[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2021-November-15, 10:56, said:

The notion that an acceptance of the transfer at the one level shows 2-4 hearts strikes me as close to unplayable.

So e.g.

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

looks close to unplayable, too?

 mikeh, on 2021-November-15, 10:56, said:

Responder now needs an artificial way to ask whether opener has real support, largely wasting the bidding room that is being ‘saved’ by having to jump to 2H with 4 card support (as, literally, every version of T-Walsh I’ve ever seen requires)

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

E.g.

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♣*
2♥**

* marionette to 2♦
** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♦*
2♥-2♠/2N/3♣/3♦
3♥

* GF relay

As for wasting bidding room, the point for me, at least, is to avoid invitational sequences ending in 3♥ after

1♣-1♦
2♥-invite.

[DavidKok]

 nullve, on 2021-November-21, 06:42, said:

So e.g.

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

looks close to unplayable, too?

You're really stretching the limits of 'good faith reading' here. You can take any relatively common form of T-Walsh, add, remove or swap one particular hand type, and get another playable form of T-Walsh. In your case you've added 3=4=3=3 11-counts. That hand type by itself is rare enough to not have an impact on how playable the system is, and I'm confident you are aware of that.

 nullve, on 2021-November-21, 06:42, said:

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

E.g.

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♣*
2♥**

* marionette to 2♦
** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

Normal XYZ uses 2♣* as a relay to 2♦*, so you give up the option to play there. But arguably that's fine, although giving up a feature of Walsh bidding in T-Walsh seems questionable.
Assuming you break the relay on a number of hands, what does opener rebid over 2♣* with 3-card support, both with a minimum and a maximum? How do you distinguish, say, 4=2=(43) where you may well have a 4-4 spade fit, from 3=3=(43) where you may have a 5-3 heart fit, from 4=3=(any) where either may be best, without bypassing 2NT opposite a minimum without a guaranteed fit?

[nullve]

 DavidKok, on 2021-November-21, 07:04, said:

You're really stretching the limits of 'good faith reading' here. You can take any relatively common form of T-Walsh, add, remove or swap one particular hand type, and get another playable form of T-Walsh. In your case you've added 3=4=3=3 11-counts. That hand type by itself is rare enough to not have an impact on how playable the system is, and I'm confident you are aware of that.

3433 11 counts were just an extreme example. The basic idea in my case is to remove some balanced hands from

1♣-1♦; 2♥

so that the range becomes more manageable.

 DavidKok, on 2021-November-21, 07:04, said:

Normal XYZ uses 2♣* as a relay to 2♦*, so you give up the option to play there. But arguably that's fine, although giving up a feature of Walsh bidding in T-Walsh seems questionable.

If your transfer accept denies 4c support and 2♣ over 1♣-1♦; 1♥ is a puppet (= relay, the way you're using the term?) to 2♦, then how can I possibly give up something by playing 2♣ only as a marionettte to 2♦ but forcing Opener to bid 2♦ unless he has 4c support?

[mikeh]

 nullve, on 2021-November-21, 06:42, said:

So e.g.

1♣-1♦; 2♥ = as in your system but excluding some the worst balanced hands (such as 3433 11 counts)

1♣-1♦; 1♥ = as in your system OR the (balanced minimum) hands just excluded from 2♥

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥ = the hands excluded from 2♥

looks close to unplayable, too?

Quote

I have no idea what the 1C -1D; 1H/1S; 2H line is supposed to mean. If you are trying to say that opener can accept the initial transfer with a bad hand and 4H, then bid 2H over a nf 1S, that makes a little…a very little…sort of sense. However: firstly, responder rarely bids 1S, so the opportunity will rarely arise and, secondly, that gets you to 2H anyway: the thing you were trying to avoid.

Yes, opener is now limited but bear in mind that our 1N is 14-16, so our range on balanced hands is 11-13. It’s going to be rare that we have a terrible hand and partner will try for game, hoping we have 13, and the three level is too high. Rare is not never, but we have far more important things to do than to change our methods to cater to such rare hands

Of course, as I said, responder rarely bids 1S anyway, so now you’re catering to a rare holding in a rare sequence

Quote

An artificial ask apart from the 2♣ and 2♦ relays you're already playing as part of XYZ? After those it might be easy for Opener to show 4c support naturally.

E.g.

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♣*
2♥**

* marionette to 2♦
** 4c raise, too weak for 1♣-1♦; 2♥

1♣-1♦
1♥-2♦*
2♥-2♠/2N/3♣/3♦
3♥l

* GF relay

As for wasting bidding room, the point for me, at least, is to avoid invitational sequences ending in 3♥ after

1♣-1♦
2♥-invite.

Quote

Now you’re piling on more artificiality to deal with extremely rare hands and wasting some bidding space as well. If responder has a game force opposite the 1H acceptance, which might be on as few as 2 hearts and an 11 count, he certainly has a gf opposite an 11 count with 4 hearts, so having opener bid 2H over 1D doesn’t hurt game chances and may enhance them….funnily enough responder usually likes learning of 4 card support.

Plus now you’re having to waste an entire round of bidding just to show 4 card support, which in our methods we did on opener’s second bid.

If you try to argue that your method may keep us out of a bad slam, responder being warned that opener has a very weak hand, then I suspect that you don’t know much about slam bidding. There is a huge amount of room between 2H and 4H and good players know how to use it. Bad players don’t.

Finally, we pretty much play only imps. This was largely true pre-COVID but has become 100% these days. Indeed, our first live bridge in over two years will be in Salsomaggiore in March.

So we design our approach with a view to bidding games and slams. Yes, playing 2H making rather than 3H failing is important but we play ‘invite heavy, accept light’ as our style. Thus if responder invites over 2H, he’ll have good values. We don’t stretch to invite…we stretch to accept.

The difference between invite heavy, accept light and it’s alternative of invite light, accept heavy, is subtle. I’d say that both styles bid the same way on 90% of hands.

Both reach or miss the same number of games…just on slightly different hands. Both fail or succeed in their games at the same rate. The key is that our style (which we did not invent of course) avoids the occasional 3H going down on a bad lie of the cards

What this means in practice is that responder will pass 2H if he has a borderline invite, thus largely negating your concerns (and argument)

[nullve]

mikeh said:

I have no idea what the 1C -1D; 1H/1S; 2H line is supposed to mean. If you are trying to say that opener can accept the initial transfer with a bad hand and 4H, then bid 2H over a nf 1S, that makes a little…a very little…sort of sense. However: firstly, responder rarely bids 1S, so the opportunity will rarely arise and, secondly, that gets you to 2H anyway: the thing you were trying to avoid.

Yes, opener is now limited but bear in mind that our 1N is 14-16, so our range on balanced hands is 11-13. It’s going to be rare that we have a terrible hand and partner will try for game, hoping we have 13, and the three level is too high. Rare is not never, but we have far more important things to do than to change our methods to cater to such rare hands

Of course, as I said, responder rarely bids 1S anyway, so now you’re catering to a rare holding in a rare sequence

Sorry, I meant to write

1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠/1N; 2♥,

not

1♣-1♦; 1♥/1♠; 2♥.

[nullve]

mikeh said:

Now you’re piling on more artificiality to deal with extremely rare hands and wasting some bidding space as well. If responder has a game force opposite the 1H acceptance, which might be on as few as 2 hearts and an 11 count, he certainly has a gf opposite an 11 count with 4 hearts, so having opener bid 2H over 1D doesn’t hurt game chances and may enhance them….funnily enough responder usually likes learning of 4 card support.

Plus now you’re having to waste an entire round of bidding just to show 4 card support, which in our methods we did on opener’s second bid.

If you try to argue that your method may keep us out of a bad slam, responder being warned that opener has a very weak hand, then I suspect that you don’t know much about slam bidding. There is a huge amount of room between 2H and 4H and good players know how to use it. Bad players don’t.

Finally, we pretty much play only imps. This was largely true pre-COVID but has become 100% these days. Indeed, our first live bridge in over two years will be in Salsomaggiore in March.

So we design our approach with a view to bidding games and slams. Yes, playing 2H making rather than 3H failing is important but we play ‘invite heavy, accept light’ as our style. Thus if responder invites over 2H, he’ll have good values. We don’t stretch to invite…we stretch to accept.

The difference between invite heavy, accept light and it’s alternative of invite light, accept heavy, is subtle. I’d say that both styles bid the same way on 90% of hands.

Both reach or miss the same number of games…just on slightly different hands. Both fail or succeed in their games at the same rate. The key is that our style (which we did not invent of course) avoids the occasional 3H going down on a bad lie of the cards

What this means in practice is that responder will pass 2H if he has a borderline invite, thus largely negating your concerns (and argument)

I'm not adding artificiality anywhere.

In what sense am I wasting bidding space?

2♥ does not just show 4c support. It also shows a range. Your range is wider than mine, so I expect you to go down in 3♥ more often than I do.

No, I'm not trying to argue that accepting the transfer with 4c support keeps me out of bad slams.

I accept that invite heavy, accept light works better than invite light, accept heavy.

[Douglas43]

 pescetom, on 2021-November-17, 07:21, said:

Yes I agree that the forum folders should either abandon or better define the natural/non-natural distinction.
I like your list, except for '1NT shows a balanced hand' which is hardly 21st century
Maybe '1NT shows a hand prepared to play in NT and includes most or all balanced hands within the specified range'.

Not sure what you mean by "No distinction is made on the basis of any other call except the the opening bid" but Acol meets 1 to 6.

[mw64ahw]

Having played around a bit more with possible hand types. I think that in the mooted tweaked variation:

1♣-1♦-1♠ can contain
--4♠6♣ Int
--4♠3♥x5+♣ Int
--4♠6♣ Min <2♥

1♣-1R-1NT can be semi-balanced Int with the other Major if you open all 22(54) Int with 1NT. Continuations after 1♣-1R-1NT are straightforward, but non-standard..

There are also some interesting possible plays after
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT as responder can show potential game going hands w. 4♥ & 6♠/6♦/6♣ w. 2 honours. There is also the possibility of showing 5♥6♠

Str hands with ♦ can also go through 1♣-1R-2♦ so you have
--Int hands w. 4M or Str hands w. 4♦ (may have oM)
while
1♣-1R-2♠ shows Str w. oM & ♣

while finally 3♦ can show the Str 4414 thus freeing up a bid if you show these types of hands via a Multi

[mikeh]

 mw64ahw, on 2021-November-21, 16:36, said:

Having played around a bit more with possible hand types. I think that in the mooted tweaked variation:

1♣-1♦-1♠ can contain
--4♠6♣ Int
--4♠3♥x5+♣ Int
--4♠6♣ Min <2♥

1♣-1R-1NT can be semi-balanced Int with the other Major if you open all 22(54) Int with 1NT. Continuations after 1♣-1R-1NT are straightforward, but non-standard..

There are also some interesting possible plays after
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT as responder can show potential game going hands w. 4♥ & 6♠/6♦/6♣ w. 2 honours. There is also the possibility of showing 5♥6♠

Str hands with ♦ can also go through 1♣-1R-2♦ so you have
--Int hands w. 4M or Str hands w. 4♦ (may have oM)
while
1♣-1R-2♠ shows Str w. oM & ♣

while finally 3♦ can show the Str 4414 thus freeing up a bid if you show these types of hands via a Multi

One of the biggest advantages of TW is the ability to have 1C 1R 1N show 17-19 or, if playing 15-17 notrump (I play 14-16). This is a big winner, whether avoiding a doomed 2N or having all kinds of room for constructive bidding.

Your suggestion is yet another example of being so focused on making your pet idea work (1C 1D 1S) that you screw up other sequences.

It’s pretty clear to me that you’re trying to invent a system without trying it out against competition…preferably good competition.

With my current more serious partner (as in we’re off to the WC in March) we are constantly tweaking the system, sometimes in significant ways. But we do this based on actual play as well as a lot of back and forth discussion.

Plus the idea of opening 1N with xx xx AKJxx AKxx leaves me shuddering. One xx is ok…two is not.

Your other points seemed solutions in search of a problem. Strong 4441 hands can be difficult, but using (if I read your post correctly) 1C 1R 3D as a strong 4=4=1=4 strikes me as silly. How do you show a strong 3=4=1=5 after 1C 1D or a strong 4=3=1=5 after 1C 1H?

We use 3D as an invitational or better splinter. That’s more frequent and just as useful when it arises as using it only for strong 4=4=1=4, a hand type that arises very, very rarely.

I suggest, seriously, finding a good partner and PLAY…preferably against the best opps you can find. Then, if you can find someone willing to try your weird methods, I suspect (if you’re objective) that you’d become pretty disillusioned. The point is that you seem focused on hands that your bids show…ignoring the huge number of hands that you can no longer bid sensibly.

When you play, you will encounter all hand types, not just the ones for which your pet methods ‘work’.

[mw64ahw]

The search for a new variation is based on the observation that we were missing games with intermediate semi-balanced hands and 3NT contracts when a good long minor with a sub 25 hcp count would make opposite hands with certain support. The later is an attempt similar to a minor suit transfer after opening 1NT followed by a super-accept, but in reverse.

1♣-1♦-1♠ is more a corollary rather than a pet idea, i.e. its what's left after everything else is covered; as pointed out by others just having 4♠6♣ in the bid is wrong so in goes the omitted 4315 Int hand. Putting 4225s Int in there as well is possible giving the option to play in 2♣, but looses a 2♥ contract when responder is weak with 5. It also means the Major part-score could be could be missed when responder has 5♠4♥ Weak as 1♣-1♥-1NT to show the Int semi-balanced hand becomes ambiguous as to the 1st&2nd suits, assuming 22(45) then comes out of 1NT.

We currently play a more standard version of TW, but giving up 1♣-1R-1N to show the strong hand doesn't seem like too big a loss;after all you don't have that option with a Major suit opening. There is an edge playing a 14-16NT, but that has implications for the Major openings which I don't want to touch at the moment.

Using 3!D to show the splinter is what we what we currently use, but the playing strength can just as easily be shown with the raise to 3 or via 1♣-1R-2[D] without divulging the shape.

Opening 1NT with 22(54) and 2 weak doubletons doesn't feel good to me either, but you can end up in the same place with TW, but loose the pre-emptive effect when opponents compete in a Major. If opponents X then the run out finds the fit if partner is weak. If partner is GI then we have a response that shows 22/(23) in the Majors, but that's another story. Still not sure on this one.

So the overall trade off becomes making game when others aren't there versus the odd ♣ part-score miss

Still some simulations to run to quantify the theoretical benefits/losses over our current approach and then trying out in real-life

[helene_t]

On the system:
I think that a number of posters are too fast in dismissing this structure. It is an unfamilar structure and also has some obvious disadvantages, but it also has its advantages, and calling it "unplayable" strikes me as a wild overbid.

Since 1♣ denies (41)35 as well as hands with 4+ diamonds, it is possible to put some strong hands in an artificial 2♦ rebid. So while defining the 1♠ rebid as a minimum with 4-6 blacks is underloaded it is hardly unplayable, especially if (4315) accepts the transfer.

Compared to the English standard where the transfer accept denies 4-card support, I think this structure is better because the superaccept shows an unbalanced and because the 1♣ opening itself is less overloaded thanks to the 3+ 1♦ opening.

I also find the comment about the structure AFTER 1♦ being vulnerable to interference weird - surely, when the auction reaches
1♣-1♦
?
both opps have had at least one chance to interfere so at this stage you aren't afraid of them anymore?

On the auction
- 1NT is weird, with such a poor heart suit. Did responder forget the system, or was he desperately gambling for a matchpoint top?
- 3♣ is maybe understandable if you open rule-of-19 hands so that opener has quite a bit extras, but with such a poor club suit, 3♣ is not safe. Partner knows you have six of them, so the 1NT bid suggests 2551 or 2461. If 1♠ denies 3-card heart support it may be reasonably safe to bid 2♥ now, but even in that scenario I think it is best to pass. Partner knows your hand pretty accurately, and he could have invited if he wanted.
- 3NT is entirely reasonable, if partner's 3♣ bid can be trusted we probably have seven club tricks so partner just needs to provide one ace (or ♦K). They probably don't lead a heart on this auction.

[mw64ahw]

 helene_t, on 2021-November-22, 06:25, said:

On the system:
Since 1♣ denies (41)35 as well as hands with 4+ diamonds, it is possible to put some strong hands in an artificial 2♦ rebid. So while defining the 1♠ rebid as a minimum with 4-6 blacks is underloaded it is hardly unplayable, especially if (4315) accepts the transfer.

Thanks for jogging my memory.
My 1♦ opening is 3+ because playing in a Moysian fit is Ok because of the ruffing ability.
So opener accepting the transfer and rebidding 2♥/2♦ shows 4315 which fits in with the overall philosophy playing in the Moysian ♥ fit and at the same time doesn't miss the 44♠ fit.
Consequently 1♥-1♦-1♠ can show the 46 in the blacks.

 helene_t, on 2021-November-22, 06:25, said:

On the auction
- 1NT is weird, with such a poor heart suit. Did responder forget the system, or was he desperately gambling for a matchpoint top?
- 3♣ is maybe understandable if you open rule-of-19 hands so that opener has quite a bit extras, but with such a poor club suit, 3♣ is not safe. Partner knows you have six of them, so the 1NT bid suggests 2551 or 2461. If 1♠ denies 3-card heart support it may be reasonably safe to bid 2♥ now, but even in that scenario I think it is best to pass. Partner knows your hand pretty accurately, and he could have invited if he wanted.
- 3NT is entirely reasonable, if partner's 3♣ bid can be trusted we probably have seven club tricks so partner just needs to provide one ace (or ♦K). They probably don't lead a heart on this auction.

The simulator hadn't forgotten the system it simply hadn't learnt enough/been parameterised well enough by me so the bidding is off.
1NT is standard, nothing fancy, but should have been 2♣ given the hcp count isn't quite there to super-accept.

[pescetom]

 Douglas43, on 2021-November-21, 13:28, said:

Not sure what you mean by "No distinction is made on the basis of any other call except the the opening bid" but Acol meets 1 to 6.

Mikestar said that, not me, but I'm pretty sure he just meant that his six criteria for the opening bid are sufficient to distinguish a natural system for the purposes of discussion.
Not only Acol, but most natural based systems - LungoCorto, SEF, SAYC, 2/1 to name just some - meet his criteria if you take away the red herring of 'balanced' 1NT.

[mikeh]

 helene_t, on 2021-November-22, 06:25, said:

On the system:
I think that a number of posters are too fast in dismissing this structure. It is an unfamilar structure and also has some obvious disadvantages, but it also has its advantages, and calling it "unplayable" strikes me as a wild overbid.

Since 1♣ denies (41)35 as well as hands with 4+ diamonds, it is possible to put some strong hands in an artificial 2♦ rebid. So while defining the 1♠ rebid as a minimum with 4-6 blacks is underloaded it is hardly unplayable, especially if (4315) accepts the transfer.

Compared to the English standard where the transfer accept denies 4-card support, I think this structure is better because the superaccept shows an unbalanced and because the 1♣ opening itself is less overloaded thanks to the 3+ 1♦ opening.

I also find the comment about the structure AFTER 1♦ being vulnerable to interference weird - surely, when the auction reaches
1♣-1♦
?
both opps have had at least one chance to interfere so at this stage you aren't afraid of them anymore?

On the auction
- 1NT is weird, with such a poor heart suit. Did responder forget the system, or was he desperately gambling for a matchpoint top?
- 3♣ is maybe understandable if you open rule-of-19 hands so that opener has quite a bit extras, but with such a poor club suit, 3♣ is not safe. Partner knows you have six of them, so the 1NT bid suggests 2551 or 2461. If 1♠ denies 3-card heart support it may be reasonably safe to bid 2♥ now, but even in that scenario I think it is best to pass. Partner knows your hand pretty accurately, and he could have invited if he wanted.
- 3NT is entirely reasonable, if partner's 3♣ bid can be trusted we probably have seven club tricks so partner just needs to provide one ace (or ♦K). They probably don't lead a heart on this auction.

Helene: putting 4135/1435 hands into 1D leads to weird bidding.

1D 1H….4135 presumably one bids 1S.

Exactly when are you going to describe 4135?

How are you distinguishing 4135 from 4=1=4=4.

How is responder to bid over 1S with something like 2=5=3=3 no club card?

Qx KJxxx Qxx xxx?

Playing a fairly common approach, 1S would show an unbalanced hand…opener rebids 1N over 1H with a balanced hand, occasionally playing 1N with a 4=4 spade fit (but never missing a spade fits hen responder has invitational or better values).

So for them, 1S will often be 5 diamonds and responder uses xyz to get to 2D

Indeed, many TW players routinely open 1C with 4=3 minors. Thus many TW players play that 1D is 5+ or some 4441 with 4 diamonds.

This allows responder a safe resting place with a weak hand…it avoids the problem of being stuck bidding 2N as responder after 1D 1H 1S with no club values if responder has 3 diamonds


Plus most TW players use 1C 1D 1S as showing 4=2=2=5 or 4=1=3=5 so as to allow responder to bid 2C with a weak hand and 3 clubs.

Similar issues arise after 1D 1S when opener has 1=4=3=5. I’m sure you can figure them out.

So the proposed 1D on 4135/1435 will in and of itself lead to numerous poor contracts when responder has many types of weak hands

And for what gain? The ability to show 4=6 blacks?

4=6 blacks arise FAR less often than do 4=5 blacks, so the method screws up more hands than the ones where, it’s claimed, there’s an advantage

That’s within my definition of unplayable. A method that makes bidding common hands difficult all because it allegedly makes bidding less common hands easier.

The irony is that 4=6 black hands are not in fact hard to bid.

The OP says that he has found that he and his partner miss some games because responder doesn’t know opener has 6 clubs.

I have two points to make.

1. Learn better bidding judgement. Don’t screw up basic elements of your method in an effort to cater to your poor bidding judgement….if in fact you’re missing decent games often

2. Recognize that bidding methods reflect a series of compromises and that any system that reaches every decent game is bound to reach a lot of poor games. Ensuring that one reaches games when being 4=6 is far better than being 4=5 will lead to a lot of poor partials, or missing good contracts in clubs (because opener may never be able to show that he was 3=5 minors after 1D) or diamonds (because responder was never able to work out how many diamonds opener has)


And of course we haven’t yet looked at the effect of interference either over 1D or over responder’s response!

Good luck.

Btw, calling a method unplayable doesn’t mean it can’t ever work. Heck, when I started a well known local player (who was said to have won a national title in Estonia in 1937) opened 1N with 19-20, played strong twos and even stronger 3 bids…if he opened 3S, he held about 9 winners.

He was a fine card player (although I recall players saying he was in decline, due to his age) so he did ok at local club games. But the method was unplayable compared to more standard methods, if only because he couldn’t preempt to make life difficult for the opps.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2021-November-23, 11:14, said:

How are you distinguishing 4135 from 4=1=4=4.

How is responder to bid over 1S with something like 2=5=3=3 no club card?

Qx KJxxx Qxx xxx?

Playing a fairly common approach, 1S would show an unbalanced hand…opener rebids 1N over 1H with a balanced hand, occasionally playing 1N with a 4=4 spade fit (but never missing a spade fits hen responder has invitational or better values).

So for them, 1S will often be 5 diamonds and responder uses xyz to get to 2D

Indeed, many TW players routinely open 1C with 4=3 minors. Thus many TW players play that 1D is 5+ or some 4441 with 4 diamonds.

This allows responder a safe resting place with a weak hand…it avoids the problem of being stuck bidding 2N as responder after 1D 1H 1S with no club values if responder has 3 diamonds

If you're one of the TW players who open 1♦ with 4144, how are you distinguishing that shape from 4153 (not 4135 this time)?

Opener:

a) AKxx-x-KJxxx-Jxx
b) AKxx-x-KJxx-Jxxx?

Responder:

It seems like you would bid

Qx-KJxxx-Qxx-xxx

1♦-1♥
1♠-2♣
2♦-P

in both cases.

 mikeh, on 2021-November-23, 11:14, said:

Plus most TW players use 1C 1D 1S as showing 4=2=2=5 or 4=1=3=5 so as to allow responder to bid 2C with a weak hand and 3 clubs.

But are they able to stop in 2M on hands where other TW players using XYZ over 1♣-1♦; 1♠ would bid

1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
2♦-2♥/♠
P

?

 mikeh, on 2021-November-23, 11:14, said:

Similar issues arise after 1D 1S when opener has 1=4=3=5. I’m sure you can figure them out.

So the proposed 1D on 4135/1435 will in and of itself lead to numerous poor contracts when responder has many types of weak hands

Standard methods already lead to poor contracts when Opener has 1435.

[helene_t]

 mikeh, on 2021-November-23, 11:14, said:

putting 4135/1435 hands into 1D leads to weird bidding.

1D 1H….4135 presumably one bids 1S.

Exactly when are you going to describe 4135?

Probably never

But you'll have to make the best use of the inference that 1♦ denied a balanced hand. So 1nt and 2nt bids can't be strictly natural and are available to fill gabs in the system.

Maybe you could play something like
1♦-1♥
?
--1♠: 3145 11-14 OR 11-14 4♠6♦ OR 15-17 with four spades
--1NT: 4♠, 0-1♥, 3-5♦,3-5♣

[mw64ahw]

Thanks all for the help in refining my thinking

An initial idea has be built out further for a Transfer Walsh 1♣. A more complete write up is on 1!S as a GI over a minor suit opening (bridgewinners.com) which includes more detail on the 1♦ opening

I think it will meet my initial objects namely:

• reaching more game contracts when opener has an Intermediate hand
• reaching more game contracts when responder has a long minor

We just need to put the experimental TW into practice to see if it ups the percentages