[jillybean]

Some recents forums posts have piqued my interest in transfer advances over 1♣ openings.

Can anyone point me to a good online resource or offer a basic outline to get me started?

Thanks.

[fromageGB]

if by advances you mean 4th seat bids to 2nd seat overcalls, then I am not aware of much discussion in the forums. When opposition opens 1♣ (whether playing twalsh or just a "may be short" my partnerships overcall with X to mean that we too would have opened 1♣. (Perhaps a touch lighter as it is an overcall.) When opposition responder bids, as they normally do, whether twalsh reply or natural, advancer (us in 4th seat) treats this like an overcall of OUR 1♣ open, using our well defined agreements for this. Essentially this is "twalsh system on" and show both exact length in majors, and hand strength. Twalsh adapts very well for this.

If you mean transfer responses, then there have been many threads, and many of us have been playing it for years. Search in the forums for twalsh and transfer walsh (eg site:www.bridgebase.com transfer walsh ) Beware there are many permutations, and you do need a partner to agree your handling with. I would steer clear of playing it with pickups! Well worth the effort.

[LBengtsson]

who plays in ♦ contract these days? either major or 3Nt. I like walsh/t-walsh as 4 card M fits can be found quickly, while hiding ♦ better suit by not bidding 1♦ like canape. if partner open 1♣ then usually but not always ♣ suit will be longer then ♦. many good players play 1♦ opening as 5+. hiding responder ♦ suit by using walsh/t-walsh gives opps headache especially when responding hand becomes declarer.

[DavidKok]

I think the pdf on transfer walsh in 2/1 by Michael Goetze is a good place to start, mostly because it also discusses subsequent rounds of bidding and provides some motivation for the choices. I have mentioned elsewhere that there are many many different versions of T-Walsh, so unsurprisingly this linked document is not my preferred treatment. But it is a very solid place to begin the search.

[nullve]

About the simplest T-Walsh imaginable:

1♣-1♦: same as 1♣-1♥ in Walsh
1♣-1♥: same as 1♣-1♠ in Walsh
1♣-1♠: same as 1♣-1♦ in Walsh

1♣-1♦; ?:

1♥= 3 H, F1 opposite a positive hand
...P = subpositive hand (e.g. xxx-Qxxx-Jxxxx-x)
...1♠/N = NAT NF
...2♣+ = XYZ
1♠+: same 1♠+ over 1♣-1♥ in Walsh but denying exactly (exactly) 3 H

1♣-1♥; ?:

1♠ = 3 S, F1 opposite a positive hand
...P = subpositive hand (e.g. Kxxxx-xxx-xxx-xx)
...1N = NAT, NF
...2♣+ = XYZ
1N+: same as 1N+ over 1♣-1♠ in Walsh but denying (exactly) 3 S

1♣-1♠; ?:

1N/2♦/2N+: same as 1N/2♦/2N+ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh
2♣: same as 2♣ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh but may have a 4c major, maybe even 4414 (a problem shape)
2♥/2♠: same as 2♥/2♠ over 1♣-1N in standard (i.e. a normal reverse, not a jump reverse like 2♥/2♠ over 1♣-1♦ in Walsh)

[mikeh]

There are two main schools of thought, divided by what accepting the transfer into 1M shows.

For many, it promise 3 card support. With a minimum and 4, just bid 2M, as you would have done had partner made a natural 1M response.

For others, including in my two expert partnerships, accepting the transfer shows 2 or 3 card support, usually a balanced or semi-balanced minimum.

The main implications of this have to do with the 1N rebid. The first school will treat it as minimum, balanced (one sub-school permits a stiff in the major, if no other bid appeals, while the other has 1N always delivering a doubleton)

The main reason we prefer the acceptance to be 2-3 cards is that it allows 1N to be a big hand. If you play 15-17 notrump, then the rebid is 18-19. We play 14-16, so the rebid is 17-19. The fact that we play 14-16 is a good reason for this style, since having to jump to 2N with a 17 count can lead to some bad contracts...we stretch to respond to 1C.

Another dividing line amongst transfer players is how many clubs one promises with 1C.

With one partner, it is 2+, and we will not open 1C with 4-2 minors. We will with 3=3=4=3 minimums. In the other partnership, we are more aggressive, because we want to increase the frequency of the transfer auctions, plus we play 1D is usually 5 cards.

Ok, say you play our style. There are 1level responses to consider. We shall take them in order.

1C 1D

Shows 4+ hearts.

1C 1D 1H shows 2-3, balanced or semi-balanced, minimum opener.

Play 2C forces 2D, for all invitational hands. 2D is artificial, forcing to game. Note, meanings for various jumps by responder are a matter for discussion. We have specific agreements but they’re too long to post here.

1C 1D 1S promise 4+ spades and longer clubs. It does not deny 2-3 hearts, but shows an unbalanced hand. Don’t play xyz here....responder, with a weak hand, may need to bail out in 2C, so play 4SF here with good hands.

1C 1D 1N: 17-19 (or 18-19) balanced fewer than 4 hearts.

In one partnership I play xyz here. In the other I play transfers....2C through 2S are all transfers, but 2C doesn’t promise diamonds....it may be invitational. 1C 1D 1N 2D is a transfer, either to play or game force. This allows for setting trump low for slam exploration. Note...we are very much an imp-oriented partnership

1C 1D 1H 1S. This can be played in various ways. We use it to show 4 spades, non-forcing. We may have up to invitational values.



1C 1H 1S...as above

1C 1H 1N...as above

1C 1S:

This is a little tricky. It denies a major unless responder has longer diamonds and game force values, but it does not promise diamonds. For example, with say xxx Qxx KJx Jxxx, we can’t raise clubs, since partner may have 2 and often has only 3. We open virtually all flat 11 counts, because of our 14-16 notrump range, so our 1N response to 1C shows 9-11. Thus 1S is either diamonds or 5-8 balanced. If 1N is 8-10, then 1S, if balanced, is 5-7.

Opener will usually bid 1N, and can do it with a stiff diamond if the hand is otherwise suitable. Or opener can bid 2C or reverse, etc.

Any pair wanting to try this out should ideally spend a bit of time at something like the bbo partnership bidding tables, programming various hands, the constraints depending on which approach or approaches you like.

You’re going to come up with some difficult situations. Here’s one we encountered recently

I don’t remember the cards, but I was 3=4=1=5 with a solid opening hand, about 16 hcp....just on the borderline of a reverse, but my honour distribution was not good.

1C 1H

I had to bid 1S even though that is usually balanced or semi-balanced minimum

Partner bid 2C, puppet to 2D. He will often have 4 spades, longer diamonds, and plans to pass 2D.

We now have an agreement that with a minimum hand I bid 2S and with extras, more than he’s expecting, I bid 2H, specially showing this shape and approximate values.

One last point: not needing the jump to 2N as balanced, you can use it for something else. We use it to show a strong hand with long clubs and precisely 3 card support...the Bridge World nightmare hand, which is unbiddable in standard methods

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2021-March-21, 17:56, said:

One last point: not needing the jump to 2N as balanced, you can use it for something else. We use it to show a strong hand with long clubs and precisely 3 card support...the Bridge World nightmare hand, which is unbiddable in standard methods

Something for you to consider: you might want to play 1♣-1M-2N as showing a strong hand with long clubs and NO 3 card support, reserving 1♣-1M-3♣ for the Bridge World nightmare hand. The rationale is that responder is slightly more likely to want to play in 2N when you have no support for their major. (I play it that way over 1D-1M in Precision.)

[nullve]

It is possible to combine T-Walsh (aka transfer responses to (a natural or short) 1♣) with a completely standard (5533) opening structure. (See e.g. this convention card belonging to young Norwegian internationals Grude-Bakke.)

But some like to open 1♣ with 18-19 BAL a little more often than in standard. In the Norwegian BOA system, for example, 1♣ is also opened with 2443 and 4243. And I mentioned in another thread that Brogeland-Lindqvist, perhaps inspired by the (locally very influential) BOA system, open 1♣ also with 4342 in their otherwise natural 5542 system.

But opening 1♣ on more strong balanced hands, especially hands with only two clubs, puts extra pressure on Responder who no longer has an easy pass on subpositive hands without an actual club suit.

Of the two dominant T-Walsh styles that mikeh described, the one where

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 18-19 BAL (or 17-19 BAL in an opening structure with 14-16 NT), 2-3 M,

is undoubtedly the one better suited to handle responses on subpositive hands, because the bidding can now go e.g.

1♣-1♦*
1N**-P

* 4+ H
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 H

instead of

1♣-1♦*
2N**-P

* 4+ H
** 18-19 BAL, 2 H

with, say, 18 hcp and 4234 opposite 3 hcp and 3442; and either

1♣-1♥*
1N**-2♠***
P

* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 S
*** to play

or

1♣-1♥*
1N**-2♥***
2♠-P

* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2-3 S
*** transfer to spades

instead of (say)

1♣-1♥*
2N**-P

* 4+ S
** 18-19 BAL, 2 S

with 19 hcp and 2335 opposite 2 hcp and 5341.

[mikestar13]

The main advantage of opening 1♣ on any balanced hand out of you 1NT range is that it enables you to use an unbalanced 1♦ opening, which can have a much better response and rebid structure than a standard 1♦.

Don't be afraid of passing 1♣ with a weak hand and no major even with a club void--you almost never play it there. If you do and partner is minimum, they just missed a game and you can afford to go down quite a bit (down seven not vulnerable is a good save and even at unfavorable down three shows a profit). If opener is strong balanced or has long clubs, he may scramble seven tricks anyway, or at least make enough to be a good result vs. their partial.
The one sequence you have to worry about is 1♣ - (P) - P - (X) ; P - (P) and in that case you can run to diamonds or make an SOS redouble.

If in spite of that they nail you and you go down too much that's one bad result to offset many good ones. In fact the main source of loss isn't from being doubled, it's going down a couple undoubled when 1NT or 1♦ would have made or gone down less -- bad at match points, not as bad at imps.
Overall, T-Walsh has a fairly strong positive expected value.

[nullve]

Even in the version of T-Walsh where

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 18-19 BAL, 2-3 M

it's common to play

1♣-1♠; 2N = 18-19 BAL,

although 2N may already be too high opposite a subpositive hand such as xxx-Kxx-xxxx-xxx.

In these influential notes Fallenius-Welland describe an interesting alternative: to switch Opener's 2♦ and 2N rebids so that (in a system with 15-17 NT)

1♣-1♠; 2♦ = 18-19 BAL

and

1♣-1♠; 2N = a diamond reverse.

Then it's possible to get out in 2♦ after 1♣-1♠; 2♦-P, e.g. with 18-19 BAL opposite 3 hcp and 3352.

Another and IMO vastly better alternative (one that ought to be part of a future Standard T-Walsh!) is helene_t's suggestion in this post where the range of the 1N response plays a crucial role.

Using her trick (I'll call it 'Helene's Trick' until she objects ), the 1♠ response exludes hands on which Responder would at least want to invite 3N opposite 18-19 BAL (or 18-20 BAL in helene_t's post) but definitely stop in 1N opposite 12-14 BAL. Those hands are instead what the 1N response is for.

Using Helene's Trick it's of course possible to include balanced 20 counts in 1♣ and play

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 18-20 BAL, 2-3 M
1♣-1♠; 1N = (12-14 or 18-20) BAL.

Or one can open 1 hcp lighter on balanced hands than in standard 2/1 and play

1♣-[1M-1]; 1N = 17-19 BAL, 2-3 M
1♣-1♠; 1N = (11-13 or 17-19) BAL
1N = 14-16 BAL.

EDIT: I just came across this post from 2010 where zenko describes something very similar to Helene's Trick.

[nullve]

https://blog.bridgeb...-walsh-by-gwnn/