[Kungsgeten]

The most common transfer club (T-Walsh or whatever you'd like to call it) structure I've seen is where 1C-1S is a balanced hand or a hand with diamonds, and 1C-1NT is GF: natural or clubs. I believe this makes the 1S response a bit overloaded, so I've been tinkering with another structure. This assumes that 1C is 12-14 NT, 18-19 NT or natural unbal (but the NT ranges can be changed to perhaps 11--13 and 17--19).

1C---
1DH = Transfer. May have longer minor if less than GF.
1S = "Negative spade". No major. Balanced less than INV, or a one suited minor less than GF.
1N = 5+ diamonds GF, or 15+ NT.
2C = 5+ clubs GF.
2D = Could be anything you want. I suggest multi with a weak 6 card major.
2H = Balanced hand, no major. About 11--14 (INV or min GF).
2S = INV, both minors.
2N = Natural GF, about 12--14. No major. Wants to declare.
3X = Could be anything you want. My suggestion is weak.


Negative spade:

1C--1S;
1N = 12--14 NT (or semi-bal)
...Pass = To play
...2m = To play
...2S = INV with 6+D, wants opener to declare
...3m = INV
2C = Natural unbal, about 11--15.
...2D = Weak
...2N = INV
...3m = INV
...3S = Transfer to 3NT
2D = 18--19 NT
...Pass = Weak with diamonds
...2H = INV. Opener bids 2NT or 3NT.
...2S = Puppet to 2NT, then:
......Pass = To play
......3C = Weak
......3DHS = GF with shortness and 6+ clubs
......3N = To play
...2N = Forcing, wants to declare
...3C = Typical 7m222 and some slam interest (3D asks minor)
...3D = GF with 6+ diamonds and short clubs
...3HS = GF with 6+ diamonds and short major
2H = Reverse in any suit.
...2S = Asks suit, GF
...2N = Transfer to 3C, weak or GF
...3C = INV
...3D = Natural INV
...3HS = GF with 6+ diamonds, short major
2S = 6+C, 18+
...2N = Asks shortness
...3C = Waiting, minimum but forcing
...3D = 6+D, weak
...3H = 6+D, GF and short clubs
...3S = Transfer to 3NT
3C = 6+C, 15--17

Instead of "reverse in any suit" you could play 2M as natural reverses and 2NT as a diamond reverse (where the preference to 3m is forcing).


Minor suit GF:

1C--1N;
2C = 5+!c unbal min
...2D = Relay, as below
...2HS = 5+D and 4M
...2N = 15--17 NT choosing not to relay
...3C = 5+D and 3+C
...3D = 6+D
...3HS = Splinter
2D = Balanced
...2H = Minimum, 5+D (2S relays)
...2S = 18+ NT
...2N = Transfer. 5+D, 4+C, extras
...3C = Transfer. 6+D, extras
...3D = Transfer. 5+D, 4H, extras
...3H = Transfer. 5+D, 4S, extras
...3S = Transfer. 15--17 NT
...3N = 15--17 NT
2HS = Natural unbal + extras
2N = 4+D + extras
3C = Natural + extras

1C--2C;
2D = Balanced, not 4+C
...2M = Natural (may be only 3)
...2N = Waiting
......3C = Support, weak NT
......3D = 4+D, 1--2C
......3H = Support, strong NT
......3S = Strong NT, 4-4-3-2
......3N = Weak NT, 4-4-3-2
...3C = 6+C, SI no SPL
...3DHS = SPL
2HS = 4+C, 4+M (NT or unbal)
2N = Balanced, 4+C no major
3C = 5+C, no SPL
3DHS = SPL


The balanced 2H:

1C--2H;
2S = Relay
...2N = 4333 with a four card minor (3C asks)
...3CD = 5 card suit
...3HS = 3 card suit, 4-4 minors
2N = Weak NT, does not accept invite
3C = 5+C, non-forcing
3DHS = SPL, 5+C
3N = To play
4C = 5+C, no SPL


Invitational with both minors:

1C--2S;
2N = Asks longer/better suit
3CD = To play
3HS = Weak NT, extras, weak suit
3N = To play

[nullve]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-August-03, 03:07, said:

I believe this makes the 1S response a bit overloaded

Could you expand on that? I notice that you play

1C-1S; 1N-2m = to play,

so I guess you have design goals that are different from mine, at least.

[Kungsgeten]

I believe that "original" 1S cover a great deal of hands, which make it a bit awkward to handle when fourth hand enters the auction. These hands are included in that version of 1S:

- Negative NT without major
- INV NT without major
- GF NT without major, wanting opener to declare
- INV with 6+ diamonds
- INV+ with 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs
- GF with 5+ diamonds and 4 card major
- Some also include weak hands with diamonds

Compared with the 1S I'm suggesting:

- Negative NT without major
- Weak with clubs
- Weak with diamonds
- INV with clubs (could be removed by using 3C for this)
- INV with diamonds (could be removed by using 3D for this)

The design goals is to paint a better picture of responder's hand by the first bid. If responder bids 1S, then responder can't have a GF hand. This should make competitive auctions easier. The main downside I'd guess is that a direct 2m as NF is a whole lot more preemptive than going via 1S.

[WesleyC]

I've never heard of the Transfer Walsh version that you mention in your first line. The version common in my part of the world is:

1C - 1S is Multi either:
1) (0)5-11 No 4M.
2) G/F Clubs.
3) G/F Balanced that doesn't want to declare 3NT.
*Some invitational hands with the minors are incorporated in 1).

1C - 1NT is invitational (11)12 HCP, can sometimes have a 4M in a suitable hand.

1C - 2C is G/F diamonds.
* Including inv diamond hands here is also possible.

---

Using 1C - 1S as clubs (rather than diamonds) gives you more room after 1C 1S 1NT to use 2D-2NT as natural (promising 5+C) and 3D-3S as splinters (promising 6+C).

After 1C - 2C showing diamonds, 2D by opening is an artificial minimum, again leaving responder plenty of room to describe the shape of their hand naturally.

Finally the ability to choose the declarer in 3NT and also invite while staying at the 1 level are very high frequency and are one of the main reasons to use transfers. I would hate to give this up!

[rbforster]

It seems like your 1C-2H hand (balanced INV / min GF, possibly not wanting to declare) would fit pretty well in the 1C-1S sequence. If the opps want to butt in against a near GF balanced hand, that's what the red card is for. Plus, it may give opponents pause to intervene over the primarily weak options in the 1S response as it is now (weak minor or weak balanced).

[Kungsgeten]

WesleyC: The idea of 1NT as invitational seems sound. I'm not quite sure of the continuations after 1C-1S, but it seems to be quite a lot of hands? The GF balanced would probably want an option to relay more information about opener's hand, while the GF club hand would want to show and force, and the weak minor based hands would like to sign off, and the invitational minor based hands would like to invite. I believe its playable, but having less options in 1S is probably easier to play. An example:

1C--(pass)--1S--(Dbl);
pass--(2S)--?

Now what to do? In a version with a lot of options for 1S, we'd need good definitions of responders auction here. What is 2NT, double and 3m? 3H and 3S should be GF, so that's all good. When 1S is "weak", the options are clearer (to me):

Double = Both minors, competitive and opener can scramble with 2NT
2NT = Lebensohl (Good/Bad really), to play in 3m
3m = Natural INV

rbforster: Yes, the 2H hands could easily be handled by 1S. Two friends of mine, who've played a lot of transfer club, both complained about having strong and invitational hands in 1S however, and that's why I tried to design this structure. A good thing about using 2H as INV/min GF is that the bidding can be more anonymous: 1C--2H; 3NT somewhat resembles 1NT--3NT. Here opener could have a good weak NT, a strong NT or an unbalanced hand with clubs. 1C--2H does not ask about things which you do not want to know (well it may do if you intend do raise 2NT to 3NT).

[WesleyC]

 Kungsgeten, on 2015-August-04, 02:30, said:

WesleyC: The idea of 1NT as invitational seems sound. I'm not quite sure of the continuations after 1C-1S, but it seems to be quite a lot of hands? The GF balanced would probably want an option to relay more information about opener's hand, while the GF club hand would want to show and force, and the weak minor based hands would like to sign off, and the invitational minor based hands would like to invite. I believe its playable, but having less options in 1S is probably easier to play. An example:

1C--(pass)--1S--(Dbl);
pass--(2S)--?

Now what to do? In a version with a lot of options for 1S, we'd need good definitions of responders auction here. What is 2NT, double and 3m? 3H and 3S should be GF, so that's all good. When 1S is "weak", the options are clearer (to me):

Double = Both minors, competitive and opener can scramble with 2NT
2NT = Lebensohl (Good/Bad really), to play in 3m
3m = Natural INV

In my version of transfers after 1C 1S* 1NT:

2C = puppet to 2D, either to pass 2D or make a natural (invitational) bid. Puppet and then 3NT is Quant.
3C = some range natural club bid.
2D-2NT = natural with 5+C. G/F
3D-3S = splinters G/F
3NT = Natural, either clubs with no slam interest or G/F balanced that doesn't want to declare.

You could certainly come up with a better method by incorporated relays, but I prefer simplicity in a relatively infrequent spot where you're already a long way ahead of a standard system.

Incorporating G/F balanced hands in 1S is only to be able to control who declares the final contract, so you can mostly ignore these hands in the context of a competitive auction as they will just rebid 3NT next. The normal action with a G/F balanced hands and slam interest is to start with 2NT (showing that hand) so you don't need complex system to deal with them after 1C - 1S. And as RBForster mentioned, including some strong hands in 1C - 1S isn't entirely a downside because it can make it more risky for the opponents to get involved in the auction.

In your suggested competitive auction the continuations wouldn't be much different.

X = T/O with orientation to minors, partner assumes only competitive values until proven otherwise.
2NT = Weak with both minors.
3C/3D = Natural constructive.
3H = Natural G/F with 5+C.
3S = G/F clubs with extreme spade shortage (e.g unsuitable for a double).
3NT = To Play, either clubs or balanced.

Being able to use 1C - 2D-2S, 3C-3S as natural and weak, perhaps (0)3-7(8) HCP is another big benefit of the method. These bids come up frequently and put a lot of pressure on 4th hand opponent in a spot where they will often have the best hand at the table.

[awm]

It seems inevitable that you will get a lot of auctions like 1♣-P-1♠-2M. The nature of these multi 1♠ bids seem like they won't help you much at all in this sequence; opener has no idea whether you have a minor suit fit, whether you have any values, etc.

I still think the best transfer walsh system I've seen is the one by karlson (and others) with:

1♠ = 4+♣
1NT = 4-5♦ balanced less than inv
2♣ = 6+♦ weak or 5+♦ GF
2♦ = 6+♦ INV

This has the advantage of helping you find your minor fits (a huge help when opponents interfere). It also lets you bid your suits in natural order when holding GF values, which can be helpful in slam bidding.

[mgoetze]

 awm, on 2015-August-04, 22:51, said:

I still think the best transfer walsh system I've seen is the one by karlson (and others) with:

1♠ = 4+♣
1NT = 4-5♦ balanced less than inv
2♣ = 6+♦ weak or 5+♦ GF
2♦ = 6+♦ INV

I play this. I wouldn't even necessarily say it's objectively better than your scheme - but I'm pretty confident that it's easier to play, with much more natural followups. In my experience, artificiality and complexity is fine in parts of the system that come up often, but putting it in parts of the system that come up rarely is asking for trouble. Here, you have some pretty awkward continuations especially for the unbalanced 1♣ opener that I would not feel comfortable playing.

[Free]

 awm, on 2015-August-04, 22:51, said:

It seems inevitable that you will get a lot of auctions like 1♣-P-1♠-2M. The nature of these multi 1♠ bids seem like they won't help you much at all in this sequence; opener has no idea whether you have a minor suit fit, whether you have any values, etc.

I still think the best transfer walsh system I've seen is the one by karlson (and others) with:

1♠ = 4+♣
1NT = 4-5♦ balanced less than inv
2♣ = 6+♦ weak or 5+♦ GF
2♦ = 6+♦ INV

This has the advantage of helping you find your minor fits (a huge help when opponents interfere). It also lets you bid your suits in natural order when holding GF values, which can be helpful in slam bidding.

Interesting scheme. 2 questions out of interest:
- What do you use 2M for
- What do you do with INV with 4-5♦ and what with GF 3=3=4=3?

[mgoetze]

 Free, on 2015-August-08, 11:25, said:

Interesting scheme. 2 questions out of interest:
- What do you use 2M for
- What do you do with INV with 4-5♦ and what with GF 3=3=4=3?

2M is short major, both minors, INV or SI+, whereas 3M is the same thing GF.

3=3=4=3 and 5♦(332) shapes are bid 1NT/2NT/3♦/3NT depending on strength.

[efe_]

Hello Kungsgeten,
What do you open with 4-4 minors?
What does responder rebid over 1♣>1NT with 4-4-1-4 hands?

[Kungsgeten]

 efe_, on 2015-August-21, 20:55, said:

Hello Kungsgeten,
What do you open with 4-4 minors?
What does responder rebid over 1♣>1NT with 4-4-1-4 hands?

I do not play this kind of system at the moment (this is just an idea), but when I did play transfer club our 1D opener promised an unbalanced hand. If I remember correctly we opened 1C with 4441, except when having a club singleton (so 1D was almost always five cards). In the suggested scheme I would treat 4-4-1-4 as balanced, and thus respond 2D after 1C-1NT.

[SDesert]

Not sure this post will help a lot, but will give more options at least.
Here is the scheme i used to play in response to 1C (balanced or unbalanced with C):

- 1D/H: transfer
- 1S : NO 4 card major, 6+ hcp, either:
a) balanced 6+H (not willing to bid NT first if 11+ hcp)
b) 11+hcp, unbalanced 6D (inverted minor raise in D, no side 4 cards)
c) 9-10Hcp unbalanced with C (too light for inverted minor raise and too strong for preempt)
d) weak unbalanced with D
- 1NT : 4H and 4S, 6-10 hcp
- 2C : Inverted minor raise in C
- 2D : 11+hcp with 5D and 4C
- 2H : 0-6 hcp with 5H and 5S
- 2S : 7-10 hcp with 5H and 5S
- 2/3NT : 11-12/13+ hcp, balanced with both majors kept, willing to get the lead in a NT contract
- 3C : 5-8 hcp, unbalanced 5+C
- 3D/H/S : GF, slam looking 6+C, Splinter

Doesn't solve the loaded 1S response but letting the invite+ balanced responder without major to choose to receive the opening lead or not is VERY useful.
The 1NT response (4H+4S: 6-10 hcp), although very accurate hence seldom has the advantage of "selling" the hand in one bid when weak so when competitive bidding mostly happens. Also it inferes that after transfering with 1D and not competing afterwards denies the other major.
Although i thought that the 2H/S bids were misused and could have been more effeciently used, it appeared that they were both ways efficient: pre-emptive or informative for the strong partner.