| Hand A |
Hand B |
Hand C |
Hand D |
Hand E |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♠ |
Q973 |
♠ |
9753 |
♠ |
AJ97 |
♠ |
9753 |
♠ |
KJ5 |
| ♥ |
J864 |
♥ |
Q65 |
♥ |
K7 |
♥ |
K7 |
♥ |
Q73 |
| ♦ |
KQ54 |
♦ |
KQ654 |
♦ |
QJ105 |
♦ |
65 |
♦ |
Q863 |
| ♣ |
6 |
♣ |
6 |
♣ |
1052 |
♣ |
A9753 |
♣ |
J86 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hand A: |
1♥. This hand is worth just one bid, so ignore the ♦'s and bid majors up-the-line. |
| Hand B: |
1♠ . This is only worth one bid, so get the major suit in. |
| Hand C: |
1♦. This hand has invitational values, so bid the ♦ suit and reverse into 2♠ over partner's 1NT response. |
| Hand D: |
1♠. A ♣ raise would deny a 4-card major. |
| Hand E: |
1NT, whether you play this as 6-9 or 8-10 this is the sensible bid. |
| |
|
Opener's rebids are also different if playing Walsh. You open 1♣ and partner responds 1♦, what do you rebid when playing Walsh? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hand F |
Hand G |
Hand H |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♠ |
KJ93 |
♠ |
KJ93 |
♠ |
KJ93 |
|
|
|
|
| ♥ |
KJ93 |
♥ |
KJ9 |
♥ |
KJ93 |
|
|
|
|
| ♦ |
K5 |
♦ |
K54 |
♦ |
K54 |
|
|
|
|
| ♣ |
Q54 |
♣ |
Q54 |
♣ |
Q5 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hand F: |
1NT. This is the major point of the Walsh system – assuming partner is weakish, you get the 1NT contract played by the right hand and give no information away to the opposition about your major suit holdings. If partner has a 4-card major then he will reverse into it and the fit is not lost. |
| |
| |
| Hand G: |
1NT. This hand is an example of why you should open 1♣ in preference to 1♦ . If you open 1♦ the sequence will likely go 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT and you end up with the wrong hand as declarer and the opponents knowing too much about your distributions. |
| |
| |
| Hand H: |
1NT. This is where you want to be opposite a weakish hand and is an example of one of the reasons why it is better to play a short ♣ rather than better minor. |
| |
|
| |
Now I first read about Walsh in Marty Bergen's excellent book “Better Bidding With Bergen” but there are a couple of points that are unclear in his book: |
| |
| 1) |
Marty says that if you respond 1♦ , partner rebids 1NT and you reverse into a major then that shows 5+ ♦'s. I cannot see this, surely responder can have just 4 ♦'s. |
| |
| 2) |
Marty says that you should bid the major in preference to the ♦ suit with a hand that is worth only one bid; but he later says that a subsequent reverse shows full opening values. This does not allow for invitational values and I play that the reverse guarantees only invitational values. |
| |
| |
|
| |
So, in my treatment, a ♦ bid by responder followed by a reverse into a major over 1NT only guarantees 4 ♦'s and only promises invitational values. Hand C is an example. |
If you want more examples, or have yet to be convinced that Walsh is a great system, then read Marty's book; in fact he considers it so important that it's the first chapter! |
| |
Playing Walsh is not standard and most sequences need alerting: |
| |
| 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT |
needs alerting as “could conceal 1 or 2 four-card majors” |
| 1♣ - 1♥/♠ |
needs alerting as “could by-pass a ♦ suit if weak”. |
| |
|
| There are a number of inferences that can be made when playing Walsh. Consider the sequence 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠, in standard this simply shows ♦'s and ♠'s. Playing Walsh it also shows at least invitational values. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
