WesleyC

Some amount of wrong-siding is an unavoidable side effect of the method. No arguments about that. But when considering how much the wrong-siding actually costs, its important to remember just infrequent strong minor hands are. On the other hand, always having responder play NT is a major issue well worth considering. Strong hands with hearts are a more common and Kungsgeten's ideas could certainly be valuable dealing with them. However, not having an anchor suit for the transfer does reduce responder's ability to compete in a competitive auction. I've had significant success with auctions like: 2S (P) 3C* (3H) 3S*(4H) 5D Where 5D was an excellent save, but generally missed by people who opened 2S. WesC

A couple of years ago I came up with the idea of using Transfers to advances 2H/2S openings in an uncontested auction. My preferred 2H opening shows both majors so i'll consider just the natural 2S opening for now. After an opening 2S bid (which can be a 5c suit, especially when NV), the options I wanted responder to have were: 1) Stop in 3C/3D/3H. 2) Explore slam with C/D/H and big 2-suiters. 3) Invite in Spades. 4) Shortage ask confirming Spades. 5) Suit quality ask in Spades, for choice of game or slam investigation. The basic structure I came up with was: 2NT = Clubs or Shortage Ask or General Invite. 3C = Diamonds. 3D = Hearts. 3H = Trump Length/Quality asking bid. 3S = Preemptive. After 2S - 2NT/3C/3D opener always accepts the transfer which can then be passed. 2S 2NT 3C 3D is an artificial shortage ask. 2S 2NT 3C 3S is a general game invite. 2S 2NT 3C 3NT shows a mild slam try with long clubs. Other continuations are natural(ish) and forcing. The system works similarly after transferring to a red suit although I'm not sure about the best meaning for 2S 3C 3D 3S or 2S 3D 3H 3S. After 2S 3H* (* suit quality asking bid) the response structure I came up with is: 3S = 5c suit. (then 3NT = to play) 3NT = Strong 5c suit (perhaps KQJxx or better) 4C-4S = best to worst 6c suits. Does anyone already use this method (or something similar)? Any comments or improvements would be much appreciated! WesC

1) 3H is very ugly with only 5 hearts and a balanced hand, definitely not my choice. On a related note: have you considered moving the heart positive to 2NT instead? 2) I'd try a simple 6NT. Even IF 5NT meant 'pick a slam' this hand isn't suitable. 6D will sometimes be better, but it could also be much worse, going down on a ruff or a bad trump break. For the record, opposite a partner who stretched to upgrade their balanced hands, I might even consider a 4NT invite. This would be even more appealing if unbalanced 19-21 counts like [AKxx x AKQ KJxxx] were in partner's range...

2S and 3D both seem reasonable. The main deciding factor would be partners style for this sequence, but I would also be more likely to stretch against weaker opponents.

Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond! Based on your collective commentary and a poll of a few friends i'm going to see how much hassle lodging an appeal would cause. If I do appeal, I'll be sure to return with the results... A few other questions/comments: Barmar: I couldn't find the relevant BW article, which issue is it in? Gnasher: <Re: "All the reasons he might have for thinking suggest bidding"> Consider an impossible theoretical situation: I KNOW partner's hesitation is based on a close decision between double (suggesting a defensive strong hand) and pass. Now, the unauthorised knowledge of partner's defensive orientation surely indicates NOT to compete. There must be an increased chance that 4S and 4H are both down, or that 4Sx is going down too many. McPhee: 1H (x) would be even worse for my side, perhaps you could find a way to correct the result to that?

I asked East this myself! He wasn't sure whether double would show unilateral penalty (ie. 18+ balanced, misfit) or simply a normal T/O double (with extras and a defensive preference). In the end he wasn't sure and decided to pass. The hesitation was only 10-15 seconds (however I don't think the length matters). Although generally a conservative player, north has a tendency to bid one more at high levels. I offer this hand as an example - 5H certainly isn't a logical alternative for me.

[hv=pc=n&s=s92ht8765dt54caj7&w=st86543hd832cq862&n=skqhaqj932dqj9ck3&e=saj7hk4dak76ct954&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hd3h3s4hpp4s5hdppp]399|300[/hv] This hand is from a State Level IMP Swiss Pairs Tournament. The opponents play ACOL. I was West and over 3H I chose not to jump to 4S to avoid giving partner a 5 level problem. My plan was to bid 4S over 4H on the next round in almost all cases (including through (4H) x ). As the hand played out, partner hesitated over 4H before passing. I bid 4S reasoning that pass wasn't a logical alternative, (in particular against this north). I also thought that partner's hesitation didn't necessarily suggest bidding and that partner's pass was more likely to be a double vs pass situation than a choice between 4S and pass. Over 4S, North unsuccessfully chose to continue with 5H however the director adjusted the score from 5Hx -2 to 4H undoubled -1. Is this ruling correct?

I'd bid 3H. Isn't this a perfect hand for the convention?

Why not? If the auction starts 1NT (X) ??? you as responder are the only one with complete information about the relative HCP distribution between the two sides. If you don't enjoy redoubling on a 5-6 count when you know that your side has 20(21)+ HCP, imagine how little the two opponents are going to enjoy being forced to guess whether to pass or pull on their hands with either less information! One other thing to consider is that 1NT redoubled is game so at IMPs scoring you don't even need to make it half of the time for it to be profitable. e.g. NV you risk -100 (-1) vs +380 (=) Vul you risking -200 (-1) to vs +580 (=) However, I do agree that not being able to play 1NTx is a lot to give up at Matchpoints.

I play this methods and I'm happy to be able to show the diamonds with 2C. Its difficult to make a decision about what double means without more background information about your style.

In this context, "scrambling" means a hand that doesn't want to play 1NTx and wants partner to be involved in choosing the contract. A scrambling hand would typically have 4432 or 4441 shape (with any suits), but you might also sometimes do it with a 5/4 shape if your 5c suit was very weak or even on a 4333 if you were desperate! In response to your question: "What should south do". With a balanced hand and good values, south is very happy to defend 1NTx or 1NTxx so they should definitely start by passing. Then if east/west escape to 2D, I would re-open the with a takeout double (which is my agreement). Some people play double is for penalty in this kind of auction. If that is your agreement I guess you might try a 3D cuebid. Hope this was helpful, Mike

Although getting doubled for penalties is pretty rare after a strong 1NT opening, it comes up a lot more if you play a weak 1NT opening (and also after a 1NT overcall). A simple method that I like is: After 1NT - (X) - ??? All bids are natural and show a 5c suit. Pass is scrambling and asks partner to either bid his own 5c suit or redouble without one. Redouble shows values and is to play. (Although future doubles are takeout). An alternative method is: All bids are natural and show a 5c suit. Pass is to play. Redouble is scrambling and shows a hand without a 5c suit. (Opener bids their lowest playable spot) WesC

I pretty much agree with Justin's analysis. To summarize my thoughts in a slightly different way: When considering whether to make a simple raise on a marginal hand, you might consider the following factors (roughly in order of importance): 1) Forcing the opponents to play a competitive board at the 3-level. 2) Giving partner the chance to compete to 3S/4S profitably. 3) Directing partner to lead a spade. 4) Taking up bidding space in the opponents' auction. In the (1♦) 1♠ (2♥) ??? auction it seems like [982 JT87 963 AJ3] fails on just about all of them. 1) The opponents are in a forcing auction so they'll end up at the 3-level whether you bid or not. 2) This hand will pretty much always be a disappointing dummy and has a high defensive to offensive ratio. If 4S is a great contract, partner will usually be able to find another call. 3) A spade lead against 3NT is probably fine. Against an (unlikely) diamond contract a spade lead could be disastrous. Not too much either way here. 4) 2S actually HELPS the opponents auction by giving opener the chance to pass/double on hands that might otherwise have a tricky rebid. It seems like just about everyone else is automatically raising this hand, so i'd be interesting to hear their thinking! WesC

1. I guess are 3/5 possible.

A hand came up recently which got me thinking about simple raises in competitive auctions: IMPs Vul vs NV LHO Dealer (1♦) 1♠ (2♥) ??? 2H is a one-round force and your partnership style is aggressive overcalls at the 1 level. What value of ? would make this hand worth a 2S raise? [?82 JT87 963 AJ3] This hand also got me thinking about similar auctions. How much would you change your 2S range in a similar auction like: (1♦) 1♠ (2♦) ??? or (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) ??? WesC

Certainly with a hands like [Qxxx Kxxxx xxx x] [Kxxxx Qxxx xxx x] I would always jump to 2S/2H over the double to put maximum pressure on the opponents so it makes sense for 2D to have a similar meaning of both majors, competitive.

If pass shows multiple places to play, surely that involves partner in the decision making process? Also this hand will usually compete to at least the 2-Level, but passing might sometimes leaves you the option to change your mind. For example if you pass the auction might develop: (1D) X (XX) P (P) 2C or (1D) X (XX) P (P) 1S (X= Penalty) Where you're happy to stop short of 2M.

Its also an impossible hand because most of the high cards are already in your hand! However the nature of the hand was very close to what partner held at the table (JTxx xxxx Axx xx). I can't see much advantage in bidding 1S as compared to simply passing 1D and then competing to the 2 level in whichever major partner bids. What do you see as the advantage of an immediate 1S? Regarding the question of what type of hand partner should have to compete to the 3 level, i'm clearly on the wrong page and am probably being too conservative. Maybe t/o doubling style makes a difference here, I tend to double 1m on most 4333 13 counts for example. However Opposite a typical T/O double, I guess a competitive 3S isn't too unreasonable. WesC

lol, great response :) Looking at the hand record, its hard to fault south's 1D. What's your beef with West's double?

IMPs with an expert but old-school partner. [hv=pc=n&w=sq9865hkj83d5cajt&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1ddrpp1s3d3sp]133|200[/hv] Partner's pass over the redouble is scrambling, but you haven't discussed the continuations. What kind of hand do you expect for 3S? Do you pass or bid 4S? Cheers, WesC

[hv=pc=n&w=skj53h64dqt953cak&e=st982hk5daj6cqj97&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c2h(Weakish)d3hppdp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs against up and coming opponents. Lead is the C6. Plan the play!

3NT at IMPs. Pass at MPs.

4NT, passing 5m. Some of the time you'll lose the first two tricks. Even if they only have one heart to cash, I don't like my chances of playing Qxxxx opposite Axxx for no losers.

For me, passing 4S isn't a logical alternative. I also disagree with OPs assertion that "it's pretty obvious the hesitation suggests bidding on". North might have a really bad hand with second round control of a red suit and be wondering about whether showing it here is mandatory. Or maybe they're wondering whether 4C sets Spades or if it could still be first round control of clubs in a strong heart hand and trying to find their weakest continuation.

I think that Woolsey also plays this treatment and it seems sound. Personally I'd rather just spare all the hassles and stick with a strong NT!