[antonylee]

I think it is quite clear that in a Walsh framework, 1C-1D is an underused sequence (not claiming I came up with anything brilliant here), thus the apparition of transfer Walsh which reallocates 1D, 1H and 1S to optimize the use bidding space. Unfortunately, transfer Walsh is not GCC legal, no matter how much you complain. Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

[32519]

Completely off-topic, however -
1. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5X♦ and 4X♥/♠?
2. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 4X♦?
3. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 5X♦?

[Kungsgeten]

 32519, on 2013-April-29, 04:04, said:

Completely off-topic, however -
1. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5X♦ and 4X♥/♠?
2. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 4X♦?
3. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 5X♦?

I only have experience playing transfers, and here's what we do:

1. Transfer to the major. If partner shows 4 card support (by bidding 2 of the major or higher if strong) then everything is fine; you found your fit. If you have an invitational hand, bid 3 diamonds over opener's balanced response. This shows 4 of the major, 5+ diamonds (canapé and invitational). With a weak hand wanting to play 2 diamonds if partner does not have 4 hearts, we bid 2 clubs which commands partner to bid 2 diamonds, then we pass. With game forcing values, we bid 2 diamonds (artificial and GF).

2. If we have an invitational hand we bid 2 clubs if partner does not show support (again commands 2 diamonds), and then bid 2 of the major (mild invitational) or 2NT (better INV). If we have a weak hand we usually pass opener's 1M rebid. With a game force we again bid 2 diamonds.

3. Again this depends on if it is a game force, weak or INV. In the sequence 1C-1red; 1M-2D; 2N-- then 2m shows 5-5 in the major and the minor.

[32519]

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

Using this suggestion, how do you show a biddable ♦ suit and say 6-9 HCP?

[32519]

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

It doesn’t look as though your thread has drawn much interest or help from the other forum posters. Fear not! Walter the Walrus comes to your rescue!

I don’t know anything about the ACBL or their GCC requirements, but you need your 1♦ response to have a possible 3-way meaning as follows –
1. Both majors, 3-6 HCP (as per your suggestion)
2. A biddable 5-card ♦ suit and 6-9 HCP
3. One 4-card major and a biddable 5-card ♦ suit, 6-9 HCP

Some example auctions using this structure:

Hand Type 1:
1♣-1♦ (alerted)
1M-Pass

No problem here, an example of the 3-6 HCP hand with both majors.

Hand Type 2:
1♣-1♦ (alerted)
1M-2♦

No problem here either, an example of the 6-9 HCP hand with a biddable 5-card ♦ suit. What opener does after this obviously depends on own hand strength, distribution, fit with the ♦ suit, etc. etc.

Hand Type 3: (Here is gets interesting and you need to think this through in more depth than I have)
1♣-1♦ (alerted)
1M-?

a) If partner happens to hit on your 4-card major, you can pattern out now as follows –
***i. Any new suit bid now would be shortness, showing a 4351 or 4450 hand pattern. But beware if the short suit is ♠! You may need to show this on level-2 (see below)
***ii. 1NT can be used to show a 5422 hand pattern
b) But what if your 4-card major is ♥ and partner has bypassed it by bidding 1♠? You have some options –
***i. With a really awful looking 6-9 HCP but a 3-card fit with partner, you can choose to pass and play in a Mosian fit.
***ii. Alternatively, just revert back to your 2♦ 5-card suit bid
c) The (not so) tricky one is when partner bids 1♥ but your 4-card major is ♠. A 4-4 ♠ fit is still possible, but how do you find it now? This is the reason why you may need to show ♠ shortness on level-2 as suggested in a (i) above when a 4-4 ♥ fit is found. Try this –
1♣-1♦ (alerted)
1♥-1♠
?
With a ♠ fit partner already knows 9 of the cards in your hand and may want to make a game try. Alternatively, with no fit, partner may want to signoff. So how should the auction proceed? I’ll put this forward as a suggestion for you to modify –
1NT is to play (Opener has shown ♣ and ♥, responder has shown ♦ and ♠)
2♣ is to play showing a long ♣ suit, no fit in either of responders suits
2♦ is suit preference and a signoff
2♠ is pre-emptive and a signoff attempting to cut the opponents out of the auction (opener has a crappy minimum)
Which leaves us with the 2♥ bid to be used as a game try (responder has already denied ♥ so it can never be a natural bid). How about this suggestion?
1♣-1♦ (alerted)
1♥-1♠
2♥ (alerted)-?

The 2♥ bid is a game try, confirming a ♠ fit and asking for shortness. The continuation bidding could look something like this –
2♠ (over 2♥) confirms ♥ shortness
2NT shows a 4252 hand pattern
3♣ shows ♣ shortness

Next decision is openers.

There you have it! Nice and easy!

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

I think it is quite clear that in a Walsh framework, 1C-1D is an underused sequence (not claiming I came up with anything brilliant here), <snip>

OK, then I'll claim that I came up with something brilliant here.

[Fluffy]

you are not a full grown troll untill you steal someone else's thread completelly.


Antony, I don't understand the GCC problem with transfer walsh, you say that any meaning is fine as long as it is forcing, well, 1♦ is forcing in transfer walsh. Perhaps the problem is with the 1♥ and 1♠ responses that must be natural?

[antonylee]

Yes, the problem is with 1H and 1S, not with 1D. Without starting an exegesis of what the GCC really says, assuming that they must each show 4+ in the bid suit is a (probably) a reasonable interpretation.

[MickyB]

Would it be permitted to play that 1M showed two suits, the major and a specified other suit (which may be longer)?

[rbforster]

 MickyB, on 2013-April-30, 03:18, said:

Would it be permitted to play that 1M showed two suits, the major and a specified other suit (which may be longer)?

In the same way "natural" 1M openers in a canapé system show unbalanced two-suiters? I would say yes, but I'm sure some would disagree on technical grounds. I would summarize the situation as unclear but probably ok, with a side note that asking for official clarification is likely to be fruitless while failing to alert the negative inference of the specified side suit in such a system would never be questioned in practice.

[MickyB]

 rbforster, on 2013-April-30, 04:22, said:

In the same way "natural" 1M openers in a canapé system show unbalanced two-suiters? I would say yes, but I'm sure some would disagree on technical grounds. I would summarize the situation as unclear but probably ok, with a side note that asking for official clarification is likely to be fruitless while failing to alert the negative inference of the specified side suit in such a system would never be questioned in practice.

Specific 2nd suit eg 1S shows 4+/4+ in spades and clubs. I'm guessing your answer still stands though

[glen]

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

... I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid ...

Montreal Relay by Eric Kokish if you want to rock n' roll

[PhilKing]

This all reminds me of Dune, but not in a good way.

[antonylee]

 Fluffy, on 2013-April-30, 02:02, said:

Antony, I don't understand the GCC problem with transfer walsh, you say that any meaning is fine as long as it is forcing, well, 1♦ is forcing in transfer walsh. Perhaps the problem is with the 1♥ and 1♠ responses that must be natural?

Going back through the Montreal relay thread I noticed that what I said (1M response must be "natural", with whatever meaning "natural" has) is wrong. The correct answer is (probably) "1M must be either natural or GF" (though it is (probably...) not legal to combine both). Well, that opens up other possibilities...

[TylerE]

 glen, on 2013-April-30, 16:40, said:

Montreal Relay by Eric Kokish if you want to rock n' roll

LOL Kokish wrote a book on Montreal Relay? Must have needed the money...

They're an even stronger signal than "Stolen Bid X" or "15-18" NT of a poor player.

[Zelandakh]

My INV+ method would probably work here although I have not tried it over a 1♣ opening. This would be something along the lines of:-

1♣
==
1♦ = most INV+ hands
... - 1♥ = min without 4 spades
... - ... - 1♠ = GF relay
... - ... - 1NT and up = nat, invitational
... - 1♠ = 4 spades
... - ... - 1NT = GF relay
... - ... - 2♣ and up = nat, invitational
... - 1NT and up = GF without 4 spades
1M = 4+ suit, weak, not forcing (best to bid suits up-the-line here with possible canape)
1NT = 4+ diamonds, weak, not forcing (best to bid suits up-the-line here with possible canape)
2♣ = weak raise
other responses to taste

[glen]

 TylerE, on 2013-May-01, 17:49, said:

Kokish wrote a book on Montreal Relay? ...

He didn't write a book about his convention, but Al Rosenthal did. Technically a half approach is better:

1♦: denies 4+♥s, 5+♠s
... 1♥: Ottawa/Montreal Relay, 15/16+ without 4+♠s, less than a game force
...... 1♠: waiting
...... 1NT: balanced, 8/9+, game force
...... 2♣: 5+♣s, weak
...... 2♦: 6+♦s, weak
... 2NT: 18-19 balanced with 4♠s, not forcing
... reverses, jumps: game forcing

1♥: 4+♥s, can have longer minor
1♠: 5+♠s

[FrancesHinden]

 32519, on 2013-April-29, 04:04, said:

Completely off-topic, however -
1. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5X♦ and 4X♥/♠?
2. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 4X♦?
3. How does Walsh/Transfer Walsh show 5M and 5X♦?

Transfer Walsh is not a system. It describes the 1D and 1H responses to a 1C opening. There are a great many different more or less artificial ways of continuing the auction. So the answers to your questions start with (i) what strength of hand in each case (weak/INV/FG) and (ii) in whose version of T-Walsh ?
(In the same way that "2/1" is not a system, it describes the meaning of the 2-level responses to 1M (sometimes also 1D-2C) without any definition of how the auction continues)

[FrancesHinden]

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

I think it is quite clear that in a Walsh framework, 1C-1D is an underused sequence (not claiming I came up with anything brilliant here), thus the apparition of transfer Walsh which reallocates 1D, 1H and 1S to optimize the use bidding space. Unfortunately, transfer Walsh is not GCC legal, no matter how much you complain. Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

I don't think I can answer this without really understanding GCC (which I'm not sure I want to do...). I thought there was some restriction on the later auction to prevent relay sequences? If so, do these schemes that start 1C-1D-1H (relay) work?
If you want to use the sequence 1C-1D a lot, is Polish club legal? I think that works well in a naturalish framework.

[mike777]

 antonylee, on 2013-April-29, 02:33, said:

I think it is quite clear that in a Walsh framework, 1C-1D is an underused sequence (not claiming I came up with anything brilliant here), thus the apparition of transfer Walsh which reallocates 1D, 1H and 1S to optimize the use bidding space. Unfortunately, transfer Walsh is not GCC legal, no matter how much you complain. Still, GCC allows any (forcing) meaning for 1D, so I was wondering if anyone came up with a better idea of how to use that bid. In particular, I was thinking of having it include weak(ish) hands, say 3-6HCP, with both majors, using some artificial rebids by opener to allow responder to signoff in 2M when needed, though I didn't work that out fully. But I'm sure I'm not the first one to have that idea, so any contribution is welcome!

not sure what problem you are trying to solve?


nv: 1c= anything is what? zero?

vul=`1c=1d=deny 4 card major or less than gf.


I suppose trf may help but what is this big issue you are worried about?

[antonylee]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-May-19, 05:04, said:

I don't think I can answer this without really understanding GCC (which I'm not sure I want to do...). I thought there was some restriction on the later auction to prevent relay sequences? If so, do these schemes that start 1C-1D-1H (relay) work?
If you want to use the sequence 1C-1D a lot, is Polish club legal? I think that works well in a naturalish framework.

I think a reasonable interpretation of GCC is
- any meaning for 1D is allowed,
- a 1M response must be either natural (4+) or GF (not a combination of both),
- I think 1C-1D-1H(relay) is allowed, just as you are allowed to play a Kokish relay over a strong club.

Polish club is GCC-legal and I really like it. I was just wondering if anyone ever came up with "less dramatic" changes to standard that also put 1D to a better use.

By the way, I think that the 1D response, in, e.g., WJ2005, is somewhat less vulnerable to preemption that Montreal-relay styles 1D, as it shows either a weak hand (pass over interference), an invitational hand with one or both minors (bid the minor or 2N over whatever), or a balanced GF (check for a stopper, or double them, etc.) (not saying it's always easy, of course). Perhaps I should look more in depth at Zel's suggestion...

 mike777, on 2013-May-19, 07:10, said:

not sure what problem you are trying to solve?


nv: 1c= anything is what? zero?

vul=`1c=1d=deny 4 card major or less than gf.


I suppose trf may help but what is this big issue you are worried about?

The big issue with transfers is that I cannot play them in the US. Other than that I was just trying to find better uses for sequence starting with 1C-1D, such as 1C-1D-2D, or whatever-form-of-Checkback after 1C-1D-1N, that come up exetremely rarely.