Transfer with jump

[Zloty]

Hello,

 

Is it a transfer for 4 spades? In which case and how many points?

Thans for your replies..

Kind regards.

 

Zloty

[Walddk]

Yes, 1NT - 4♥ is called Texas and shows 6+ spades and enough for game. I don't want to add hcp, could be anything. The more spades, the weaker it might be.

 

Some distinguish (slam try or not) between:

 

1NT - 4♥

4♠

 

and

 

1NT - 2♥

2♠ - 4♠

 

You can control the first auction and let it be sign off or very strong (will bid again). In my second example you may play it as a mild slam try with no shortage. It's all a matter of agreement.

 

Roland

[Elianna]

Also, many people distinguish using Texas and Jacoby transfers for quantitative and keycard auctions:

 

1NT-2♥-2♠-4NT = quantitative (inviting to 6♠ or 6NT)

 

1NT-4♥-4♠-4NT = keycard.

[Double !]

Also, many people distinguish using Texas and Jacoby transfers for quantitative and keycard auctions:

 

1NT-2♥-2♠-4NT = quantitative (inviting to 6♠ or 6NT)

 

1NT-4♥-4♠-4NT = keycard.

yes

[Free]

You also have south african transfers, where 4M bids are natural and 4m bids are transfers. So it depends on partnership agreements. I prefer it as transfer to ♠, like the people above describe.

[Finch]

If you are playing with people from other countries, be aware that this is virtually unknown in the UK, where absolutely everybody* plays that 1NT - 4H shows a desire to play in 4H.

 

What is often, though by no means generally, played here is 1NT-4C a slam try in hearts and 1NT-4D a slam try in spades. Opener 'breaks' with a suitable hand. Of course, this is only played by people who fully understand the merits of 4C being Gerber in response to 1NT.

 

*I know some clever dick will say they don't. But they are in a tiny minority.

[Guest Jlall]

*I know some clever dick will say they don't.

I lived in the UK for 3 years and I don't play this!

[kenberg]

*I know some clever dick will say they don't.

I lived in the UK for 3 years and I don't play this!

Clever dicks of the world, arise!

[Guest Jlall]

eh in my case I'd eliminate the word clever :P

[joker_gib]

In France and in Belgium (at least for the french speaking region), the word "Texas" is used for every transfer bid !

 

4♥ and 4♠ are generally to play. 4♣ and 4♦ are used with respectively minor and major 2-suiters limited to game. (or major 2-suiter in both cases, indicating shortness)

 

Alain

[Walddk]

The treatment Frances is referring to is probably due to the fact that weak NT (12-14) is very common in the UK. Accordingly, it has a lot of merit if responder can decide who is going to declare.

 

Opposite the weak NT responder is usually at least as strong as opener, and by using 4♥ and 4♠ as natural, responder has the option of protecting the tenaces he may have. If he has none, he can let opener declare by bidding 2♥ followed by 4♠.

 

Finally, as Frances also pointed out, responder can show a slam invitational hand by venturing South African Texas where 1NT - 4♣ and 1NT - 4♦ are strong hands with hearts and spades respectively.

 

The additional advantage is that opener will always bid over 4♣ and 4♦ (can't be natural, sign off), whereas there is a danger that 4♥ could be passed if opener forgets that they play Texas.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

Where is Henri (ritong) when we need him? He thinks that this treatment is useful opposite a strong opener, too. He claims good opponents defend worse when the distributional hand, with unknown hcps and unknown shortness/distribution, becomes the closed hand.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

I don't disagree. The merit of always letting the strong hand be declarer is overrated. I know that Fred Gitelman said something along those lines some time ago in the Forums (can't find the post where he expressed that view).

 

Roland

[Finch]

There is also the advantage of getting to the final contract quickly on weak hand, particularly if you have hearts and they might have spades. If you respond 4H to play, the next hand has only one chance to act. If you respond 4C or 4D as a transfer, he has two chances.

 

(This is also of course a downside of using 2-level transfers, and why some people prefer to play 2M as natural opposite a (very) weak NT. Idon't, but that's yet another debate.)

 

Mind you, I agree with Roland that the best reason for using 4H to play is to fit in with the excellent general rule that "game is always to play". A highly recommended method, particularly in competitive auctions.

[Walddk]

ArcLight has asked me to explain why it's often overrated that the strong hand becomes declarer after a transfer sequence. I can do it no better than Fred, so here is a copy of what he sent me:

 

In my opinion this is a secondary consideration (or even a tertiary consideration playing weak notrumps). The main advantage of Jacoby (versus 2-way Stayman for example) is that this convention allows the responder to control the level of the auction thereby allowing him to describe several hand types while keeping the bidding conveniently low.

 

Obviously it is also the case that there are some deals where the defense is easier if the weak and distributional hand appears as the dummy (instead of the strong and balanced hand).

 

Let me add that re-transfers after opener breaks is of little use now that the strong hand has revealed a lot about his hand. He may just as well table his cards after this. Example:

 

1N - 2♦

2♠ - 4♥

 

Some play that 2♠ on this auction shows a maximum NT with 4-card heart support and a small doubleton in spades. It could very well be a good idea now to let the unknown hand (responder) declare rather than re-transferring with 3♦ first.

 

Roland

[ArcLight]

> In my opinion this is a secondary consideration (or even a tertiary consideration playing weak notrumps). The main advantage of Jacoby (versus 2-way Stayman for example) is that this convention allows the responder to control the level of the auction thereby allowing him to describe several hand types while keeping the bidding conveniently low.

 

 

Mike Lawrence says something similar in his Conventions CD.

 

However, I think Fred and Mike are speaking generally, when you have multiple hand types to show. In his bididng books (the Uncontested Auction and 2/1 Workbook and 2/1 CD) and Mike emphasizies trying to right side contracts.

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

[Walddk]

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

Indeed, and that's exactly why it's a good idea to let responder decide if playing weak NT. He can see if he has tenaces to protect, and if he has, it's a good idea to let 4♥ and 4♠ be natural.

 

If he has not, he can transfer at the 2-level and raise to game next. The same might apply opposite a strong notrump, so maybe it's worth considering that one lets 4MA be natural and use 4♣/♦ as transfers.

 

As usual, a matter of agreement.

 

Roland

[fred]

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

For sure, but only when:

 

1) The Ace is offside

2) The defenders lead that suit

3) The defenders can't cross in another suit to lead that suit

4) Declarer has a way to get rid of his losers in that suit

5) Declarer can keep the dangerous hand off lead

 

Furthermore, there are times in which having Kx in the dummy is a good thing. Supposed declarer has Jx and the whole hand depends on the Ace being onside. You would rather have the Kx in the dummy because the opening leader will frequently lead from the Queen (thereby allowing you to make an impossible contract).

 

Overall (and especially from a double dummy point of view) it is no doubt best to have the strong hand as declarer. The point I am trying to make is that, in the real world, this is not as important as some authors would have you believe.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[joker_gib]

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

I saw that last saturday when in a team match partner put me in a 6NT contract after stayman.

 

1NT - 2♣

2♦ - 6NT

 

RHO doubled for the ♠ lead and I was quickly down 1 cause the king was in partner hand !

 

In the other room, They play weak NT and after a system mistake (the opps told us), NT's were bid by responder.

 

Result 6NT= and -17 imps !! :(

 

Alain

[ArcLight]

Fred and Roland,

 

I should have phrased my post better. I fully agree with your points.

Especially opposite a weak NT, where responder may have more strength than opener.

 

What I meant (and what Mike Lawrence writes) is that its generally important to have a stopper like Kx not being exposed (strength of hands may not be that important) when bidding an NT contract. It's more of a luxury in a suit contract, though can be important in slam bidding. His writing was geared towards people who bid so as to end a sequence in NT with no stopper, exposing pards stopper.

 

Kx opposite Jx is a good example of when this doesn't work. And I can certainly see the opening lead being away from the Q, allowing the K to make on the next round, or the J making if East plays the 10.

[MickyB]

The question is - is the gain in flexibility of which way around to play the contract worth the loss of 4C as Gerber? :(

 

I agreet that it is often better to have the unbalanced, undescribed hand as declarer.

[Walddk]

His writing was geared towards people who bid NT with no stopper, exposing pards stopper.

Sometimes that can't be helped. What else but 1NT can I open on

 

xxx

AQx

KJxx

AJx

 

where I may expose Kx spades in dummy, and what else can I rebid but 1NT on

 

xxx

AQ

KJxxx

Kxx

 

after 1♦ - 1♥? Again I may expose the same Kx in dummy.

 

Roland

[Finch]

Here's a real generic statement for you:

It's often more important to rightside the contract in a NT game than a suit game.

 

Why? Many NT contracts are about the race between declarer and defence to establish their long suit. It thus becomes critical for the defence to be able to attack their suit on the opening lead. If they need to waste a defensive tempo before they can attack, it can cost the contract.

 

Suit contracts are more about the desire not to lose too many tricks. It is less likely to be critical to attack one particular suit at trick one.

 

Now, obviously there are loads of exceptions to this, and some NT contracts need to be defended passively, and some suit contracts have quick pitches and so on and so forth. But I think the principle is sound.

 

Slams are different, when right-siding is usually about stopping 2 quick tricks cashing, and there is no difference between NT and suits. In a partial they often have sufficient high cards that the defence can organise to lead through your vulnerable holding anyway.

 

sadly with a holding of Ax opposite Qx in NT you don't know who you want to be declarer without seeing the opponents' hands...

[Walddk]

The question is - is the gain in flexibility of which way around to play the contract worth the loss of 4C as Gerber?  :(

You are surely the luckiest man in the world, Mike, if all you have to sacrifice in life is your favourite meaning of 4♣. ;)

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: The single most important issue here is making sure that you have a firm agreement with partner. If an auction like 1N - (P) - 4♥ goes "wrong", it can easily cost a match. (I lost an event once because partner and I hadn't discussed this)

 

Comment 2: Jumps to the 4 level eat up a lot of bidding space. I can't recall the last time that I wanted to jump to the 4 level with something other than a hand that wanted to play 4M. Transfer's at the two level position us nicely to discover whether partner has a minimum or a maximum opening as well as his degree of fit. (To some extent this depends on the sophistication of your "basic" response structure)

 

Here is a summary of the Scanian response structure

 

4N = Slam invitational hand with 3=3=4=3 or 3=3=3=4 shape

4♠ = To play

4♥ = To play

4♦ = Transfer to Spades

4♣ = transfer to Hearts

 

The decision to transfer is based on the presence (or lack) of tenaces. Accordingly, the decision to accept the transfer does not clarify range/degree of fit.

 

Please note: I doubt that the system designers disagree with Frances point: Getting the lead into the "right" hand isn't nearly as important in suit play as in NT contracts. With this said and done, you have to use the 4♣ and 4♦ openings for something, and it might as well be this...