Defense against transfer walsh
Reint
that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
Ulf Nillson on http://viewsfromthebridgetable.blogspot.com/2007/05/defending-t-walsh.html
I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
have experience defending against it.
Reint.
Nick France
> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
>
> Reint.
A relatively simple defense I use is to play transfer defense to
transfer offense. In simple terms, you bid the suit below the one you
have. You keep the double of the transfer bid as a normal takeout
double. So for example
(1C) P (1D) which is a transfer to hearts
X takeout of clubs and hearts
1H transfer to spades
1S transfer to clubs
2C transfer to diamonds
Actually there is no reason not to do it directly over 1C also.
Nick France
Eric Leong
> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
>
> Reint.
Double of the transfer bid shows the equivalent of a one level
overcall in the suit doubled.
Bidding the transfer suit is takeout for that suit.
Eric Leong
Adam Beneschan
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
Although I don't have any experience, a really simple defense that
comes to mind is that a double is a normal takeout double as if RHO
had bid his suit, instead of bidding the suit below; and everything
else is natural (including a bid of the suit RHO is showing, because
he could well have a lousy four-card suit like jack-fourth). 1NT
would be whatever you'd normally play it as, if RHO had bid his suit
instead of transferring. (So if you usually play 1NT as sandwich for
the unbid suits, (1C)-pass-(1H showing spades)-1NT shows the red
suits.)
-- Adam
Will in New Haven
> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
One pair played that around here, although they didn't call it that.
In fact, their 1S bid was a weak 1NT response (5-8) and 1NT was
stronger but not forcing. I don't remember what else they did. They
stopped after awhile.
Over the 1D response (showing Hearts)
We doubled with Diamonds and Spades and cards
Bid 1H with Hearts
Bid 1S with Spades
Bid 1NT with Diamonds and Spades and shape
Bid 2C with Clubs
Bid 2D with Diamonds
Our bids over 1H (showing Spades) followed the same pattern.
--
Will in New Haven
Kieran Dyke
>"Reint" <oste...@kvi.nl> wrote in message
>news:fcbdc2c8-1733-4639...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>Reint.
When I played something like this in the US, most players played that double
showed the bid suit. But the players with extensive experience playing
against methods like this preferred: Double=takeout, 1-level
overcall=natural, 2-level overcall Michaels.
One alternative which I've played, and which worked OK, was 1-level cue was
takeout promising four cards in the other major, and double as takeout
denying the other major.
Tiggrr
Stephen Fischer
>>
>> "Reint" <oste...@kvi.nl> wrote in message
>> news:fcbdc2c8-1733-4639...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
>> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
>> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
>> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>> Ulf Nillson on
>> http://viewsfromthebridgetable.blogspot.com/2007/05/defending-t-walsh.html
>>
>
>> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
>> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
>> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
>> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
>> have experience defending against it.
>
>> Reint.
>
> When I played something like this in the US, most players played that
> double showed the bid suit. But the players with extensive experience
> playing against methods like this preferred: Double=takeout, 1-level
> overcall=natural, 2-level overcall Michaels.
This is what I regularly use, with the extra agreement that if partner
wants to cuebid, they bid responder's suit.
I.e.:
(1C) - P - (1D=hearts) - X
(?) - 2C = natural
but
(1C) - P - (1D=hearts) - X
(?) - 2H = good hand
That way you can find clubs easier when it's right.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> Kieran Dyke wrote:
>
> >> "Reint" <ostend...@kvi.nl> wrote in message
> >>news:fcbdc2c8-1733-4639...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> >> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> >> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> >> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
> >> Ulf Nillson on
>
> >> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> >> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> >> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> >> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> >> have experience defending against it.
>
> >> Reint.
>
> > When I played something like this in the US, most players played that
> > double showed the bid suit. But the players with extensive experience
> > playing against methods like this preferred: Double=takeout, 1-level
> > overcall=natural, 2-level overcall Michaels.
>
> This is what I regularly use, with the extra agreement that if partner
> wants to cuebid, they bid responder's suit.
>
> I.e.:
>
> (1C) - P - (1D=hearts) - X
> (?) - 2C = natural
>
> but
>
> (1C) - P - (1D=hearts) - X
> (?) - 2H = good hand
>
Despite the fact that responder promises four or more Hearts and
opener only guarantees three Clubs, it is more likely that the other
side will want to play in Hearts. Of course, we try to be able to find
_either_ suit fit if we can.
Free
> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
>
> Reint.
I use the same defense like after every transfer opening:
Dbl = the suit the bid (not the one they show)
their suit = takeout Dbl
rest = system on (sandwich 1NT for example)
Only problem is 1C-1S... Here I use:
2C = good hand with H
2D = good hand with S
2M = natural, but not as good as 2m
this...@yahoo.com
>
> When I played something like this in the US
Just to be sure, transfer openings are ACBL GCC illegal, right? If
they're not, I'd love to play transfer openings myself.
Adam Beneschan
Right, they're illegal (except for opening bids at the 4 level!). But
the original poster here is talking about transfer *responses* to 1C,
which are legal.
-- Adam
Stephen Fischer
True, but when 4th seat doubles hearts for takeout, it's more likely
that you want to play in clubs. Remember, both partners have had the
chance to overcall hearts naturally at the one level.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Our methods allow natural overcalls in both of "their" suits but our
takeout actions (dbl and 1NT) are for the unshown suits.
Michael Kopera
Hmmm, he did say GCC. So transfer responses are legal only if the 1C
is 15+ and forcing (1C-1D=H is legal as a forcing, artificial response
to 1C, but not very useful if 1C-1H=S is not legal).
Mike Kopera
Don't make the same mistake twice; there are plenty of new ones to make.
Michael Angelo Ravera
> Next week we'll be playing in our teams competition against a team
> that uses transfer walsh: replies to 1C are transfers 1D is for hearts,
> 1H is for spades and 1S for diamonds.
>
> On the internet I found one possible defense in recommendations from
>
> I take it that his last line is most important: "As always as long as
> you have an agreement, you´re ok most of the time."
>
> Still I'd like to ask you: what would you be a good (and preferably
> simple) defense against this system. Please share, certainly if you
> have experience defending against it.
>
> Reint.
It's fairly easy to:
Double for interest in the artificial suit (could even be just high
cards)
Bid the destination suit of the transfer to show the other two suits
Bid one of the other suits to show length in it.
Is that simple enough for you?
Since opponents haven't yet used an artificial method, your convention
regulations may or may not permit that you play transfers overcalls
yourself. That is a useful tactical preempt, but only if you are able
to blow out their transfers. So, you may want to bid naturally and low
levels and then start transfers a bit higher.
Adam Beneschan
> Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 4, 10:05 am, thisst...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 10:50 pm, "Kieran Dyke" <tig...@idx.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > When I played something like this in the US
>
> >> Just to be sure, transfer openings are ACBL GCC illegal, right? If
> >> they're not, I'd love to play transfer openings myself.
>
> >Right, they're illegal (except for opening bids at the 4 level!). But
> >the original poster here is talking about transfer *responses* to 1C,
> >which are legal.
>
> > -- Adam
>
> Hmmm, he did say GCC. So transfer responses are legal only if the 1C
> is 15+ and forcing (1C-1D=H is legal as a forcing, artificial response
> to 1C, but not very useful if 1C-1H=S is not legal).
Yep, I don't know what I was thinking. My mistake.
-- Adam
john-bl...@caseint.com
1) A bid in the transferrred-from suit is a weak jump overcall, since a double woud show a non-jump overcall in that suit. Eg. (1C)P(1D)2D is WJO since (1C)P(1D)X shows diamonds.
2) WJOs and other preempts should be made a little more freely since they destroy the advantage of the transfer.
Douglas Newlands
(1C)-P-(1D)-X is the same as (1C)-P-(1H)-X would be with natural responses.
I don't like (1C)-P-(1D)-1H as take out as it is too committal to being
in the auction.
A more complex method, which I like, is
(1C)-P-(1D)-1H is raptor-like ie it shows 4 of the other major
and 5+ of a minor and doubling values. This enables you to bid a
difficult hand.
The transfer has allowed you to have a natural 1NT opener and a raptor
1NT-like bid.
doug
RonfromLao
Ron