[alibodin]

Playing 5 card majors strong NT. I play TWalsh and Unbalanced diamond. I open 1♣ is 2+ clubs or balanced 12-14 or 18/19. 1♦ promises 4+ (unbalanced) and only 4 with 1444 4144 and 4441.

I am playing with a new partner 5 card majors, strong NT and 1♦ promises 4 (not unbalanced) and 1♣ is 2+ (not TWalsh) fairly natural. I wonder if with a balanced hand with 4 diamonds to open 1♣ or 1♦?

To my mind opening 1♦ has shown 4 cards (better placed when things get competitive) in my hand whereas if I open 1♣ I have only shown 2.

Neil Rosen in his book on 5 card majors advocates opening 1♦ on 4+ but not the weak NT 12-14 with 4+ diamonds which opens 1♣.

What do people think, with balanced hand with 4 diamonds not playing TWalsh open 1♦ or 1♣?

[DavidKok]

You're putting the cart before the horse. If you say that 1♦ is 4+ and not necessarily unbalanced, by implication it can be balanced. If you mean this to only refer to 5♦332 hands I think you should clarify it - the natural reading is that balanced hands with 4♦ and the right strength range may open 1♦.

Whether or not this is the best system style is another question entirely. I also don't think it's that intimately tied to whether or not to play T-Walsh, though T-Walsh is one way to get more value out of the constructive auctions after a balanced 1♣.

From your description, I think your choice is made already. If you want to play something else this will, tautologically, change the meaning of your opening bids. You should make sure your partner and you play the same style, and maybe have common reasons for wanting to play that style.

[pescetom]

I read it that you are asking "how do people who do not play either of the combination TW+UD choose the minor?": maybe wrong and you were looking for something more abstruse.

But to answer that, in most of the world these days I think things are as to your mind: diamonds are 4+, clubs are 2 only in 4=4=3=2. Half a cake is better than none.
But some still play a "better minor" approach: which as I understand in the US is usually similar to the above except that 4=4=3=2 opens 1♦, whereas in France one was also allowed judgement in suit quality between two 3 card minors.

[mike777]

alibodin, on 2025-October-19, 14:09, said:

Playing 5 card majors strong NT. I play TWalsh and Unbalanced diamond. I open 1♣ is 2+ clubs or balanced 12-14 or 18/19. 1♦ promises 4+ (unbalanced) and only 4 with 1444 4144 and 4441.

I am playing with a new partner 5 card majors, strong NT and 1♦ promises 4 (not unbalanced) and 1♣ is 2+ (not TWalsh) fairly natural. I wonder if with a balanced hand with 4 diamonds to open 1♣ or 1♦?

To my mind opening 1♦ has shown 4 cards (better placed when things get competitive) in my hand whereas if I open 1♣ I have only shown 2.

Neil Rosen in his book on 5 card majors advocates opening 1♦ on 4+ but not the weak NT 12-14 with 4+ diamonds which opens 1♣.

What do people think, with balanced hand with 4 diamonds not playing TWalsh open 1♦ or 1♣?

FWIW I just started playing
one club=2+ btw this includes opening one club with 5 diamonds balanced if you care.
one diamond=usually 5+ only exception is exactly 4=4=4=1

No problems yet...smile.

I would love to add transfers over one club and 1 diamond openings but don't know how to do that....
If anyone would care to post, thanks.....

https://usbf.org/doc...rtelWBF2023.pdf

This is one version I would love to have someone decode, ty

[DavidKok]

Your recent thread on unbalanced diamond contains several ways to continue after that opening. There are a lot of ways to play T-Walsh, which makes it difficult to share 'the' way to play them. Going in full detail would also be beyond the scope of this thread. Briefly, there are two main approaches:

• Accepting the transfer shows exactly 3-card support. This helps clarify degree of fit.
  
• Accepting the transfer shows a WNT (or some specific problem hands) without 4-card support. This helps clarify hand type.

I prefer the second one.
As an example, on 1♣-1♦*; ? opener's rebids could be something like:

• 1♥: 12-14 balanced, at most 3♥.
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠5(+)♣ or 4=1=4=4.
  
• 1NT: 18-19 balanced, at most 3♥.
  
• 2♣: 11-16 unbalanced, 5(+)♣
  
• 2♦: Your choice, for example, clubs-diamonds reverse.
  
• 2♥: 12-14 balanced 4♥ or 11-14 unbalanced 3-4♥.
  
• 2♠: Your choice, for example, similar to 1♠ but stronger.
  
• 2NT: Your choice, for example, 15-17, 6(+)♣, at most 2♥.
  
• 3♣: Your choice, for example, 15-17, 6(+)♣, 3♥.
  
• 3♦: Your choice, for example, strong 4(+)-card heart raises.

Already there's a few system choices that partnerships will likely change or shuffle around, but the key part of the system handles most of the hands and is most important. It is common to couple T-Walsh with XYZ, so that all the 1♣-1X; 1Y auctions have well-defined followups. This is not my personal preference, but it's a nice starting point.
The auctions 1♣-1♠ and 1♣-1NT tend to be bespoke, and I think people are very attached to their personal preferences there.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-October-19, 14:47, said:

FWIW I just started playing
one club=2+ btw this includes opening one club with 5 diamonds balanced if you care.
one diamond=usually 5+ only exception is exactly 4=4=4=1

No problems yet...smile.

I would love to add transfers over one club and 1 diamond openings but don't know how to do that....
If anyone would care to post, thanks.....

https://usbf.org/doc...rtelWBF2023.pdf

This is one version I would love to have someone decode, ty

I actually played transfer advances to 1D but it was extremely complex and imo did not provide any net advantage. I no longer recall the details, but I do recall that I felt that there was no net advantage . I no longer recall the details but I do recall thinking that the method could create an advantage on one rare hand type and cost on at least one common hand type. Add the significant memory load and I refused to play after maybe 5 sessions of online practice.

Maybe someone has invented a playable method, but I think there are a lot of obstacles to doing so. Basically you flip 1H and 1S responses, but it’s easy to see how this can prove detrimental if opener has, say, short hearts and 4 spades and it starts 1D 1S, showing hearts.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-October-19, 15:11, said:

Your recent thread on unbalanced diamond contains several ways to continue after that opening. There are a lot of ways to play T-Walsh, which makes it difficult to share 'the' way to play them. Going in full detail would also be beyond the scope of this thread. Briefly, there are two main approaches:

• Accepting the transfer shows exactly 3-card support. This helps clarify degree of fit.
  
• Accepting the transfer shows a WNT (or some specific problem hands) without 4-card support. This helps clarify hand type.

I prefer the second one.
As an example, on 1♣-1♦*; ? opener's rebids could be something like:

• 1♥: 12-14 balanced, at most 3♥.
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠5(+)♣ or 4=1=4=4.
  
• 1NT: 18-19 balanced, at most 3♥.
  
• 2♣: 11-16 unbalanced, 5(+)♣
  
• 2♦: Your choice, for example, clubs-diamonds reverse.
  
• 2♥: 12-14 balanced 4♥ or 11-14 unbalanced 3-4♥.
  
• 2♠: Your choice, for example, similar to 1♠ but stronger.
  
• 2NT: Your choice, for example, 15-17, 6(+)♣, at most 2♥.
  
• 3♣: Your choice, for example, 15-17, 6(+)♣, 3♥.
  
• 3♦: Your choice, for example, strong 4(+)-card heart raises.

Already there's a few system choices that partnerships will likely change or shuffle around, but the key part of the system handles most of the hands and is most important. It is common to couple T-Walsh with XYZ, so that all the 1♣-1X; 1Y auctions have well-defined followups. This is not my personal preference, but it's a nice starting point.
The auctions 1♣-1♠ and 1♣-1NT tend to be bespoke, and I think people are very attached to their personal preferences there.

I play 1C 1N as gf relay and am very happy with it, subject to having to reread the notes before every game, lol. In fairness, we don’t play very often at this time of year

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2025-October-19, 15:24, said:

I play 1C 1N as gf relay and am very happy with it, subject to having to reread the notes before every game, lol. In fairness, we don’t play very often at this time of year

Do you remember the details? If 1C-1NT= gf?

[DavidKok]

I played 1♣-1NT as GFR in Dutch Doubleton for a while - the bid is otherwise idle, either literally or practically. I was a moderate fan - I think it was nice, but it took some practice to figure out which hands are better off asking and which hands are better off showing.

The followup structure was:

• 2♣: Minimum balanced. 2♦ initiated full shape relay.
  
• 2♦: Unbal ♣+♥, max 3♠. Transfer accept asked for range, further relay asked for shape.
  
• 2♥: Unbal ♣+♠, max 3♥. Transfer accept asked for range, further relay asked for shape.
  
• 2♠: Unbal, no major. Transfer accept asked for range, further relay asked for shape.
  
• 2NT: 17-19 balanced. 3♣ asked for majors.
  
• 3♣: Unbal 6♣5♦. Transfer accept asked for range.
  
• 3♦: 6♣5♥. Transfer accept asked for range.
  
• 3♥: 6♣5♠. Transfer accept asked for range.
  
• 3♠: 15+, exactly 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4.
  
• 3NT: 11-14, exactly 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4.

It's not a complete shape relay, but it sided everything well, allocated the most space to the most frequent bids, resolved below 3NT and had range clarification on all auctions. Most importantly, it didn't fall for the trap of making everything a full shape-showing relay. Using 1NT as the GFR has the twin advantages of being lower than most shape asking, and already rightsiding 3NT if that's where we end up. However, I think there is room to impove on this scheme if you think it worth the effort.