method that has no standard definitions!

The standard definition is to show the major first with less than GF strength and bid naturally with a GF. The term is sometimes abused in other countries to mean showing the major first only with a weak (< invite strength) hand but I have never heard of it being ascribed to never showing diamonds first, which might perhaps be MAF (though I have no real knowledge of MAF in this context).