[dokoko]

When playing T-Walsh there are basically three schools:

1. unlimited 3-card accept: This is the "classical variation". 1♣-1red-1M shows any hand with 3-card support. The 1M bid is forcing, other bids retain their normal meaning (and deny 3-card support for responder's major).

2. limited 3-card accept: This is what I play actually. 1♣-1red-1M shows a limited hand with 3-card support (11-13 bal or 10-16 unbal). The 1M rebid is nonforcing, 1NT shows a weak NT without 3-card support and there are special rebids for strong balanced hands with or without 3-card support.

3. weak balanced accept. This is the most used method. 1♣-1red-1M shows a weak NT or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and strong balanced hands rebid 1NT.

When the major is hearts method 3 seems superior to method 2 as responder can use a 1♠ rebid to ask whether opener has a balanced hand or not.

That same luxury isn't available when the major is spades, however. So if you want to use methods like 2-way checkback or the like over 1♣-1♥-1♠ you have to invent rebids to describe opener's unbalanced hands.

Has anyone tried to use 1♣-1♥-1♠ as either a strong notrump (say 17-19) or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and have 1♣-1♥-1NT show the weak NT? Or is this just ridiculous?

Thanks for your comments!

[mw64ahw]

Not so ridiculous given the sequences you suggest will give you another bid although responder will loose the ability to bid 1♣-1R-1M-Pass

I have also tried with a 12-14NT

1♣-1R-1M as any Weak NT range 2-4M. Opener can then convert to M if responder rebids
1♣-1R-1NT is then any 15-17 without the Major implied by R (always semi-balanced)
1♣-1R-2M is 4M GF opposite an invitational hand
1♣-1R-2♦ is 15-17 with 3M i.e. (43M)15 or Str without 4M (NB I open 1♦ w. a singleton Major)
1♣-1R-2oM is Str with 4oM

The complete structure has some other oddities, but it works well in simulation reaching games with or without competition that other approaches can miss.

[helene_t]

I think this is a good idea and follows the general principle that multi bids should not have too many weak options - partner can then cater to a single weak option, and if you have a strong variant you will show it.

Opening a weak NT in the first place obviously has a similar advantage

Maybe the reason why people put the weak NT in the transfer accept is that it makes it easier for responder to pass the transfer accept with a random 6-count, as you are OK playing in a 4-2 fit when opps have the majority of the points.

[nullve]

dokoko, on 2022-May-15, 13:13, said:

Has anyone tried to use 1♣-1♥-1♠ as either a strong notrump (say 17-19) or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and have 1♣-1♥-1NT show the weak NT?

Not exactly:

https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1009102

dokoko, on 2022-May-15, 13:13, said:

Or is this just ridiculous?

Compared with what? Standard bidding with

1m-1M; 2N = 18-19 BAL, 2-3 M

and

1m-1M; 4M: often 18-19 BAL, 4 M

is a joke in comparison.

[mw64ahw]

helene_t, on 2022-May-15, 16:05, said:

I think this is a good idea and follows the general principle that multi bids should not have too many weak options - partner can then cater to a single weak option, and if you have a strong variant you will show it.

Opening a weak NT in the first place obviously has a similar advantage

Maybe the reason why people put the weak NT in the transfer accept is that it makes it easier for responder to pass the transfer accept with a random 6-count, as you are OK playing in a 4-2 fit when opps have the majority of the points.

Or even fewer with a hand I had this weekend.

---

[yunling]

Just play completing transfer as "Gazzilli" showing 16+ w/o fit with other rebid showing natural 11-15

e.g.
1C-1H-?
1S=16+ no 4S
1N=minimum NT range
2C=11-15 (5)6+C
2D=about 14-16, 3-4S
2H=11-15 6+C-5+H
2S=11-14 3-4S
2NT= 16+ 4+S
3C=13-15 (6)7+C

now 1S is passable for light response
I lose the chance to distinguish 3 card raise from 4 but can show the range immediately so it's ok.

[nullve]

dokoko, on 2022-May-15, 13:13, said:

3. weak balanced accept. This is the most used method. 1♣-1red-1M shows a weak NT or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and strong balanced hands rebid 1NT.

Ok, maybe this is the most common use of the transfer accept globally. But take a look at the convention cards of the pairs that were playing T-Walsh in the Bermuda Bowl:

Australia
Coutts - Milne
Edgtton - Hung

China Hong Kong
Sze - Chiu

England
Byrne - Dyke

Israel
Padon - Birman

New Zealand
Bach - Cornell (KO stage) / Bach - Cornell (RR stage)
Brown - Whibley
Tislevoll - Jacob

Norway
Bakke - Brogeland
Livgård - Aa

Singapore
Maggs - Ng

Switzerland
Piedra - Zimmermann

[mikeh]

The OP omitted one very common approach to accepting the transfer.

As I play it in all my T-Walsh partnerships, 1C 1R 1M (accepting the transfer, M being the major shown by responder) shows 2 or 3 card support, usually but not always (especially if bid with 3 card support) a balanced hand. If playing 14-16 1N, then the balanced hand will be 11-13, and if unbalanced will not be much stronger, since then we have another suit to bid or rebid.

This is very powerful, mainly because it frees up both 1C 1R 1N and 1C 1R 2N.

In my main partnership, we use 1C 1R 1N as 17-19 balanced, with 2-3M

We use 1C 1R 2N as a game force raise of the major, with relays available should responder have slam interest. We save a LOT of bidding space compared to 1C 1R 4M

In my other partnerships, 1N is 17-19 but 2N is the Bridge World nightmare hand: a powerful (but not necessarily gf) 6331 hand type with 3 card support.

I can't say whether this 'accept with 2 or 3' is more common than 'accept always shows 3', but I do know that a lot of very fine players use this, because of the power of the 1N rebid (over which of course one can use methods)

[nullve]

As you can see from my previous post, at least the following pairs

Edgtton - Hung
Byrne - Dyke
Bach - Cornell (KO stage) / Bach - Cornell (RR stage)
Bakke - Brogeland
Livgård - Aa

were playing versions of T-Walsh where the transfer is acceped also on some hands with 4c support.

For example, Bakke - Brogeland (like Brogeland - Lindqvist earlier) seemed to be playing the dominant "Norwegian" version where

1♣-[1M-1]; 1M = 3 M, not mandatory with 18-19 BAL OR bad 4c 2M raise, usually 11-12 BAL
1♣-[1M-1]; 1M-1♠/N; 2M = the bad 4c 2M raise
1♣-[1M-1]; 2M = good standard 2M raise, 4c support, usually 13-14 if BAL


.

There are also these famous system notes by Fallenius - Welland where e.g. over 1♣-1♦, 1♥ shows

Quote

a) 11-13 NT
if 4-card hearts, then bad hand like QJx/Kxxx/KJx/QJx
75% rule applies=3/4 we bid 2♥ with 11-13 bal and 4*♥
b) we also may bid 1♥ with i.e. x/Kxx/AQxx/Kxxxx or with
reversed majors because nothing else makes sense

and similarly with 1♠ over 1♣-1♥.

So maybe there is also a sizable school that plays the transfer accept the Fallenius - Welland way?