BBO Discussion Forums: Walsh and weak nt - BBO Discussion Forums

When I learned Walsh I was playing 15-17 NT so 1C !D 1NT (bypassing a 4cM) was no problem.

I'm not playing Walsh at the moment but would like to add it to my 12-14 system.
Opener would have 15-17 for a 1NT rebid, otherwise they would bid a major after 1C 1D - is there any problem with this?

I play Walsh with 12-14 1N.

Your threshold at which responder bypasses diamonds in response to 1C should be tied to a 1N rebid - in other words if you're playing game-forcing Walsh then responder should bid 1D instead of a major with 10+ points an if you're playing invitational Walsh it should be with good 8+.

You now have to be more careful about the possibility that opener rebids 1M with an unbalanced hand and you have a misfit, so some sequences that were game forcing should no longer be so.

Note we routinely open 1N with (42)(52) hands in range.

jillybean, on 2023-February-25, 11:22, said:

No

And while you could play as akwoo suggests, I don’t.

To be fair, I usually play transfers over 1C and that significantly changes just about everything, but I’ve played a lot of weak notrumps without transfers (I’ve been playing a Walsh style for 40 years, far longer than I’ve been playing transfer responses) and never had a problem with it

Another question on what to do is "what balanced hands bid a major after 1♣-1♦?"

We play in the (very homogeneous strong NT) ACBL, and our answer is "none." The room has opened 1NT with this hand, and there's little reason to show two suits and ambiguous strength, when we could pass the "15-17 Balanced" message that everyone else already knows about instead. And the implication that 1x-1y-1M "tends to be unbalanced" is very useful, especially in the wonderful cases where the shortness isn't in responder's suit.

Obviously, there are downsides to this strategy. Lots of people here say "ignore the room, you're playing a better system because it's better", or "ignore the room, just play well with a system you know well and you'll beat them", and Mike of course designs his systems around "one opposing pair, who's also top level" rather than "the field". Or for you, you're in NZ and the NT range is split basically 60-40. Or for me back in the University days where basically half the room played the same K/S infused system I was playing (more than half at the university, less than half in the open club). I am not saying my answer is right, nor am I saying other ways of playing are inferior or not playable.

But the answer to that question, for us, also answers many of the other questions.
- we clearly bypass 1♦ to bid a major, even 4M-5♦, any time we're uncomfortable in 2NT. I like akwoo's description - "if I don't have an invite over a strong NT, then always. If I do have an invite over a strong NT, then which invite do I want to make?" Like him, I assume when partner opens 1♣ she has 15-19 balanced. Sure it could be a two-suiter, it could be an overstrength preempt, or even a good club one-suiter. But more often than not, it's 15-19 balanced, and I should decide based on that.
- we play XYZ/NT. Therefore, we can drop partner in a major, invite, or game force, all at the two level. And even if neither of us mentioned our 4cM, we can find it with an XYZ auction - again, provided we have the strength to be comfortable in at least 2NT if it all goes pear-shaped. And it doesn't matter if there's no "new minor", so we don't have to work around that.
- many auctions will go 1NT-2♣; 2M, found our fit or 2M, didn't find our fit, in the room. Our auction will go 1♣-1M; 2M found our fit, or 1NT, didn't find our fit, with a weak hand. With a stronger hand, XYZ will get us a similar auction. Sometimes it will be more revealing; sometimes less. Sometimes we end up in 1NT where the field either sits rather than try Stayman, or ends up in a Moysian at the 2 level.

Now realize that when the more common 12-14 balanced comes up, the arguments reverse; and we don't have Stayman; so swings and roundabouts. But that's the question we needed to answer to work out our system/tendencies, and that's how we answered it. Others will have different answers, and therefore different systems/tendencies.

akwoo, on 2023-February-25, 11:47, said:

So 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ could be a shapely 12 count?

This should not be too much of a problem since we are opening 1nt on any shape now (4045) but I take note thanks.

mycroft, on 2023-February-25, 13:07, said:

Agree, none, & I like how xyz fits in. More to think about & discuss.

mikeh, on 2023-February-25, 12:08, said:

How do you play it?

I'm waiting to find a partner to play transfers over 1C

jillybean, on 2023-February-25, 13:43, said:

Yes - 1C-1D-1H frequently is a shapely 12 count, or xxx Axxx x AKxxx (surely that's better than most 12 counts!)

Yes, I would open that 1NT

In a weak nt system with 5 card majors imho you have to play Walsh. Even 1m-1h-1sp should show an unbalanced hand.

The reason is that with 15-17 you need to show your values somehow so that you can reach game opposite a nonfitting 9-10 count. If you don't rebid 1nt you can't always do so without getting too high opposite a 6-count.

I agree with Akwoo's style.

mycroft, on 2023-February-25, 13:07, said:

My feelings exactly . But even if you are playing a worse system, or worse in general, or something else, the room really shouldn't factor into your bidding decisions.

My two cents on this topic:

• Regardless of NT range I think it is really good to tell partner whether or not your hand is balanced as early as possible. I will happily bypass any amount of majors to make a NT rebid when appropriate, and prefer systems that are designed around this. This gives a degree of protection when opening with shapely hands - on, say, the auction 1♣-1♥; 1♠ (not balanced, so 5(+)♣4(+)♠ or exactly 4=1=4=4), responder is warned that heart shortness opposite is likely and can safely give preference to clubs with 5♥3♣, for example (and opener would have raised or will make a delayed raise of hearts with 3-card support anyway).
  
• I've never really seen the appeal of akwoo's suggestion of lowering the threshold for bidding diamonds before a major to invitational hands. Usually the diamonds simply don't matter. The idea is to bid majors because majors are more important, not bid majors because diamonds cause rebid issues.
  
• Personally I also rarely open semibalanced hands in range with 1NT. This is going against the modern trend - people love opening 1NT with anything that seems remotely appropriate. I'm not sure why there's such a difference - maybe it's my small legion of gadgets over 1m openings. It's certainly very playable either way, though opening 1NT with the 3=4=1=5 example hand is far too extreme in my opinion.
  
• I think playing XYZ in such a system is actually not great. XYNT is solid, but on 1♣-1X; 1M auctions you often want to be able to give (false) preference to clubs. That just leaves the auction 1♦-1♥; 1♠, where I play 2♣ 4SGF rather than XYZ.
  
• Lastly a slightly out-there suggestion: when I last played a weak notrump we played balanced club, unbalanced diamond (but not full Dutch Doubleton at the time) we made the agreement that 1♣-1♦ could be bid on a 3-card suit. This way the 1M-responses kept showing 4, the inverted minor raise showed 5 and we didn't have to hog the hand in 1NT with 3=3=3=4-hands. Personally I thought of this as a kind of compromise between full Dutch Doubleton and standard Walsh - we still wanted to rightside NT facing a strong notrump, but didn't want to make the 1♦ response 100% artificial. 'Can be a 3-card suit' was a very functional compromise. If anything I think including, say, (32)=3=5 or even 3=3=2=5 hands might make sense, where 1NT will likely play better than 3♣ opposite a strong notrump and we have ample gadgets to get back to clubs later. Kind of a Non-T-Walsh.
  
• Ok, one more since helene mentioned it already: I also like having 1m-1♥; 1♠ deny a balanced hand (as above). That does mean that if
  • opener has a strong notrump with 4 spades and 2 or 3 hearts, and
    
  • responder has 4 hearts and 4 spades and insufficient values to invite
  you will be playing in 1NT rather than the often superior 2♠. This is why Dutch Doubleton adds the [4=4 majors less than GF] hands to the 1♦ response. I still think just accepting this cost is the least of evils if you don't want to play something completely artificial.

jillybean, on 2023-February-26, 00:56, said:

Edit; I would open 1NT with 3415 but my partners would not, I need to reconsider my 1NT openings.

If I open 1♣ with 3415, 12 count and partner responds 1♦, I bid 1♥ and partner can invite with 10-11 or force game with 12+
If 1♣:1♠ 2♠ I pass, partner is limited.

I have been opening more off shape 12-14 hands, but opening 1♣ is preferable to find the safer, part score major ?

1♣-1♠ is not limited. It is common practice, arguably standard, to give a 3-card raise with 3=4=1=5 shape on that auction. If your partner prefers to not play 3-card raises you can rebid 2♣ instead. I would rebid 2♣ with 1=4=3=5 or 2=4=2=5.

DavidKok, on 2023-February-26, 13:02, said:

]
Yes, we are comfortable with 3 card raises. I was confused with 1♣:1♦ invitational +

jillybean, on 2023-February-26, 13:17, said:

1C 1D promises values (for me gf, for weaker Walsh advocates, invitational +) ONLY if responder later shows a four card major. Otherwise 1D is entirely standard….5+, unlimited on the upper end. Similarly, 1C 1S says nothing special other than ‘I have 4+ spades and enough to respond, unlimited on the upper end’.

With 5 spades and 5 diamonds and say gf values, you bid 1S. With 4 spades and longer diamonds, you bid 1S unless strong enough to bid 1D and later show spades.

Btw, I’m hoping and assuming that your post about opening 1N with 5440 was in jest😀. Not only is it a terrible, terrible idea, but it’s not legal😀

Heh, the more I play "bypass majors to rebid 1NT", the more I want to do it playing a strong NT too. Your reasons why are 100% my reasons why, and yeah, I don't care what "the room" is doing.

I do make an exception for "show the hand everyone else showed with 1NT last round"; because 1NT openings, no matter what their strength, are possibly the most +EV bids in anyone's system when they make them. I want to recover as much of that +EV as I can, having dodged the 1-level interference.

The reason for playing "bypass diamonds without invitational values" over "bypass diamonds without a GF" is the "one bid vs two bid hands" thing. If I'm going to take two bids, I might as well show as much of my hand in those two bids. If it's only a "one-bid" hand, then obviously the major is more important thing to show. Again, with XYZ (and frankly, it's usually NT, because because) we get almost all the invitations back, so why not? Yes, I can see the benefits when we do have a GF and we can take two bids to show it rather than three. How often does that come up as opposed to the "so, you know I'm a red hand. Does that help you make the accept the invitation decision?" vs "Xish points, 4 hearts"?

Of course you can go down the "two-way NMF" route and only apply it to NT rebids. In my experience (which I grant is overwhelmingly in a sound minor, weak NT context), especially at MPs, I have yet to feel like I wanted to get out in 2♣, never mind feel I'm going to be able to. So it's nice to get my weak vs invite vs GF, plus I get to trade your "want to preference to clubs", the 1♣-1♥; 1♠ auction, where I am able to play our fit (which is 5-3 diamonds). Not a hill I'm prepared to die on, just my preference.

I don't think NT openings are the highest expected value bids around. Most pairs lack decent slam investigation tools, get choice of game decisions wrong (in fact, most pairs don't even have a method for determining that "yes, we have a 4-4 major fit, but prefer 3NT anyway" or "this hand should be played in the Moysian") and almost nobody has decent tools for bidding minor-suited hands over partner's NT. I got a good chuckle out of my system evaluation after I first started playing 2/1 - the auctions where we opened 1M were so easy and sound, but if we opened 1NT we gave up all our great tools for hand evaluation, showing stoppers or weakness or extras and started blasting with the nearest 8-card fit we could find. It is funny how much worse a system can get if you lose one step on the opening bid.

XYNT is "XYZ but only if opener's rebid was 1NT". The only difference between the two are your gadgets on the auctions 1) 1♣-1♦; 1♥, 2) 1♣-1♦; 1♠, 3) 1♣-1♥; 1♠ and 4) 1♦-1♥; 1♠. Also the goal isn't so much to play in 2♣, but to give opener another cheap bid while the auction is still at a low level. This way, for example, opener can safely bid 1♠ with a 4=3=1=5 15-count on 1♣-1♥, intending to raise hearts next round. If you are playing XYZ that hand might have a problem on hearing 2♣ - do you risk getting dropped in 2♦, or do you break the relay? On the four auctions where it matters:

• 1♣-1♦; 1♥: I think everybody plays their own set of rules here, and almost all work well since the auction is still so low. In Dutch Doubleton responders rebids have clearly defined meanings. In a less complicated Walsh system I am a big fan of 1♠ fourth suit artificial and (game, to keep it simple) forcing, neither promising nor denying spades. This eliminates the need for XYZ.
  
• 1♣-1♦; 1♠: XYZ wins over 4SGF here on GF auctions - 2♦ is a step lower than 2♥. You do need good agreements about the 2♣ relay though - on this particular auction opener often has very little support for diamonds (also: who has got the hearts? Not responder, with a weakish hand playing Walsh. Not the opponents, failing to bid them. Opener is very likely 4=3=1=5 on the auction). How often, if ever, is opener allowed to break the puppet? This is a more general issue with XYZ - non-NT rebids fail to limit opener's hand well, and because opener is unbalanced shortage opposite our long diamonds is very likely. Maybe one should, on this auction, give up on playing 2♦ as well as 2♣ to retain XYZ (by making 1♣-1♦; 1♠-2♣*; 2♦* forcing, so that opener doesn't have to fear getting dropped in their singleton or void with a prime 18-count).
  Also important to add: playing 4SGF does not lose that much on GF and invitational sequences. Rather, you lose some of the ability to show two-suited slam hands (where you would normally jump to 2NT or the 3-level here), and little else. Playing Walsh responder does not have a weak or invitational 4-card raise of opener's spades.
  
• 1♣-1♥; 1♠: Both XYZ and 4SGF use 2♦ as an artificial game force. The question is whether 2♣ as (false) preference is superior to using it as a transfer for invitational sequences. I think XYZ is slightly better here, especially when looking for the 6-2 hearts fit with an invitational hand.
  
• 1♦-1♥; 1♠: On this auction I expect 4SGF to outperform XYZ. Playing XYZ I expect opener to frequently be put to a difficult guess with (possibly distributional) extras on 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♣*. 4SGF is also a valuable step lower on the GF auctions, allowing opener to show extra length in diamonds cheaply.

I also play weak jump shifts, which take some pressure off of 1m-1M; 1X-2M auctions. Perhaps XY[NT or 1♣-1♥; 1♠] is theoretically best, I really do think non-XYZ methods have the advantage on the other auctions above. Incidentally, Dutch Doubleton also has some implications on that remaining auction (by removing the non-GF 4=4M hands from the 1♥ response), so even there I think there's room for discussion either way.

As a brief conclusion: I think bypassing majors to show balanced hands is also good in a strong notrump system, although it takes more work to get maximum value out of it. I also strongly prefer bypassing spades on 1m-1♥; 2NT with 17-19 balanced (or a similar range, or some artificial gadget to show the same hand type), and ideally I'd even conceal 4-card support for partner's major on this particular auction if the system permits. Separating the unbalanced from the balanced hands is really important for partner's hand evaluation.

All I will say is that if you're not looking at 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♣; 2♦-p as an XYZ auction, especially playing "bypass diamonds", you're missing something close to equal to "clubs preference"; and in the 1♦ start, it's even more likely.

Yes, I absolutely allow opener to break the puppet if "hey partner, if you were going to drop us in 2♦, I have a better idea".

mikeh, on 2023-February-26, 13:49, said:

Thanks, that clears up some confusion.

My comment about opening 1NT with 5440 was somewhat in jest and a twin of the hand I posted in the laws forum. I had a pair open 1NT with that holding against me.
Short version of the story, Director called, no ruling. I would not open 1NT with a void, however if I was bored I may try it for fun. It may be illegal, (although that's not clear) but there are no repercussions for doing so.

The real dilemma I am having with my 1NT openings is that I comfortable opening on more shapely hands (3415) than my partners are, and what is being recommended here.

jillybean, on 2023-February-26, 23:02, said:

Unless specifically either 3=1 or 1=3 majors, with a stiff high honour, and the other well stopped, I don’t think 1N makes a huge amount of sense. Otherwise, I’d want to stay away from it, especially with 54 minors, and thus an easy 2C rebid in most cases.

It’s not as if these 5431 hands with a four card or longer major are difficult to bid, after opening one of the five card suit. Meanwhile, the whole foundational assumption underlying most constructive methods in response to 1N is that opener has at least two card support for all suits. It’s why we love AQJxxx suits opposite 1N. At worst we have a decent play for 6 tricks….whereas we have to be lucky to get five opposite a small stiff. Hand evaluation, for game and slam, becomes truly difficult.

jillybean, on 2023-February-26, 23:02, said:

You do remember what we all read and said a month ago, right?

pescetom, on 2023-January-25, 07:19, said:

With the exception below:

NZB 2022 Page D , between page D60 and D62 said:

It looks clear to me that you cannot agree to open 1NT with a void in 8B tournaments, if those are what you play.
And if you encounter a better Director I imagine there will be repercussions, even severe if she realises you knowingly ignored the rules.