[pclayton]

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass
?

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

Which is better?

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 16 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass
?

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

Which is better?

This is what Justin and I played after 1♣ 2+, 1♦ 4+♥s, don't know if it's compatible with you since we played openers 1♥ bid shows exactly 3 hearts and any strength less than game forcing.

1♠ = Asking bid for further description from opener, many hands. Opener's rebids essentially natural (1NT = min bal, 2♣ = 3-6 min, 2♦ = 1345ish min, 2♥ 4315ish min, higher is what they sound like)
1NT = 4-4 in the majors, less than invitational, non forcing.

Playing that it would be totally automatic for opener to rebid 1♥ on all these hands, next bidding 2♥ if responder followed with 1♠, or the appropriate level of spades if responder followed with 1NT.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on May 16 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass
?

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

Which is better?

in my T-Walsh approach, 1♥ shows 2 or 3 hearts, and a minimum, balanced or semi-balanced, 1♠ (instead) woulds show 9+ black cards.

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ would be natural and non-invitational, catering to opener having accepted the heart transfer with 2-3 hearts, and a balanced hand with 4 spades.

1♣ 1♦ 1N shows 18-19 balanced, denies 4 hearts

So with the various posited hands, all with long clubs, I'd bid 1♠ rather than transfer, just as I would bid 1♠ rather than ever raise a natural 1♥.

[Echognome]

mikeh, on May 16 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 16 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass
?

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

Which is better?

in my T-Walsh approach, 1♥ shows 2 or 3 hearts, and a minimum, balanced or semi-balanced, 1♠ (instead) woulds show 9+ black cards.

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ would be natural and non-invitational, catering to opener having accepted the heart transfer with 2-3 hearts, and a balanced hand with 4 spades.

1♣ 1♦ 1N shows 18-19 balanced, denies 4 hearts

So with the various posited hands, all with long clubs, I'd bid 1♠ rather than transfer, just as I would bid 1♠ rather than ever raise a natural 1♥.

This is very close to what we play as well. Although I think the balanced or semi-balanced requirement depends on the hand. Well at least it does for us.

How are you bidding: AKx Axx x Jxxxxx or AKx K Kxxx Jxxxx after 1♣ - 1♦; ?

Question as a follow up for mike and justin. So is the idea then that with a 4306 we show clubs, then spades, then clubs, and only ever show hearts if partner shows 5 or shows a GF? I can live with that.

[benlessard]

I like to play that

1C---1H
1S---1Nt

2H = minimum 4315,4306
2S = minimum 5??6,5??7
2Nt = non-forcing

2D to show a non minimum H raise or 56 with blacks or GF hands with no clear rebids. This is of course a particular agreement.

Response over 2D are Pass or correct style.

[jtfanclub]

Huh.

My logic (bad as it) is, a 4306 is worth 3 more points than a 4315 in support of hearts. Actually, I think it's worth 4 most of the time, because it's a lot easier (on the average) to get a 6 card suit to run.

The hand with xxxx in spades and AQx in hearts would be an exception, since it has the usual problem where if your only entries are your trump and your long suit you'll never be able to cash the long suit. But as long as I have a spade control and my clubs are headed by at least the QJ, I don't think I'm lying if I bid 1♠ and rebid 2♥.

[mikeh]

Echognome, on May 16 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 16 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 16 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

This thread came out of a discussion Matt and I had about a T-Walsh sequence starting with:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ (showing hearts) - pass
?

holding various minimums with 4315 and 4306.

While you can 'economically' show your minimum with 1♥ (in our style 1♥ simply shows a minimum, denies 4♥, and denies other hands), 1♠ shows nine cards.

Which is better?

in my T-Walsh approach, 1♥ shows 2 or 3 hearts, and a minimum, balanced or semi-balanced, 1♠ (instead) woulds show 9+ black cards.

1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ would be natural and non-invitational, catering to opener having accepted the heart transfer with 2-3 hearts, and a balanced hand with 4 spades.

1♣ 1♦ 1N shows 18-19 balanced, denies 4 hearts

So with the various posited hands, all with long clubs, I'd bid 1♠ rather than transfer, just as I would bid 1♠ rather than ever raise a natural 1♥.

This is very close to what we play as well. Although I think the balanced or semi-balanced requirement depends on the hand. Well at least it does for us.

How are you bidding: AKx Axx x Jxxxxx or AKx K Kxxx Jxxxx after 1♣ - 1♦; ?

Question as a follow up for mike and justin. So is the idea then that with a 4306 we show clubs, then spades, then clubs, and only ever show hearts if partner shows 5 or shows a GF? I can live with that.

We're still working out the nuances: I suspect that we will systemically agree to bid 1♥ with 3=3=1=6 and bad clubs, and to rebid 2♣ with the 3=1=4=5... in our previous non t-walsh approach, we did rebid bad club suits in awkward auctions.... knowing full well that this can be very bad on occasion, but it meshed with the rest of the (complex) methods. We might decide to open 1♦ instead.

I agree with Justin about the last question.