From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Walsh
Date: 28 Sep 1992 00:55:32 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: Bidding over partner's 1C

Having had an interesting misunderstanding leading to a good
result on OKBridge, I thought I would address the matter of
Walsh.

Max Hardy has written three system books.  The first was
_Five Card Majors -- Western Style_ and the other two are
the two editions of _Two Over One Game Force_.  All three
are based on ideas Hardy learned from Richard Walsh that he
had developed with John Swanson and Paul Soloway.  Soloway
was also involved in Aces Scientific, which IMHO shows clear
signs of the influence of Kaplan Sheinwold.  The system
Hardy described in the first book was called "Walsh".  

The name "Walsh" is also applied to one of the key parts of 
the system, an approach to responding to a 1C opening that 
has *definitely* been around since the early days of K-S.
I would like to quote Hardy here on responses to 1C.  I
consider Hardy the expert on anything called "Walsh" since
Hardy seems to be Walsh's only prophet.  (Whether Walsh is
God is another matter.)  Please forgive the prose style.
It isn't mine.

   When the opening bid has beein in a minor suit, the search
   for a playable major suit contract begins with the first
   action by responder.  Systemically, whenever responder's
   hand is limited to less than the values for an opening bid,
   he tends to respond in a major suit even when longer suits
   are available.  Only when responder has full opening bid
   values of his own will he bid naturally to show his hand
   pattern, and bid a longer minor suit ahead of a four card
   major suit when he has both.  This practice of bypassing
   longer minor suits to bid four card majors on limited hands
   is controlled by systemic safeguards, and is not recommended
   to those who play an otherwise standard bidding approach.
   [I do *not* agree with this last statement, by the way.]
   ...

   THE ONE DIAMOND RESPONSE TO ONE CLUB
   ...
   Responder's call of one diamond denies that he holds a four
   card major suit unless he also has at least five diamonds
   and the values of an opening bid.  When responder does hold
   a hand with five or more diamonds as well as a four card
   major and opening bid values, he is prepared to show the
   major suit at his second turn.  When the auction proceeds
   in this fashion, opener will know that responder has values
   enough to force game and is bidding naturally.
   ...
   [Opener's NT rebid does not deny a 4-card major]
   ...
   When responder does have the hand with five or more diamonds
   as well as a four card major suit and opening bid values,
   after opener's natural rebid responder shows his four card
   major suit.  Most often this will produce an auction in which
   responder reverses to show his major suit after a rebid of
   one notrump by opener.

Back in my own voice again.

Note that after for example 1C-1D; 2NT, responder's rebids of
3H and 3S are exceptionally descriptive: 5 or more diamonds,
4 (or just possibly 5) cards in the major, and 12+ HCP.  In this
system there is no need for a checkback here since without game
forcing values and 5 or more diamonds responder will not have a
4-card major.

Matters are less clear after 1m-1H.  In K-S a 1S rebid is forcing
and may be made on AKxx KJx AJx QJx, for instance.  In that
system both 1NT and 2NT rebids deny 4 cards in either hearts or
spades, and checkback is needed over 1NT to find 5-3 heart fits
and distinguish between forcing and nonforcing auctions.  Over
2NT responder may freely rebid a 5-card suit.  That is the
approach I prefer, but I realize these days I'm a voice crying
in the wilderness.

Matters are even less clear after a 1S response.  Responder may
be 5-4 in the majors.  In K-S 1m-1S; 1NT-2H is defined as forcing
but not necessarily very strong.  Again NMF is used only to find
a 5-3 fit.  I'm a little less happy with that than with the
methods of the previous two paragraphs.

Hardy allows 1m-1H; 2NT with 4 spades.  He uses 3C as Wolff
Signoff and 3D as Checkback.  While I believe checkback here is
unnecessary it seems innocuous.

Over a 2NT rebid Martel and Stansby make responder's rebid of 
his major a signoff and use 2C to show 5 or more of the major 
and values for game and 2D to show 4-card support for opener's 
minor.  All this loses to Wolff is the possibility of playing
3D, and it seems to gain in certain other cases.

This seems to have digressed a bit from Walsh responses to 2C.
My hope is that when strangers agree to play "Walsh" there will
be some chance they both mean the same thing.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)