[mgoetze]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-06, 18:52, said:

I don't like this attitude. Imo people use it all the time to justify what they are used to instead of following people who are the best.

Fine... dislike all you want. I was very careful in how I phrased this statement and I don't quite see what you think it's "justifying" - I'm pretty sure I don't play only what I'm used to. I'm just saying that if two people who each have a full-time non-bridge job decide to play Fantunes bidding system, they should not expect to do as well with it as Fantoni-Nunes.

Quote

I can start developing both playing system copied from theirs instead of some brand of standardish one with hundred of holes and strange stuff like strong reverses or jumps with 3-4card suits.
I spent significant time trying to understand systems of Meckwell, Greco-Hampson and top Italian pairs. My opinion for now is that not only are those systems more powerful but much more logical and easier to play than local "standards" (like standard in US or polish club in Poland). I would much prefer copying them than stuff popular among masses but inferior and less logical.

If you think what people are suggesting on these forums has "hundreds of holes", I'm sure we would like to hear details. If you are just trying to make a strawman argument, suit yourself.

Quote

Anyway, are you suggesting they play inferior stuff, knowing it's inferior because competition in Italy play that ? I mean srsly ?

I am certainly suggesting that that would be a perfectly valid strategy. There are parts of the system where it matters more, and others where it matters less - continuations after a 2/1 which you mentioned certainly falling in the latter category.

Obviously F-N have a different philosophy on this and it works for them. But then they are only Italy's 4th best pair by Mrs. Lavazza's reckoning.

Quote

What about more natural explanation: Meckwell's, Lauria's and Bocchi's of this world know better and what they play is probably both best and most practical.

As I was trying to suggest in my opening statement last post, what is most practical for them is not necessarily what is most practical for me.

I do think that Rodwell knows what is best, but he's not allowed to play it thanks to the effort Meckstroth puts in on the C&C Committee. Maybe it's because Balicki and Zmudzinski played it better than they could?

Quote

Now, LV bid suit's up the line and you will find T-Walsh in "Norberto" handbook

And what do you think, is Norberto suffering greatly from all the diamond fits he's missing?

[awm]

I agree with bluecalm. My experience is that bidding up the line works much better than Walsh and slightly better than t-Walsh. I understand that people disagree with me on this, but I find the degree of utter scorn some seem to have for up the line bidding a bit incomprehensible.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Fine... dislike all you want. I was very careful in how I phrased this statement and I don't quite see what you think it's "justifying"

I mean that: "what is best for them is not the best for us mortals" is flawed argument.
You need to give some reasons why other solutions might be better for amateur players to make it valid.

Quote

If you think what people are suggesting on these forums has "hundreds of holes"

I think I wasn't clear. I mean if I have a choice of copying structure from the best players and from standard system (which has hundred of holes) I should pick the former.
I didn't want to suggest that Walsh has hundred of holes (although I do think it's inferior to both up-the-line bidding and to T-Walsh). I did want to suggest that "standard" with stuff like jumps with 3-4 card suits or "strong reverses" is as bad as bidding system could get and every pair would be better off switching to something decent (which might be precision, LV system or Polish club or w/e).

Quote

here are parts of the system where it matters more, and others where it matters less

Bocchi-Duboin played a lot of anti-field stuff. They surely wasn't afraid of it.

Quote

As I was trying to suggest in my opening statement last post, what is most practical for them is not necessarily what is most practical for me.

It sounded to me as you made an argument that it is in fact not the most practical for you (or us mortals) and not just "not necessarily so". If I am wrong about my interpretation then it's just general statement which doesn't say nothing about anything.

Quote

I do think that Rodwell knows what is best, but he's not allowed to play it thanks to the effort Meckstroth puts in on the C&C Committee. Maybe it's because Balicki and Zmudzinski played it better than they could

If you mean strong pass, it's almost surely not that good.
In Poland you can freely play it in team leagues which is arguably the most important competition in the country which many pairs treat very seriously and only few pairs do it and they usually get smashed.

Quote

And what do you think, is Norberto suffering greatly from all the diamond fits he's missing?

I didn't express opinion about T-Walsh.
I think it's good. It might be better than bidding up-the-line.
I just wanted to see why people play Walsh besides its being fashion.
From what I gather the anchor arguments are about losing major fit in competition and about not giving away information being more important than competing in diamonds/having less shapes in 1M responses.

[jmcw]

pooltuna, on 2012-February-06, 09:20, said:

bidding up the line is fine if all your auctions are non competitive. IMO basically Walsh was designed to help find major suit fits in competitive auctions

gnasher, on 2012-February-06, 10:10, said:

I think the main reason is to allow opener to rebid 1NT on a balanced hand after 1♣-1♦.

manudude03, on 2012-February-06, 10:30, said:

A few more reasons for walsh:

1C-1S takes away the cheap 1H overcall where it might have gone 1C-1D-(1H).
1C-1D-1M can promise an unbalanced hand, easier to judge between say 2C and 1NT.
It allows for simpler game and slam auctions (1C-1D-1S-3S can be the start of a slam try etc when 4th suit forcing might muddy the water)

IMO these are real benefits, not some obscure once a year occurances.
I have noted several auctions over the past few months where I wished I had been playing Walsh.
So far, I have never noted a time when I had wished I wasn't.

[benlessard]

One of my first serious bidding book that ive read was http://www.amazon.ca.../dp/0910791368. If i remember correctly the first chapter is about Walsh and that Bergen is making a pretty convincing point in favor of Walsh. So Im pretty sure Walsh is not a fad.