[perko90]

Thanks to the rules change in ACBL, We're now able to play Transfer Walsh responses to 1♣ in a 2/1 system. It's been working quite well.
Naturally, it makes sense to move a bunch of the balanced hands into 1♣. So, we play short club.
We still feel that balanced hands with 5 ♦s are best left in 1♦. As a result, our rebids after 1♦-1M are:
1NT = semi-balanced, 11-15 HCP w/ 1-2 cards in ptr's M. (rarely, 0454 possible after 1♦-1♠)
2♣ = Request to re-transfer to 2♦ (either intending to play w/ min 6+ D hands or continue with various invite+ hands and 5+ ♦s)
2♦ = 5 ♦s and 3 pc min raise
2M = 4 pc min raise
I know there are alternative methods. But the above is working well and I'm happy with it. So, I'm not really requesting feedback on the structure. It's there for context.

The question is, given the above structure, what's the best way to handle 5-5 in the minors after 1♦-1M? Possibilities include:
1) Rebid 1NT with a min, jump to 3♣ with an invite and re-transfer to 2♦ and then bid 3♣ with a big hand
Remarks: No, you don't really want to play in 1NT on this shape. But in practice, it probably only comes up rarely because opponents will usually have and find their fit in the other M. And if they don't find it, then playing 1NT, even if sub-optimal, may not be too bad.
2) Same as #1 above but move the 5-5 minors min hand to an opening 2♦
Remarks: Cleanest solution with a nice preempt effect. But is it worth giving up the weak 2♦?
3) Use the jump to 3♣ for the min 5-5 hand, use the re-transfer to 2♦ and then bid 3♣ with an invite and move the strong hand to 1♣ with a planned 2♦ reverse
Remarks: The overload of the reverse may seem odd, but it's not too hard to unwind from a standard reverse shape

[steve2005]

The sensible way to show a minimum 55 minors is 1♦-2♣.
Surely 3♣ is needed for a good 5-5 hand.
Your system precludes 2♣ so I would suggest a 2NT opening for such a hand which has more preemptive value than your suggestion of 2♦ for both minors

[HardVector]

Well, if you don't want to change the structure, if 2c is a transfer showing 5+ diamonds with invite+ hands, you are stuck with bidding 3c as a distributional minimum...which is completely contrary to commonsense bidding. Good luck with that.

[Zelandakh]

The answer to this seems obvious - make 1NT the weak or INV+ hand type and then farm the most awkward hand type into 2♦. The 3 most obvious approaches along the lines of your existing structure would be for 1NT to be either "weak with 4+♣ or any INV+ without support" with 2♦ covering weak hands without 4 clubs (presumably 6+ diamonds over 1♥ and 6+ diamonds or 5♦4♥ over 1♠) or to have 1NT = "weak with 4+♣ or weak with 5+♦ or any INV without support" together with 2♦ = GF relay or 1NT = "weak with 4+♣ or weak with 5+♦ or any GF without support" with 2♦ = "any INV hand without support".

Other approaches are also possible of course (ask Adam (awm) for something absolutely optimal) but fundamentally my opinion is that using 1NT as semi-balanced in an unbalanced diamond system like this is at best poor and possibly even turns a good idea into a net minus given the disadvantages inherent in the 1♣ opening. It is this that causes the basic issue in your methods and any reasonable structure that addresses this should represent a significant improvement.

[perko90]

 HardVector, on 2019-June-27, 21:20, said:

Well, if you don't want to change the structure, if 2c is a transfer showing 5+ diamonds with invite+ hands, you are stuck with bidding 3c as a distributional minimum...which is completely contrary to commonsense bidding. Good luck with that.

Seriously?! That's a cheap shot from the person who opens 1♦ promising 0 diamonds. I'm pretty sure we have very different views on what constitutes common sense bidding. And I'm OK with that.

[perko90]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-June-28, 03:23, said:

... but fundamentally my opinion is that using 1NT as semi-balanced in an unbalanced diamond system like this is at best poor and possibly even turns a good idea into a net minus given the disadvantages inherent in the 1♣ opening. It is this that causes the basic issue in your methods and any reasonable structure that addresses this should represent a significant improvement.

Wow! That's a strong statement from someone who's no stranger to creative bidding. I very much like that the 1NT rebid offers a chance to get out cheap in misfit hands. And still hints at diamond length (only 1=4=4=4 hand opposite a 1♠ reply doesn't have 5). I'm also fond of differentiating a 3-card raise from a 4-card one (with the 2♦ rebid). And the 2♣ re-transfer is much better and flexible than a standard 2♦ rebid. I recognize the weakness of not having a good, cheap way to rebid clubs, but it seemed worth the trade-off. I'll contemplate your feedback some more.

[straube]

After 1D-1S

1N-min, bal or 3-suited short S
2C-transfer (includes inv+ hands)
2D-5D/5C, min
2H-3-cd raise with 5D, includes non-minimums
2S-4-cd raise

[perko90]

 straube, on 2019-June-29, 05:51, said:

After 1D-1S

1N-min, bal or 3-suited short S
2C-transfer (includes inv+ hands)
2D-5D/5C, min
2H-3-cd raise with 5D, includes non-minimums
2S-4-cd raise

I like it. Thanks!

[BRBanger]

In a short club (with transfer responses), 15-17 NT, and unbalanced 1D opener, I like to open 2NT with 5-5 m's and 10-14 points. And a 2D Multi opener to cover 20-22 bal. Hence my vote.

[pescetom]

 BRBanger, on 2019-July-28, 10:06, said:

In a short club (with transfer responses), 15-17 NT, and unbalanced 1D opener, I like to open 2NT with 5-5 m's and 10-14 points. And a 2D Multi opener to cover 20-22 bal. Hence my vote.

I was thinking of doing the same (2NT = 5-5 minors) at some point. When you say 10 points minimum do you mean revalued for distribution, something like 43 2 KJ987 KT765? That looks a bit thin even with the right vulnerability, but 10 HCP looks a bit much and reduces the frequency even further.

[BRBanger]

I like the 10-14 HCP approx. range, because it has more power than the more traditional (old-fashioned?) 5-9 which often helps oppo's and wins the contract much less frequently. Oppo's will find it harder to come in over 10-14. Using 10-14 gets this tricky hand off your chest (e.g. do you bid clubs twice...or not), takes it out of the 1D opening, and makes it a little harder for oppo's with its pre-emptive value, albeit that it offers oppo's a "values double". I guess 8-12 is the most frequent range of HCP, but I agree that the lower end of this is a bit "thin", especially vul. By all means, reduce the requirements a little, especially non-vul in 3rd, but my standard expectation (as partner) would be KQxxx in both minors.

[neilkaz]

What is the minimum card level that one can now play T-Walsh in the ACBL in a 2/1 context? I'd like to try it with a couple of partners and think it is somewhat superior to standard vanilla 2/1.

[pescetom]

 BRBanger, on 2019-July-29, 09:34, said:

I like the 10-14 HCP approx. range, because it has more power than the more traditional (old-fashioned?) 5-9 which often helps oppo's and wins the contract much less frequently. Oppo's will find it harder to come in over 10-14. Using 10-14 gets this tricky hand off your chest (e.g. do you bid clubs twice...or not), takes it out of the 1D opening, and makes it a little harder for oppo's with its pre-emptive value, albeit that it offers oppo's a "values double". I guess 8-12 is the most frequent range of HCP, but I agree that the lower end of this is a bit "thin", especially vul. By all means, reduce the requirements a little, especially non-vul in 3rd, but my standard expectation (as partner) would be KQxxx in both minors.

Thanks, makes sense. We'll start with a zone/position flexible 10-14 hcp and see what happens.

[msjennifer]

SIR,With the structure given by you I ,personally ,feel that you give up on the weak 2D opening .It is also my personal opinion that a weak 2d opening is a wasted bid as 1)it occurs rarely .2)Against good opponents it hardly makes any difference to them. Hence one either plays it as multi.or a strong (17/24) any 4441 hand as per the Italian Blue Team Club system or for a 5/5 in minors (with strict rules about the essential requirement of honors in each suit.) The rest of the structure suggested by you seems alright and practical except where opener has a genuine reversing hand with hearts and diamonds but lackin)g a 3 card support for responders major.With such a hand one transfers to 2D and then bid 2H,is'nt it.I would like to know as to how to bid such a reversing hand WITH 3 card xxx support for partners spade suit.

[Zelandakh]

 msjennifer, on 2019-August-13, 00:25, said:

Hence one either plays it as multi.or a strong (17/24) any 4441 hand as per the Italian Blue Team Club system or for a 5/5 in minors (with strict rules about the essential requirement of honors in each suit.)

SIR, BB Systems 2009.

[perko90]

BTW, since posting this, it's become apparent to me that after 1♦-1♥, switching the meaning of opener's rebids of 1♠ and 1NT is very beneficial. Even though I'd like to keep the artificiality to a minimum, the treatment is too irresistible. So now opener's rebids are:
1♠ = 11-15, clubs or balanced OR 16+, natural w/ 4 Ss. Forcing.
Responder can use a modified XYZ with an invitational or GF hand. Opener should break the 2♦ relay after responder's 2♣ with the strong, natural spade hand.
Responder, with a minimum hand, chooses a rebid among 1NT, 2♣ (intending to pass out the 2♦ relay), or 2♥.
1NT = 11-15, 4 Ss. NF.
Responder's rebids can be the same as if it had gone 1♦-1♥; 1♠.

For the 1♦-1♠, the rebid structure straube suggested can work. Or, you could even flip the 2♦ and 2♥. Losing the 2♦ landing spot of 5/5 minor hands doesn't seem like a huge loss (you often get pushed to the 3 lvl anyway) and there's still room for responder to rebid 2♠ to try to get out cheap. This gains a 2♦ landing spot for whenever opener has a 3 pc raise and responder only has 4 Ss and some Ds. It's probably just personal taste at that point.

@msjennifer: I can treat a strong 3=4=5=1 hand similarly to what you'd do in standard. In standard the bidding would go: 1♦-1♠; 2♥ and then bid Ss at the next opportunity. So, in this treatment, it'd go: 1♦-1♠; 2♣*-2♦; 2♥ and then bid Ss at next opportunity. Yes, in some sequences, responder may not be convinced you have real 3 pc support, but you should have company.

[HardVector]

 perko90, on 2019-June-28, 11:14, said:

Seriously?! That's a cheap shot from the person who opens 1♦ promising 0 diamonds. I'm pretty sure we have very different views on what constitutes common sense bidding. And I'm OK with that.

It's not my system. It was developed by Matt and Pam Granovetter and works quite well. It's a relay system and partner can find out exactly what you have...including the diamond void. I don't advocate using this system to anyone who is not willing to sit down and actually study it as NONE of the bids are natural in any way. I was just making a comment that the structure you were using didn't look like it worked. Even with the changes everyone suggested, I don't find a bid where you can show a 6 or 7 card diamond suit...other than jumping to 3d.

[perko90]

 HardVector, on 2019-August-21, 23:16, said:

I was just making a comment that the structure you were using didn't look like it worked. Even with the changes everyone suggested, I don't find a bid where you can show a 6 or 7 card diamond suit...other than jumping to 3d.

After 1♦-1M, the 2♣* rebid includes a minimum hand w/ 6+ Ds. Responder only accepts the xfr if they would have passed a natural min 2♦ rebid by opener. With inv+ hands, responder needs to make a move.