[sceptic]

To my understanding Walsh responses is a style of bidding over a non artificial 1 club bid, so is MAFIA

What is your prefered method and what are the pros and cons of your prefered method

[Gerben42]

MAFIA = Majors always first.
Walsh = Bid a major before ♦ unless strong.

I dislike both methods.
What do I like?

Method 1 (Simple):

Bid 1M in preference of 1♦ with 4 - 4 only, with 5+♦ bid them. When strong (GF) bid ♦ also with 4 - 4.

Reason: When competing for a partscore, partner knows after 1♣ - 1♦ that you have 5 pieces and we more often find our biggest fit --> can compete effectively.

Method 2 (Advanced)

TRANSFER WALSH

1♦ = 4+♥
1♥ = 4+♠
1♠ = 6 - 11 balanced / 10+♦
1NT = 5 - 9 with ♦
2♣ = 5 - 9 with ♣
2♦ = Strong ♣ raise

[Free]

I prefer flexibility: bid your Major if you feel like it, bid ♦ if you feel like it.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I prefer flexibility: bid your Major if you feel like it, bid ♦ if you feel like it.

I like to define exactly what a bid shows and then use judgement to mess it up. Of course when I say with 5♦ 4♠ I will bid 1♦, that doesn't mean I will never bid 1♠ on:

KQJT
64
65432
63

[Free]

Gerben42, on Aug 17 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

Quote

I prefer flexibility: bid your Major if you feel like it, bid ♦ if you feel like it.

I like to define exactly what a bid shows and then use judgement to mess it up. Of course when I say with 5♦ 4♠ I will bid 1♦, that doesn't mean I will never bid 1♠ on:

KQJT
64
65432
63

That's exactly what I mean with flexibility... You know when you better bid your Major, you know when you better bid your minor, so be flexible and do the best thing every time.

♥AKxx opposite ♦xxxx without slam interest is a clear 1♥ response. However, I also like to bid 1♦ with ♥xxxx and ♦AKxx... Rules are made to be broken, so making rules is a waste of time.

[the hog]

Having played both Walsh, T/f Walsh and Mafia styles, I can say that I think these methods are superior to standard methods of responding.

Major advantages accrue when responder bids the minor, particularly when playing Mafia.
The t/f structure of TWalsh also allows opener to further define his hand type by accepting or not accepting the t/f.

[Gerben42]

Quote

That's exactly what I mean with flexibility... You know when you better bid your Major, you know when you better bid your minor, so be flexible and do the best thing every time.

♥AKxx opposite ♦xxxx without slam interest is a clear 1♥ response. However, I also like to bid 1♦ with ♥xxxx and ♦AKxx... Rules are made to be broken, so making rules is a waste of time.

There is a difference between deciding to treat your hand with 4♠ 5♦ as 4 - 4 and bidding 1♠ and your example. If you make rules then you know what the system bid is and you need a good reason to not make it (in my example the large suit quality difference). If you don't make the rules you have more system bids, which means more freedom but less clearness for partner.

I prefer my style, and partner will play you for the hand you choose to represent rather than not making promises.

[keylime]

I have never been a fan of Walsh because of the inabililty to compete in diamonds, nor the ease of making a diamond invite with or without a major.

The technical merits tho of xfer Walsh do seem to be reasonable - I have yet played it but have watched it enough to form a preliminary conclusion.

[hrothgar]

1. I'm not sure whether or not I prefer Walsh or MAFIA. (I prefer either choice to up-the-line bidding)

2. One thing that I am sure about is that I prefer the transfer based approach to the more natural response scheme. Transfer Walsh makes sense for precisely the same set of reasons that MOSCITO's transfer openings make sense. If your primay goal is to improve the constructive aspects of your sysem, its MUCH easier to design an effective structure when you align the level of at which you show a bid with the number of hand types.

Playing MOSCITO we initially show Hearts with many more hands than we show Diamonds. Playing Walsh or MAFIA we show Hearts with many more hands than we show Diamonds. In both cases, it makes a lot of sense to use a cheap bid (1♦) to show hands with Hearts.

[helene_t]

1♦ is the most economical response to 1♣. It should be allocated to those hands that need that bidding space the most. I don't think that's the case with Walsh. The low frequency of the 1♦ response is already an indication that Walsh in inefficient. Take the Walsh sequence
1♣-1♠
2♣-2♦

Since the system requires responder to bid 1♠ with any moth-eaten fourcard, opener may be reluctant to support with 3. This increases the chance that 2♣ is a 5-card, so that reponder would bid 2♦ with a weak hand and a 6-card diamonds. An alternative interpretation is that responder has 11 points and 4-6, assuming that 1♦ followed by a reverse would be GF. But if playing Walsh with a pick-up partner, I suppose 2♦ is more likely to be forcing. Or maybe a weak or semipositive hand with 5-5.

Up-the-line is even worse because the system requires you to respond 1♦ for no reason other than to inform opps that you have a 4-card diamond so that they can defende more accurately. If 1♦ asks opener to bid up-the-line, it should be a relay so that the 1M responses become more informative. Showing a 5-card major, or at least a good 4-card that you want partner to support with 3, and to lead.

While Walsh and Montreal have merrits, I think T-Walsh is superior. It does have the usual disadvantages of artificial methods: easier to defend, and if you open a light 1♣ in 3rd seat you cannot pass the reponse.

[blackshoe]

Unfortunately for those who play under ACBL regulations, Transfer Walsh is mid-chart, hence not available in most games.

[awm]

I prefer up-the-line bidding with some caveats. In particular, I will sometimes bypass a four-card diamond suit in order to bid a four-card major, typically when the major is strong and the diamond suit is weak. As opener, I will sometimes bypass a four-card major after partner responds 1♦, but only when 4333 shape with good control of the fourth suit.

Some of the advantages of this style over Walsh or MAFIA:

(1) You find your diamond fits. This leads to playing superior partials on a number of hands, but can also help in game bidding on occasion (sometimes 5♦ is the best game). Give opener 4♦+5♣ and responder 4-5♦, and you will often miss the diamond fit playing Walsh or MAFIA (okay there is some style where opener bids 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors but this has many other issues and playing it is a net loss).

(2) Bidding suits in length order helps substantially in the subsequent auction. Surely if opener rebids 1NT you're okay playing Walsh/MAFIA because 2-way nmf gives you so many available bids. But opener doesn't always rebid 1NT. For example, take the auction 1♣-1♠-2♥. You sort of want 3♦ to serve as a game force without clear direction, but playing Walsh/MAFIA you also need 3♦ as a natural bid in case you have 4♠+6♦ and bypassed your diamond suit initially. After all, with the extra values opener's reverse promises you could easily have a diamond slam even on a hand that wasn't initially worth a game force. Another example is the auction 1♣-1M-2NT. Say you play the popular method of transfers over 2NT rebid. The issue here is that while it's pretty easy to make a slam try in diamonds, making a slam try in clubs is somewhat awkward. Using up-the-line responses, responder cannot really have a diamond signoff nor a diamond slam try, so one can use 3♣ as a club slam try (saving space).

(3) Bidding up-the-line, especially with the caveat that you tend to bypass weak four card diamond suits, helps a lot with hand evaluation and stopper-finding auctions. For example, say opener holds ♠x ♥AKxx ♦QJx ♣AKxxx. If you hear a natural 1♦ response, you are thinking possible slam and it's quite reasonable to establish a game force by rebidding 2♥. If you hear a 1♠ response, you can reverse into 2♥ (showing a much wider range of values) but then you want to try and put on the brakes. How do you like your chances of reaching 5♣ opposite ♠xxxx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣xxx and stopping below game opposite the same hand with the pointy suits reversed, assuming partner (playing Walsh/MAFIA) would respond 1♠ on both hands? It seems difficult to me.

(4) Bidding up-the-line increases the odds that 1♣-1M is a five-card suit or at least a strong four-card suit. This fits well with a general approach of raising major suit responses with three-card support even on balanced hands. This approach has many benefits (I've made long posts about it before and won't repeat them here). Bidding Walsh/MAFIA style means you will more often have a weak four-card holding opposite which the moysian 2M partial plays poorly.

(5) You can pass opener's rebid of 1M. With an up-the-line style, it often pays to respond 1♦ on minimum (or sub-minimum) hands and then pass when partner bids a major in which you have three cards. These partscores are unreachable in Walsh/MAFIA since opener will eagerly rebid 1NT or 2NT over your 1♦ response regardless of major suit holdings.

(6) There is some right-siding advantage to responding 1♦ with a weak hand, since any major suit contract you eventually find will be played by opener (who has the stronger holding).

In addition, here are three myths about the weaknesses of up-the-line bidding that I don't think are really true:

Myth One: Up-the-line bidding is very susceptible to interference by the fourth hand at a low level, for example how will you find hearts after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠? It turns out that playing a takeout double by opener in this sort of auction is extremely helpful and essentially solves this problem. Note that most of the "support double" hands can make a takeout double anyway, and the hands with extreme length in the enemy suit may be better off defending. I know it's in vogue to compare Walsh plus every gadget in the 2/1 player's arsenal against up-the-line with absolutely no conventions and crow about how wonderful Walsh is, but adding a few useful treatments to the up-the-line style (such as this takeout double) seems a bit more fair.

Myth Two: Walsh-style gives less information to the opponents in the frequent event that you end in 3NT. Of course there are auctions like 1♣-1♦-1NT-3NT where opener's major suit holding is concealed, but responder is known not to have a major. The problem is that when responder has a four card major he has to go through checkback, because opener would bypass, at which point both opener and responder's four card major holdings are revealed. The failure to go through checkback guarantees that responder has no major. The comparable auction of 1♣-1♦-1NT-3NT in up-the-line bidding reveals that opener has no major and responder may or may not have a major. While there are particular hands where one method or the other conceals information, it seems like the average amount of knowledge available to opening leader is about the same.

Myth Three: There is a terrible problem when the auction starts 1♣-1♦-1M and responder has three clubs and no stopper in the other major. I've never understood why MAFIA and Walsh enthusiasts seem to think there is some horrendous problem with responder rebidding 1NT without a stopper in the auction 1♣-1♦-1M-1NT, whereas opener rebidding 1NT with a suit wide open in an auction like 1♣-1♦-1NT is totally normal and not a problem at all. Realistically I think either of them could pose a problem, although checkback methods exist to protect against this. In any case, raising clubs with three is also okay in an up-the-line style, because we would not usually respond 1♦ holding equal length in diamonds and clubs. After all, there is virtually no chance diamonds are our best fit (opener has at least as many clubs as diamonds and so does responder). Bidding diamonds followed by raising clubs is essentially always based on a five-card diamond suit, since with 3-3-4-3 we would usually bid notrump at some point, with a four-card major we would be happy bidding notrump or raising opener's second major, and with (32)44 we would usually bid notrump or raise clubs (no chance diamonds are our best fit). This enables opener to correct a club raise to diamonds with a weak club holding; we don't play this as showing extras.

[awm]

I've also noticed that Walsh style responses and rebids combine particularly poorly with the XYZ convention. While I prefer up-the-line style bidding, there are definitely some advantages to the other style. In particular, when you open 1♣ and rebid 1M, partner knows you have five clubs and can bid 2♣ or 3♣ with a suitable hand, reaching a better partscore than (for example) bidding notrump at the appropriate level without a good stopper in the fourth suit.

But once you play XYZ, you are using 2♣ as a puppet. So you can't play in 2♣ even though you know opener has five. This eliminates one of the major advantages to the "bypass majors to rebid notrump" style. In addition, once you decide that you're going to use 2♣ as an artificial forcing bid after 1♣-1♦-1M or 1♣-1♥-1♠, you can easily use it as a checkback for "real" clubs versus a balanced hand; you've lost the ability to play in 2♣ but gained a huge number of sequences to the degree that you could easily relay out opener's exact shape if you wanted.

Anyways, I frequently see people playing this combination of two methods I don't particularly like (Walsh responses to 1♣ plus XYZ) and they seem to work particularly poorly in conjunction with each other.

[Codo]

awm, on Aug 20 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

I've also noticed that Walsh style responses and rebids combine particularly poorly with the XYZ convention. But once you play XYZ, you are using 2♣ as a puppet. So you can't play in 2♣ even though you know opener has five. This eliminates one of the major advantages to the "bypass majors to rebid notrump" style.
Anyways, I frequently see people playing this combination of two methods I don't particularly like (Walsh responses to 1♣ plus XYZ) and they seem to work particularly poorly in conjunction with each other.

I have no strong feelings about walsh or not, but this statement is not true.

Yes you cannot play 2 Club, but unluckily, you can "never" play 2 Club anyway.
When you have about 20 HCPS and a 8 card club fit, your opps will simply find their fit way to often if you stop in 2 Club.
So, you can play 2 Club after 1 NT still as artificial, the weak fit is shown with a direct 3 Club bid.

It works well, at least for me.

[Codo]

awm, on Aug 20 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

I've also noticed that Walsh style responses and rebids combine particularly poorly with the XYZ convention. But once you play XYZ, you are using 2♣ as a puppet. So you can't play in 2♣ even though you know opener has five. This eliminates one of the major advantages to the "bypass majors to rebid notrump" style.
Anyways, I frequently see people playing this combination of two methods I don't particularly like (Walsh responses to 1♣ plus XYZ) and they seem to work particularly poorly in conjunction with each other.

there are people out there who play

1 ♣ 1 any 1 M 2 ♣ as part of xyz?

WOW, never saw that.

[helene_t]

I find Adam's post interesting. In particular, I didn't think of the implications of playing Walsh to reverse sequences.

A related issue is what
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠*
means. I saw in another thread Adam assumes 2♠ to be fsf. That can't be optimal. Presumably 1♠ is played as natural in order to find the spades fit if both partner's a minimal.

If playing Walsh, the chance of loosing a 4-4 fit in spades is zero.

If playing up-the-line, I think 2♠ as fsf takes away too much bidding space given the non-informativeness of the auction. Besides, the risk of losing the spades fit is reduced if you agree that opener systematically rebids 1♠ with 4414 or 4405 in order to patern out non-reverse with 2♥ in 3rd round. Playing 1♠ as a relay (sorta fsf but not necesarily strong) and 1N as showing 4 spades must somehow be better, but this needs to be worked out. Would 2♣ and 2♦ also promise four spades? If so, 2♦ via the 1♠-relay wpould not be strong. But presumably 2♣ would, on the basis of the theory that a weak hand with clubs would support clubs immediately.

Here's an armchair theory: Walsh should apply to spades but not to hearts. Even if this is not systematic, I think responder should often bypass diamonds with a 1♠ response, especially if 1♠ in 2nd round is fsf.

In Biedermeijer Rood,
1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠*
is either fsf or natural. Opener can raise but if responder then bids something else, it cancels the natural meaning of 1♠.

[awm]

Yes, it's probably better to use 1♠ as a relay of sorts in the auction 1♣-1♦-1♥ (probably a non-game-forcing relay). Any post I've made assuming 1♠ natural and 2♠ FSF is because this is essentially standard and not part of some complex relay structure.

However, I wouldn't want to base my response and rebid structure on the presence of such a relay. I've listed a bunch of points in favor of the up-the-line style and it's still my strong preference. The point I wanted to make is that the style of bidding majors first and opener bypassing majors to bid notrump does have some advantages, but they are mostly knowing that opener has a shapely hand when he rebids a major. This information lets you play in a minor suit partial instead of a notrump partial, and can also simplify later bidding (although with a game force you have so much space to explore that it will hardly matter). I think this is a relatively small win compared to all the advantages I've outlined for bidding up the line, but it is an advantage. By playing XYZ you nullify this advantage because you can't play 2♣ anyway and once you're using 2♣ as a forcing bid you can use it to reach the right partial (i.e. let 1♣-1Y-1Z-2NT be a "real" 2NT bid and 1♣-1Y-1Z-2♣...2NT show an invitational hand that prefers clubs if opener has five, possibly with a rather tenuous stopper in the fourth suit).

Yes, XYZ applies in auctions like 1♣-1♦-1♠. This is why it's called "XYZ", it is supposed to apply in any auction 1X-1Y-1Z with opponents silent. This is what distinguishes XYZ from the virtually identical convention called "XY notrump" or "2-way NMF" which applies only when the third bid of the auction (opener's rebid) is 1NT. I personally like 2-way NMF (play it with virtually all my regular partners) but don't like XYZ -- these methods where you use a bid as an artificial puppet which opener is supposed to accept after which responder describes his hand (or passes) work fine when opener's hand is very well-defined (i.e. after a 1NT opening or rebid) but not so well when opener can have a wider range of shapes and strengths.

[mikeh]

This has developed into an interesting thread, thanks mainly to Adam's thoughtful posts.

As a strong Walsh adherent, let me firstly agree with Adam that xyz fits very poorly with the method, and I don't willingly play xyz for that reason.

Secondly, I have never understood the idea behind 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♠ as FSF denying spades. I can understand it in up the line, but not in walsh.

In (strong) walsh, one bypasses 1♦ to bid a 4 card major on all hands short of a gf. Therefore, bidding 1♦ and then bidding 1♠ is always a gf, and the only issue is whether it shows a suit.

If one uses 2♠ to deny a suit, one has eaten an entire level of bidding on a hand on which opener is shapely, and we could well use the 2-level to elaborate on that. So I prefer that 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ be 4SF, neutral as to spade length. Opener rebids naturally: raising spades with 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=1=4.

I have played this way for years, and never encountered any problem nor, more importantly, do I see any significant downside, compared to jumping to 2♠ to deny a suit. Now, bear in mind that this is in the context of the strong walsh approach.

As for Adam's points, looking at the reverse issue, he gave opener x AKxx QJx AKxxx and responder xxxx xx AKxx xxx or AKxx xx xxxx xxx and suggested that the walsh approach made accurate bidding difficult.

I disagree.

Opposite xxxx xx AKxx xxx, I see the auction as:

1♣ 1♠ 2♥ (borderline for me, but the AK's are enough) 3♣ (forward going... we use 2N as artificial) 3♦ by opener, and now there is NO chance of playing 3N, since responder will play opener for a stiff or void ♠ on the theory that 3♦ is to be read as trying for the best game, not a slam move.

Opposite AKxx xx xxxx xxx, the auction is the same through 3♦ and now responder has an automatic 3N.

The fact that 3N is a horrible contract on a major suit lead is neither herre nor there, because Adam reaches the same filthy spot... the reverse is a little light and responder's values not working well.

As for the myths: Adam argues that responder conceals 4 card majors after 1♣ 1♦ 1N (denying a major).....

That is news to me, and, I suspect, to most experts.

I hold AKxx x AQxxx Jxx and I am seriously bidding 3N????? In which universe?

Even AKxx xx AJxx Qxx..... when partner may hold QJx xx Kxx AKxxx? Nice bidding, but I prefer a suit contract over 3N.

No, when an up the line responder raises 1N to 3N, there is a good (but not 100%) inference that he lacks a major.

Adding to this is the reality, as seem on a recent thread, that up the line experts routinely conceal a 4 card major on appropriate balanced hands after 1♣ 1♦.

As for Adam's point that the difficulty facing responder in up the line with a balanced hand, 3 card club support, and no 4th suit stopper is analogous to 1♣ 1♦ 1N, this is just plain wrong.

After 1♣ 1♦ 1N, responder 'knows' that opener has at least 2 card support for all suits. If responder were, for example, weak with 1=3=6=3, he can retreat to 2♦ with safety. While if it went 1♣ 1♦ 1M, he can retreat to 2♣... if opener rebid 1♠, we have at least 8 clubs and we usually have 8 when we bid 1♥, unless we are specifically 4=4=1=4. The up the line bidders have to wrestle with committing to 2♦ opposite a possible void or 2♣ into a possible 3=3 fit, with a side 9 card diamond fit. Nice bidding, guys!

The error in the analogy stems from the information available at the time of the 1N rebid. When it is by opener, in either walsh or up the line, certain information is available. When it is by responder, in a walsh, once again, responder has information NOT available to an up the line bidder in the same auction. Thus, simple logic tells us that the walsh responder is better positioned than the up the line. While in the allegedly analogous auction of 1♣ 1♦ 1N, there is no significant difference in the information available to responder.. when responder has a weak hand, it rarely matters to him if opener is, say, 4=3=3=3 or 3=3=3=4, etc.

As for missing diamond fits: if we have game or slam, no intelligent pair can fail to find a real diamond fit. If we have a partscore, then we will occasionally play in 1N rather than 2♦. But answer me this: with Kx Ax Qxxx AJxxx, are we opening 1♣ and raising to 2♦?

Maybe we are supposed to, but that hand sure looks like 1N to me.

That is not to say that walsh does not miss some diamond partscores, but it sure doesn't miss every one. Furthermore, with weak 4351 or 4153 or even some 4252 or 2452 hands, at imps many a responder will puppet out of opener's 1N into 2♦ after 1♣ 1M 1N.

And, finally on this point, the price I pay for missing the occasional slightly superior 2♦ (or even 3♦) contract is a SMALL price to pay for the advantages of the strong walsh style.... but each to his own. After all, if everybody played the same way, the game would be boring

[awm]

mikeh, on Aug 20 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

As a strong Walsh adherent, let me firstly agree with Adam that xyz fits very poorly with the method, and I don't willingly play xyz for that reason.

......


As for Adam's points, looking at the reverse issue, he gave opener x AKxx QJx AKxxx and responder xxxx xx AKxx xxx or AKxx xx xxxx xxx and suggested that the walsh approach made accurate bidding difficult.

I disagree.

Opposite xxxx xx AKxx xxx, I see the auction as:

1♣ 1♠ 2♥ (borderline for me, but the AK's are enough) 3♣ (forward going... we use 2N as artificial) 3♦ by opener, and now there is NO chance of playing 3N, since responder will play opener for a stiff or void ♠ on the theory that 3♦ is to be read as trying for the best game, not a slam move.

Opposite AKxx xx xxxx xxx, the auction is the same through 3♦ and now responder has an automatic 3N.

The fact that 3N is a horrible contract on a major suit lead is neither herre nor there, because Adam reaches the same filthy spot... the reverse is a little light and responder's values not working well.

As for the myths: Adam argues that responder conceals 4 card majors after 1♣ 1♦ 1N (denying a major).....

That is news to me, and, I suspect, to most experts.

I hold AKxx x AQxxx Jxx and I am seriously bidding 3N????? In which universe?

Even AKxx xx AJxx Qxx..... when partner may hold QJx xx Kxx AKxxx? Nice bidding, but I prefer a suit contract over 3N.

No, when an up the line responder raises 1N to 3N, there is a good (but not 100%) inference that he lacks a major.

Adding to this is the reality, as seem on a recent thread, that up the line experts routinely conceal a 4 card major on appropriate balanced hands after 1♣ 1♦.

As for Adam's point that the difficulty facing responder in up the line with a balanced hand, 3 card club support, and no 4th suit stopper is analogous to 1♣ 1♦ 1N, this is just plain wrong.

After 1♣ 1♦ 1N, responder 'knows' that opener has at least 2 card support for all suits. If responder were, for example, weak with 1=3=6=3, he can retreat to 2♦ with safety. While if it went 1♣ 1♦ 1M, he can retreat to 2♣... if opener rebid 1♠, we have at least 8 clubs and we usually have 8 when we bid 1♥, unless we are specifically 4=4=1=4. The up the line bidders have to wrestle with committing to 2♦ opposite a possible void or 2♣ into a possible 3=3 fit, with a side 9 card diamond fit. Nice bidding, guys!

My auction on AKxx xx xxxx xxx opposite x AKxx QJx AKxxx would be:

1♣ - 1♠ (bypassing a weak four-card diamond suit to show the strong spade suit)
2♥ - 2nt (lebensohl/ingberman; 7 hcp is not a GF opposite a reverse starting at 16)
3♣ (min values, no enthusiasm opposite a 1♠ reply and possible misfit) - PASS

Whereas with xxxx xx AKxx xxx opposite x AKxx QJx AKxxx:

1♣ - 1♦ (bidding up the line, no desire to bypass AKxx to bid on xxxx)
2♥ - 3♣ (agrees clubs, no reason to bid notrump w/o a stopper)
...some cuebids, maybe kickback RKC...
5♣ (we are off a top spade and the trump queen)

Certainly it's true that when responder has a shapely hand, for example 4M and 5♦, one will often check back/pattern out after opener's notrump rebid. The interesting question is a more balanced hand opposite balanced hand. Suppose opener has 3-4-2-4 and responder 4-2-4-3 with gamegoing values. We might see:

Up-the-line: 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1nt-3nt, both 4cM suits are known.

Walsh: 1♣-1♦-1nt-2♦(GF relay)-2♠(4♠ no 4♥)-3nt and again both 4cM suits are known. As I understand it, Walsh "reverts" to bidding the cheapest suit when responder is GF.

The specific hand in the example of QJx xx Kxx AKxxx opposite AKxx xx AJxx Qxx is a natural time for opener to raise diamonds on three cards. When 3NT is right after 1♣-1♦ it will need to be played from responder's side. So:

Up-the-line: 1♣-1♦-2♦-2♠-3♣-4♣-4♠-Pass

Walsh: 1♣-1♦-1nt-2♦(GF relay)-3♣... maybe we get to spades here also but it might be harder as they are not bid naturally. Or maybe responder reverses to 2♠ instead of bidding checkback, but I think most play that as 4-5? Also note that if we swap the heart king for the spade king in responder's hand, 3NT is a fine contract if played from responder's side. Walsh style will wrong-side this immediately when opener rebids 1NT.

Again, say we have the auction 1♣-1♦-1♥ playing up-the-line style. It's true there is an occasional problem hand where responder has 1-3-6-3 or even 2-3-5-3 with weak spades, and doesn't want to bid notrump next. This hand is not as common as people seem to think. However, there are several points here:

(1) Signing off in 2♣ is not always best, even if opener's sequence guarantees shape. First, opener could have 4♣ even in Walsh (4-4-1-4). Second, it's quite possible (perhaps even likely) that a 5-3 club fit will not play as well as a 6-2 or even a 6-1 diamond fit after the easy trump lead, given that playing in the weak hand's long trump suit is often superior. Finally, there could be a huge diamond fit (1-4-3-5 opener) which will never even be diagnosed because responder's sequence (1♦ then correct to clubs) didn't even show four diamonds, much less 5-6. Of course, I don't know where we get these opponents who never bid their spades, which tends to be the problem with this whole debate (these hands where responder is weak and opener is minimum and you can't play 1NT because a major is wide open tend to have bidding opponents).

(2) Say we do correct to clubs (perhaps only five diamonds, or the diamonds are weak). In a Walsh style, opener knows very little about the diamonds -- Walsh bidders routinely bid a three card diamond suit on various patterns with longer clubs in order to obtain information from opener or right-side 1NT. But in an up-the-line style, the sequence 1♣-1♦-1M-2♣ essentially guarantees five diamonds. Responder cannot have a four-card major (would raise 1M with four, or bid 1NT with four in the other major). Responder does not bid three-card diamond suits in up-the-line style. With five clubs and four diamonds responder would raise directly. This leaves (2-3)-4-4 exactly (normally raise directly if not suited to responding in notrump) and 3-3-4-3 (virtually always bid notrump with this). So if opener holds 3-4 clubs and 3 diamonds it's straightforward to bid 1♣-1♦-1M-2♣-2♦ and play in the better fit.