[aguahombre]

Page 48 of Hardy's Orange book (1982) addressed the use of the bad 4-6 in this mannor. He did mention the dangers in using it when opener has bid two suits rather than rebid 1NT.
When opener has opened and rebid clubs, the pass is often chosen rather than 3D by practicioners of the style, but depends on the quality of the diamond suit.

[jmcw]

MrAce, on 2011-September-05, 15:06, said:

I been playing walsh since i don't know when (long time) and i never heard the treatment Phil suggests either.

Same here.

Nearest is 1♣>>1M>>1NT>>3♦ = Weakish 6/4

[kenberg]

Some mentioned auctions

1♣ 1♠
1NT 2♥
This was non-forcing even in Goren, and afaik it still is played that way by nearly everyone. I have seen folks play it as forcing but this makes no sense to me. 2♦ instead of 2♥ was also nf in Goren but this has almost universally been replaced by some sort of artificial meaning. Yeah, I know Goren is dead but I mention it just to show that playing 2♥ as nf is not some gimmick just invented.

1♣ 1♠
2♣ 2♥
I have played this as nf. I wouldn't exactly say it is standard, but pretty common in my neck of the woods (Washington D.C.)


1♣ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
I have never heard of this as nf. Which I guess means that I don't know acol. Or don't know something anyway. So it's forcing for me and anyone I know. If 2♥ is nf then 2♦ must be artificial. Whether artificial or not there are probably five spades but I don't see that as a guarantee. Partner may have game values and be hoping that I can bid the NT.


1♣ 1♠
2♣ 3♦.
I prefer that partner not do this unless we have discussed it.

And asking you to please start playing bridge is, like most rude comments, a clear indication of his real level. Hint: Grandmaster it's not.

[Phil]

I'll go to the source on this one and report back.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-September-05, 12:16, said:

Regarding the meaning of 1♣-1♠;2♣-3♦ when playing Walsh, the three of us who have so far disagreed with Phil are all English. Is this one of those tomayto/tomahto differences?

Maybe, but I learned my Walsh from a North American.

[Phil]

gordontd, on 2011-September-05, 17:22, said:

Maybe, but I learned my Walsh from a North American.

The only true authorities on Walsh are acid-dropping hippies.

This explains a lot of the sequences.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2011-September-05, 19:30, said:

The only true authorities on Walsh are acid-dropping hippies.

This explains a lot of the sequences.

LOL

[peachy]

Free, on 2011-September-04, 03:02, said:

There are 2 possible explanations for 2♦:
- because of walsh, 2♦ shows longer ♦ and is a signoff
- semi natural and forcing, strongly suggesting 5♠

Imo the first meaning is so rare (because you also don't want to play 2♣ apparently) that it just doesn't pay off to play that way. I would suspect the second meaning is standard, but I've seen club players use the first and inferior meaning.

No way.

In Walsh, with a weak hand that wants to signoff, Pass 2C. Or, with a weak hand of 4 spades and 6 diamonds, bid 3D which is a signoff (or pass 2C, if doubleton club).
In Walsh, 1C-1S-2C-2D neither promises nor denies 5-card spades but it is forcing and does not promise or deny diamond suit. An invitational hand might never even bid diamonds at all because at one level, bypass diamonds (even longer diamonds) to bid 1M, unless GF strength in which case bid suits in their natural order = longest first or up the line.