[mw64ahw]

2/1 w. 15-17 NT-1♥ Transfer Walsh 4+♠

---

How do I bid/play this?

[DavidKok]

A matter of agreement, I suppose. I think it's most common to reserve 1NT only for the balanced 18-19 hands with at most 3 card support, and to bid 2NT or 3♠ (partnership agreement which) with the balanced 18-19 hands with 4-card support. Then again some people reserve 1NT for 12-14 balanced hands and 2NT for 18-19 (either any, or denying 4-card support). There's all kinds of flavours here. Personally I think 1NT 18-19 with at most 3-card support, 2NT unbalanced, fit, non-minimum and 3♠ balanced 18-19 with 4-card support is easy and sensible. So:
1♣*-1♥*;
3♠-4♣ (control);
4♦ (control)-4♥ (control or last train, both are appropriate);
4NT (RKC)-5♥ (2 without the queen);
5♠ (we should have been in 4)-P.

The title suggests you want to be in 6♣, but don't you need to find the queen of clubs as well as make a winning red suit finesse or two for that? There's only 10 tricks (assuming the clubs all cash) from top.

[LBengtsson]

mw64ahw, on 2021-August-12, 02:42, said:

2/1 w. 15-17 NT-1♥ Transfer Walsh 4+♠

---

How do I bid/play this?

difficult to end in 4♠ here as DavidKok has said. Kaplans & Rubens put North hand at 17.25 even with 19 high points.

as for play, I think small ♠ to south ♠9 will happen early in the play. with luck you should be able to survive 4-1 trump split if only in 4♠ contract I feel depending on your view on ♣ suit. even in a 5♠ contract I am also going to play small ♠ to south ♠9

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 04:02, said:

A matter of agreement, I suppose. I think it's most common to reserve 1NT only for the balanced 18-19 hands with at most 3 card support, and to bid 2NT or 3♠ (partnership agreement which) with the balanced 18-19 hands with 4-card support. Then again some people reserve 1NT for 12-14 balanced hands and 2NT for 18-19 (either any, or denying 4-card support). There's all kinds of flavours here. Personally I think 1NT 18-19 with at most 3-card support, 2NT unbalanced, fit, non-minimum and 3♠ balanced 18-19 with 4-card support is easy and sensible. So:
1♣*-1♥*;
3♠-4♣ (control);
4♦ (control)-4♥ (control or last train, both are appropriate);
4NT (RKC)-5♥ (2 without the queen);
5♠ (we should have been in 4)-P.

The title suggests you want to be in 6♣, but don't you need to find the queen of clubs as well as make a winning red suit finesse or two for that? There's only 10 tricks (assuming the clubs all cash) from top.

Yes with this hand I'm wondering how to change suits once the ♠ fit is found, but don't need to know about Q♣ if 5 keycards are present given the small slam probability will be over 50% (~65%)
As it stands South should know that we are in slam territory with 2KC and an MLT of 7, but we exit in 5♠ with 4KCs and no Q♠

My 1NT response shows (11)12-14 w. 2♠ so I have the option of bidding 2NT or 3♠ with the Strong hand.

[mcphee]

it is my belief that a leap to 4S when balanced has to show decent trump support. After all partner is often going to bid game after a raise to 3 with any reasonable excuse. I would not usually bid 2NT with this hand but it really looks like the best rebid and can always reach 4S if we choose to bid 4S over a 3N bid from partner.

[fromageGB]

I seem to end in 4♠ but then I am unadventurous. My non-mainstream bidding would be
1♣ - 1♥
2♠ (17+ with 4 card support and asks about partner's hand) - 3♦ (shows a heart shortage)
3♥ (how strong?) - 3♠ (9/10 hcp)
4♠ (The heart shortage downgrades my hand, and as my trumps are terrible I would want partner to have them all, which leaves precious little for help in the minors)

The valuation of South's 9/10 hcp is an assessment of course, but he has already shown a shortage and has nothing useful outside his two top tricks.
Over South's 3♠, opener could have discovered singleton or void, or cued or ace asked, but not here.

As to changing suits after support, we have an agreement that you can suggest a major after agreeing a minor, but not the other way round.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 04:02, said:

Personally I think 1NT 18-19 with at most 3-card support, 2NT unbalanced, fit, non-minimum and 3♠ balanced 18-19 with 4-card support is easy and sensible.

I really don't understand why people don't include 18-19 BAL with 4c support in the transfer accept. The bidding could then go something like

1♣(1)-1♥(2)
1♠(3)-1N(4)
4♠(5)-?

(1) "NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL"
(2) "4+ S"
(3) "3 S or 12-14 BAL without 4-5c support or 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support"
(4) "positive hand, 4S3-H, NF"
(5) 18-19 BAL, 4-5 S, not 4333

[Edit: The agricultural and here very self-preemptive jump to 4♠ seems completely unnecessary, at least from a design perspective, since many cheaper bids over 1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N don't have any obvious natural meaning.]

Opening most 18-19 BAL with 1♣ virtually forces partner to respond on any hand without club tolerance. But opposite a responder with

xxxx
Qxx
xxxx
xx

the auction could then go

1♣(1)-1♥(2)
1♠(3)-P(4)

(1) "NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL"
(2) "4+ S"
(3) "3 S or 12-14 BAL without 4-5c support or 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support"
(4) "subpositive hand"

[DavidKok]

Reserving 1♣*-1♥*; 2♠ for minimum (ostensibly 12-14) hands with support is crucial if you wish to distinguish between 4-card and 3-card support, one of the selling points of Transfer Walsh. This 2♠ 17+ sounds very awkward.

mw64ahw, on 2021-August-12, 05:04, said:

Yes with this hand I'm wondering how to change suits once the ♠ fit is found, but don't need to know about Q♣ if 5 keycards are present given the small slam probability will be over 50% (~65%)
As it stands South should know that we are in slam territory with 2KC and an MLT of 7, but we exit in 5♠ with 4KCs and no Q♠

Don't get me wrong, but where do these probabilities come from? I had a partner who loved to claim that "the chances were 70%" and jump headfirst into some disaster, when he simply had more descriptive bids available. The best bidding system gets to slam when it's on and stays out of it when it's not, and probabilities only (well, always) come in to it only when you cannot investigate in more detail. To claim that it is sensible to bid slam you not only need to have a solid expectation of making, but also have a very low expectation of making anything else and have no way to distinguish between those with further constructive calls.

I do play methods to suggest a new suit at the 6-level, but in my opinion these hands don't belong in slam at all, and with your methods I'd land in 5♠. I'm curious to hear what inference North or South should make, in your opinion.

[DavidKok]

nullve, on 2021-August-12, 05:28, said:

I really don't understand why people don't include 18-19 BAL with 4c support in the transfer accept. The bidding could then go something like

Simple, partner opens 1♣* (can be 2, may contain 4 diamonds, some parterships even allow up to 5) and you pick up ♠Kxxxx♥xxx♦xxxx♣x. You transfer to spades and pass the accept. This only works if accepting the transfer is limited. If the accept is forcing you need to find a rebid over 1♠ (can be only 2 spades and a balanced 12-point hand) or play 5-card weak jump shifts (losing another advantage of T-Walsh). Limiting the transfer accept and making it NF takes pressure off of the direct jump to 2-level, so you can play it as intermediate or reverse Flannery or something else.

I agree that 3♠ 18-19 balanced with 4-card support is a dog of a bid, and personally I recommend using 2♦ as an artificial non-reverse instead (and then using some higher bid for a club-diamonds reverse) to show this hand. But this is not standard and will wrongside 2♥ over 1♣*-1♦*. Oh well, can't have it all.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 05:40, said:

Simple, partner opens 1♣* (can be 2, may contain 4 diamonds, some parterships even allow up to 5) and you pick up ♠Kxxxx♥xxx♦xxxx♣x. You transfer to spades and pass the accept. This only works if accepting the transfer is limited. If the accept is forcing you need to find a rebid over 1♠ (can be only 2 spades and a balanced 12-point hand) or play 5-card weak jump shifts (losing another advantage of T-Walsh). Limiting the transfer accept and making it NF takes pressure off of the direct jump to 2-level, so you can play it as intermediate or reverse Flannery or something else.

You don't mean to say that by including 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support in the transfer accept, it will need to be forcing even opposite a subpositive hand (by which I mean a hand that would classically pass the opening), do you?

[DavidKok]

That's exactly what I meant, there are hands that make 4M opposite 18-19 with a good fit and where 1M is the limit of the hand opposite 12-14 with at most 3-card support, and by bunching them together you create a lose-lose situation if partner has such a hand.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 05:35, said:

Reserving 1♣*-1♥*; 2♠ for minimum (ostensibly 12-14) hands with support is crucial if you wish to distinguish between 4-card and 3-card support, one of the selling points of Transfer Walsh. This 2♠ 17+ sounds very awkward.

Don't get me wrong, but where do these probabilities come from? I had a partner who loved to claim that "the chances were 70%" and jump headfirst into some disaster, when he simply had more descriptive bids available. The best bidding system gets to slam when it's on and stays out of it when it's not, and probabilities only (well, always) come in to it only when you cannot investigate in more detail. To claim that it is sensible to bid slam you not only need to have a solid expectation of making, but also have a very low expectation of making anything else and have no way to distinguish between those with further constructive calls.

I do play methods to suggest a new suit at the 6-level, but in my opinion these hands don't belong in slam at all, and with your methods I'd land in 5♠. I'm curious to hear what inference North or South should make, in your opinion.

The probabilities come from one of the functions available in the DDS. I've not done the programming myself so I can't vouch for a good implementation, but they should be fine

Regarding slam potential I think MLT guidance suggests that they do and as South I have to try for the slam over 3♠ if that is my bid. HCP count is 26+ so you have to give it a go

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 04:02, said:

A matter of agreement, I suppose. I think it's most common to reserve 1NT only for the balanced 18-19 hands with at most 3 card support, and to bid 2NT or 3♠ (partnership agreement which) with the balanced 18-19 hands with 4-card support. Then again some people reserve 1NT for 12-14 balanced hands and 2NT for 18-19 (either any, or denying 4-card support). There's all kinds of flavours here. Personally I think 1NT 18-19 with at most 3-card support, 2NT unbalanced, fit, non-minimum and 3♠ balanced 18-19 with 4-card support is easy and sensible.

As this deal shows, there is a desperate need for a separate bid to show 18-19, 4-card support with no top honor, with an un-agree reply. There is no excuse for a bidding system that lands you in a suit contract on this deal. Any suit.

By the way, how can this responding hand even think of asking keycards?

Carl

[mw64ahw]

bluenikki, on 2021-August-12, 07:04, said:

As this deal shows, there is a desperate need for a separate bid to show 18-19, 4-card support with no top honor, with an un-agree reply. There is no excuse for a bidding system that lands you in a suit contract on this deal. Any suit.

By the way, how can this responding hand even think of asking keycards?

Carl

I think 2NT is a better bid, but I'm not sure where to go from there.

Over 3♠ I use ITL Q Bids which would establish the weak honours (3NT denies 2 ♠ honours). North then takes it straight to 4♠ so you don't get to keycard asking/showing.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 06:24, said:

That's exactly what I meant, there are hands that make 4M opposite 18-19 with a good fit and where 1M is the limit of the hand opposite 12-14 with at most 3-card support, and by bunching them together you create a lose-lose situation if partner has such a hand.

Well, you could in theory play the transfer accept as forcing opposite some, but not all, subpositive hands. I don't buy the (much-debated) idea that it's important to stop in 1M when 1M is the limit for us. (It won't be for opps.)

[pescetom]

Does Transfer Walsh belong in I/A yet? I'm not saying it does not, just wondering. It's restricted to a few expert pairs over here and our intermediate players would find it bewildering. Is it gaining ground at club level elsewhere?

[fromageGB]

pescetom, on 2021-August-12, 09:32, said:

Does Transfer Walsh belong in I/A yet? I'm not saying it does not, just wondering. It's restricted to a few expert pairs over here and our intermediate players would find it bewildering. Is it gaining ground at club level elsewhere?

Yes, I/A is fine, and that is my category. Gaining ground in UK, but not common at club level where I am.

[fromageGB]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 05:35, said:

Reserving 1♣*-1♥*; 2♠ for minimum (ostensibly 12-14) hands with support is crucial if you wish to distinguish between 4-card and 3-card support, one of the selling points of Transfer Walsh. This 2♠ 17+ sounds very awkward.

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 05:40, said:

Limiting the transfer accept and making it NF takes pressure off of the direct jump to 2-level, so you can play it as intermediate or reverse Flannery or something else.

I agree that 3♠ 18-19 balanced with 4-card support is a dog of a bid, and personally I recommend using 2♦ as an artificial non-reverse instead (and then using some higher bid for a club-diamonds reverse) to show this hand. But this is not standard and will wrongside 2♥ over 1♣*-1♦*. Oh well, can't have it all.

I do something similar, but rather than "always diamonds" for the second range of 4 card support, I use 2M-2, ie diamonds if 4 spades support, clubs if 4 hearts support. I use that bid for the limited hand, opener 12-14. Therefore 2♠ as 17+ in my case (maybe 18+ for you) for the strong version is not at all awkward, and it gets responder to show his hand. (By the way we play that responder 4 card 3/4 hcp will pass this.)

Similarly, over the limited 2M-2, responder can bid the next step to puppet 2M so that opener plays the hand in 2M or higher ( a further responder bid below 3M is a game invitation (showing a shortage if he has one), but a strong responder can bid 2M forcing to ask about opener's hand. This turns the tables, and takes control should he wish to find more about opener's hand for slam purposes. This will clarify the strength, or course, but also discover a 6 card club suit and the nature of the concomitant shortage, or short diamonds which is also allowed in our 1♣. All below 4M, of course, to allow our normal Ace asking etc.

I find this "weak 2M-2, strong 2M" extremely useful.

Edit : the 3 card support hand completes the transfer with 12-14, which is forcing unless responder is weak and 5 cards.

[DavidKok]

I like having an extra bid to show cheap support, but I'd rather bid the limit of the hand immediately with a minimum and fit. Also 1♣*-1♦*; 2♣ has a good use as natural clubs, but I suppose that could be moved around as well. For me completing the transfer is simply NF, even with only 4. Sometimes responder had to bail out of 1♣ - they probably know best, staring at their hand.

[fromageGB]

DavidKok, on 2021-August-12, 12:31, said:

I like having an extra bid to show cheap support, but I'd rather bid the limit of the hand immediately with a minimum and fit. Also 1♣*-1♦*; 2♣ has a good use as natural clubs, but I suppose that could be moved around as well. For me completing the transfer is simply NF, even with only 4. Sometimes responder had to bail out of 1♣ - they probably know best, staring at their hand.

The big benefit of making 2M the strong variety is that it is forcing, (forcing unless responder is 4 cards 3/4 hcp), so you ask whatever it is you want to ask without taking any space in doing so. Similarly, by making the weak bid 2M-2 responder can bid 2M as forcing, but of course he is asking different questions. YOU may be weak, but partner may be very strong. Asking with 2M from either side gives LOADS of space for resolution.

To accommodate it yes something needs to be switched around, and for your "natural 2♣" it is easy to play 1♣*-1♦*-1♠ as either 4 spades or 6 clubs. Partner bids 1NT if he has 4 spades, then when you bid 2♣ you are showing 6 and denying the spade fit.