Transfer trouble

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=n&s=skqt75h974dat85c4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Silent opps.

 

Partner: 1NT(12 - 14)

You: 2♥ (transfer)

Partner: 2♠

You: Pass

 

Sounds normal, right?

 

Question: What ♦ card do you want in exchange ♦T with to not pass 2♠?

 

a) vuln. at IMPs

:) not vuln. at IMPs

c) at MP

 

Edit: If you bid something you have the following options:

2NT: Invitational, exactly 5♠

3♦: GF, 5+♠ 4+♦

Edited January 9, 2006 by Gerben42

[P_Marlowe]

The answer to your question will

also depend on the meaning of 3D,

i.e. does it force to game?

 

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

See edit of my post. If you happen to know how <add your favorite non-transfer system here> solves this problem, you're happy to post this also.

 

"The problem" is that if you know partner has a fit, you want to invite. But you don't know so you pass. Making 5, next :)

[P_Marlowe]

See edit of my post. If you happen to know how <add your favorite non-transfer system here> solves this problem, you're happy to post this also.

Hi,

 

maybe I will look up Roth's structure, he suggest

a structure in which 3D is nonforcing, but it is a

complicated struture, hence nothing for me. :)

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: To answer your question, a Queen, I need my

11 HCP.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bearmum]

Dealer: North Vul: ???? Scoring: IMP

♠ KQT75 ♥ 974 ♦ AT85 ♣ 4

 

Silent opps.

 

Partner: 1NT(12 - 14)

You: 2♥ (transfer)

Partner: 2♠

You: Pass

 

Sounds normal, right?

 

Question: What ♦ card do you want in exchange ♦T with to not pass 2♠?

 

a) vuln. at IMPs

B) not vuln. at IMPs

c) at MP

 

Edit: If you bid something you have the following options:

2NT: Invitational, exactly 5♠

3♦: GF, 5+♠ 4+♦

IMO in all cases:

 

Assuming that 3♦ is GAME force I would need KING AND QUEEN of ♦ in place of the ten ;) (and that wasn't an option) :)

 

If I have K♦ in place of the T I will bid 2NT showing INVITATIONAL values with 5 ♠

[awm]

Well hopefully partner will super-accept with a max and four spades; otherwise this problem becomes even more difficult. Anyways:

 

IMPs I will invite if the diamonds are ♦AJT5 or ♦AQ85. This may lead to a 24 (or even 23) hcp game, but the spade ten is a huge card in this hand. The spades can play for four tricks opposite doubleton jack (or even two small sometimes!) and five tricks opposite doubleton ace.

 

MPs, I think I'd want ♦AQT5 at a minimum.

 

Give me the ♦K instead of the ten and I will game force at any form of scoring. ♦AQJ5 is also enough. Again the spade ten makes a big difference -- change it to the deuce and I'd want the diamond king to even invite.

[Guest Jlall]

At imps red I would bid 3D with AQxx and invite with AJxx.

At imps NV I would invite with both AQxx and AJxx

At MP I would invite with AQxx and pass with AJxx.

 

btw this is an excellent hand type for the method 2C followed by 2S shows a distributional invite mainly interested in playing game opposite a spade fit.

[mikeh]

I have never liked transfers in response to weak 1NT openers: I prefer variants of 2-way stayman (I have a particularly good one).

 

In my methods, I would bid a pedestrian 2♠: partner is allowed (supposed) to raise to 3 with a maximum (good 13-14) and 4 cards support: note: 'good 13 and 14' counts are not mere arithmetical exercises: Aces and Kings are upgraded, Queens and Jacks downgraded, shape counts, combined hcp, especially in long(er) suits are upgraded etc. Some 13 counts invite, some 14 counts, even with 4♠, pass. Axxx KQx xx Axxx definitely raises 2♠; Jxxx KQJ Qxx KQx definitely passes 2♠.

 

We rely upon the LOTT to give us some modest protection should responder hold a horrible hand.

 

I would be happy to expand on why I think transfers are flawed opposite a weak hand, but that is a topic for another thread. I would also be happy to explain my 2♦ artificial gf sequences ;)

[MickyB]

With the Q♦, I'll bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2NT at MPs; With the J♦, I'll invite vul at IMPs otherwise pass.

 

Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on transfers opposite a weak NT.

[Kalvan14]

I also think that transfers are flawed when playing a weak NT; a 2-tiers Stayman works probably better. OTOH, I see that the majority of weak NTers play transfers, so they may have a point.

In the specific auction, I'd need the Q♦ at least to bid a GF 3♦.

I trust the invitational 2NT does not automatically end up into P or 3N or 4M: IMHO, opener should indicate where his holdings are.

[mikeh]

With the Q♦, I'll bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2NT at MPs; With the J♦, I'll invite vul at IMPs otherwise pass.

 

Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on transfers opposite a weak NT.

You asked for it ;)

 

Let's start with a confession: I am primarily an imp player and my methods reflect that.

 

In imps, we all know that accurate bidding of games and slams is more important that finding the right partscore.

 

When one plays a strong notrump, then on the vast majority of game hands, opener's hand will be the stronger. On most slam hands, opener's hand will be as big as or bigger than responder. On those where responder's hand is stronger, the combined assets are such that placement of the opening lead and/or concealment of information re declarer's hand is unlikely to be critical to the success or failure of the contract.

 

It is usually useful to have the stronger hand as declarer: this minimizes the chances of a lead through, say, AQ or Kxx on the opening lead.

 

It is usually easier for the weaker hand to describe its values than for the stronger one to do so: the weaker one has less to show, and can thus make better use of the available bidding space.

 

In strong notrump auctions, one can combine these two principles through use of transfers. Transfer auctions do two things: they place opener as declarer most of the time (the exceptions are when responder shows and the partnership plays in a second suit: a rare occurence) and they usually entail responder describing his or her hand to opener. It is true that in many sequences, opener has to make a descriptive bid or two as well, but, as a generality, transfers entail responder describing his hand.

 

But in weak notrump auction, the odds are that in game (and overwhelmingly so in slam) auctions, responder has the stronger hand.

 

So we end up, after a transfer auction, with the stronger hand, in game or slam, as dummy too often.

 

We also have the problem that the stronger hand is doing the describing, which requires a significant use/consumption of bidding space and, hence, is inefficient.

 

Finally, on the weak hands, transfers give the opps two chances to bid: after the transfer and after the transfer is completed.

 

This is of course equally true in strong 1NT sequences, but as a matter of frequency, 4th chair will be less able/willing to risk bidding with a strong nt behind him: where opener's high cards can do the maximum damage. In a weak notrump, 4th chair is slightly more likely to risk a delayed balance. I would not stress this too much, since as a weak notrumper, one of the major benefits to the method is penalizing the opps :D

 

The main issues are the right-siding and the use of bidding space. I used to play a relay method (2♣ in response to 1♦/♥/♠ and 1♦ over 1♣) which was based on fibonacci series tinkered to maximize the odds of relayer being on play. We found that auctions in which dummy gave a detailed description and could then answer a question about 'what does declarer have' with "he wants to play this contract opposite what I have shown: I have no idea beyond that' made the defence very tough.

 

We cannot quite do that over weak nt (I have a method for doing it over strong), but an appropriate 2-way stayman method goes a long way.

 

Here is a taste: 2♦ is gf.

 

2♥ (by opener) denies ♥

2♠ denies ♠, shows ♥

2N shows 5+♣

3♣ shows 5+♦

3♦ shows 4=4 majors

 

over 2♥, 2♠ by responder asks

 

2N denies ♠, 3♣ asks exact shape

3♣ shows 4♦ and 4♠

3♦ shows 4♣ and 4♠

3♥ is 4=3=3=3

3N is 5♠

 

This scheme allows responder to set trump comfortably and get opener describing whether and why he likes/dislikes his hand, and right-sides most (not all) suit contracts.

[MickyB]

Interesting. My opinion is that transfers are nearly as effective over a weak NT as a strong one.

 

- It is usually better for the unbalanced hand to describe so the balanced hand can evaluate his honours (much easier for an unbalanced hand to show a club shortage than for a balanced hand to show no wastage opposite a club shortage)

 

- It is often worth having the lead up to the balanced hand, even if it is a bit weaker, as it tends to have split honours

 

- Weak takeouts are useful opposite a 1st seat 1NT opening, as they only give 4th seat one chance to bid; but opposite a 2nd seat 1NT opening, transfers are superior competitively, because after P-1N-P-2♦, P-2♥ the auction is still live.

[Gerben42]

Mike, very nice scheme but can you tell us how you handle the NF hands after 2♣. I think most of us can think of a relay scheme for a GF 2♦ response (or download one).

 

If you like simple I think that 2-way Stayman is not a good idea. It is not good to have 2♣ ask: do you have a 4-card major? and 2♦ ask: do you have a 4-card major?

 

So here's my take on this. A simple scheme after a weak NT.

 

2♣ = "Garbage" Stayman

2♦ = Asks for a 2-card major. At least game interest if a fit is found.

2♥♠; 3♣3♦: To play

3♥♠: Invite, 6-card suit

2NT: Both minors or slam try in one minor.

 

After 2♦ opener bids a 2-card major if he has one, 2NT with 3+3+ and a minimum, describe on the 3-level with 3+3+ and a maximum.

 

This works extremely well for the hand type that started the thread.

[luke warm]

mine (actually truscott/rosenkrantz) is sorta like mike's, except without the fear of wrongsiding... rosenkrantz said that it rarely happens, and even when it does it's often wrong-wrongsided.. anyway, 2d is game force stayman with

 

2h=hearts

2s=spades, denies hearts

2nt=any 4333

3c=5 clubs

3d=4/4 minors

3h=2353

3s=3253

3nt=3352

 

after 2h or 2s, if a 5cM is held, 3h/s/nt are the same as when they show diamonds, after the relay

[awm]

I'm not a big fan of methods where responder relays out opener's shape opposite a notrump opening. There are two main reasons for this:

 

(1) Like Mikeh said, it's nice when as little as possible has been revealed about declarer's hand. But when 1NT is opened, at least one contract will already be played out of opener's hand... and not only this, but 3NT is perhaps the most common contracts. A method where opener describes will inevitably lead to a fair number of 3NTs being played with opener's exact distribution known to the defense.

 

(2) Finding slams often depends on having the two hands fit well together. If you have 2+ cards in every suit, it will often be difficult to make a slam without a huge preponderance of values. The key to finding good slams is often holdings like xxx or Axx opposite a singleton (this maximizes the value of ruffs and turns the opponents K/Q/J in the suit into waste paper). Relaying out the balanced hand makes this very hard to evaluate, since the key feature in opener's hand will be not the number of cards in each suit but the honor holding. Allowing the hand with singleton to describe fixes this problem. This is also important in finding the right game: when opener has KQJx opposite a singleton the right contract will often be 3NT even if there is a 4-4 major fit to be had; when opener has xxxx opposite singleton, 3NT is often unplayable and it can be better to prefer a 4-3 major fit or a 5-minor contract.

[luke warm]

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's... responder only relays far enough to set the contract, if game force.. however, if slam going it's far easier to use a relay system with the strong hand asking.. at least that's my opinion

 

playing mikeh's or truscott's, the full dist is known before or at 3nt, then controls, then denial cue bids

[Blofeld]

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's...

?

 

Adam didn't mention being worried about the relative strengths of the hands at all.

[Gerben42]

I still haven't heard how those playing 1NT - 2♦ as GF handle continuations after 1NT - 2♣, which seems to cover weak and invitational hands, which was my main question <_<

 

I've seen several schemes for this, all seemed quite messy.

[luke warm]

ok gerben, this is the one i use... i'm sure there are many more, better (maybe much better) schemes

 

1nt : 2c=invitational puppet or garbage

2h/s=5

 

1nt : 2c

2d=no 5cM, then

• pass=to play (garbage)
  
• 2h=<4h, may have 4s
  
• 2s=<4s, guarantees 4h
  
• 2nt=4/4 majors, invitational, opener may sign off with 3M
  
• 3c=5s,4h invitational
  
• 3d=4s, 5h invitational
  
• 3h=(xx)45
  
• 3s=(xx)54
  
• 3nt=5+/5+ minors
  

1nt : 2nt=relay to 3c, preemptive hand

3c p/c

 

1nt : 2h/s to play

 

1nt : 3c/d/h/s=6 cd invitational

 

the important thing to remember is, all are invitational.. so opener needs to bid something other than minimum if s/he would accept, like

 

1nt : 2c

2d : 2h

3s=if responder has 4 spades i accept the invite in that suit, if not bid 3nt

 

this allows opener to show a sign off hand

 

1nt : 2c

2d : 2h

2s with 4 or 2nt w/out

[luke warm]

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's...

?

 

Adam didn't mention being worried about the relative strengths of the hands at all.

no, but wrongsiding a contract (which is the complaint i hear the most about gf 2d relays) is more of a real threat with a strong nt than a weak nt

[mikeh]

But when 1NT is opened, at least one contract will already be played out of opener's hand... and not only this, but 3NT is perhaps the most common contracts. A method where opener describes will inevitably lead to a fair number of 3NTs being played with opener's exact distribution known to the defense.

 

This is true, but to a far more limited degree than your post suggests. After all, on the majority of gf hands, responder does not relay to find exact shape, and when he does, he is often declarer.

 

When the likely destination is 3N, responder will usually bid it early. Thus, if respnder is looking for a major, as soon as he finds out that the major fit is not there, he bids 3N.

 

Responder only relays to exact shape when that information will be of use. On the majority of such hands, responder will be aiming at a suit contract, and now the method's ability to conceal declarer's hand is powerful.

 

Your comment is only valid on those relatively infrequent hands on which responder needs to find exact shape in order to decide whether 3N is best.

 

And as a counter-balance, consider 1N 2♦ 2♥ 3N: responder was looking for ♥ or a 5 card minor, and, finding neither, signed off in 3N. No-one, other than declarer, knows if he has 4♠: unlike a normal stayman auction.

[kenrexford]

I agree with Justin that this is a good hand for illustrating the merits of 2C...2S as an unbalanced spade game invite (as I employ it). Perhaps a tad light, but I bid light.

 

I would also add, in response to the Q about treatments, that a major-diamond invitational has a solution. After a transfer (or after Stayman?), switch the minors like you do with Smolen, sort of.

 

3C = Invitational+, with diamonds

3D = GF with clubs.

 

Sure, this fails to provide a NF solution for clubs, but 50% ain't bad. It also is EASY to remember, a key fact. The smolenization of minor three-bids occasionally right-side's minor slams, also.

 

Besides, who could pass up making a "smolenized minor" call?

[awm]

Well let's see... by far the most likely possibility is that responder is looking for a major suit fit. If responder has a five-card major, he will need to relay out opener's shape to the fullest just to determine whether opener has three card support. This gives opponents a huge amount of info, much more than a transfer and bid 3NT auction. If responder has a four-card major, then potentially less information is given by the one auction you describe, but almost every other auction is worse than normal stayman (opener often reveals presence of a five-card minor which stayman would never show, opener always shows 4-4 in majors when stayman might reveal only the heart fit). In fact, some of the Italian pairs seem to be playing 1NT-3M to show four cards in a major and no slam interest (choice of games) so as to provide the defense with even less information than stayman. So I doubt this is a "negligible issue" in high-level play.

 

And I still don't understand how you're supposed to figure out the best contract when you can't tell what opener has opposite your singleton. Give responder:

 

KQxxx

x

AKxx

AQx

 

Partner opens 1NT, 10-12. You relay out shape and figure out partner is exactly 2-4-4-3. Where do you want to be opposite:

 

Ax

xxxx

QJxx

KJx

 

Jx

KQJx

xxxx

KJx

 

Opposite the first hand, 6♦ is excellent while 3NT could easily go down on a heart lead. Opposite the second hand, 3NT seems cold... but anything higher could run into trouble when spades fail to break 3-3.

 

Perhaps you'll respond that this is a somewhat contrived example, but my experience has been that a lot of slams make on 27-29 hcp with the right honor holding opposite a singleton, and that finding these slams consistently is a key to winning at IMPs.

 

My auction playing Keri-Garrod on this hand:

 

1NT - 2♥ (transfer)

2♠ - 3♣ (game force with 4♦ and 5+♠)

3♦ - 3♥ (short in hearts)

 

At this point opener continues with 4♥ on the first hand, showing nothing wasted in hearts and a known suit fit. Responder bids 5NT (pick-a-slam; 29-30 known working points in a 34-point deck) and opener bids 6♦.

 

On the second hand, opener will bid 3NT like a shot, auction over.

[mikeh]

Well let's see... by far the most likely possibility is that responder is looking for a major suit fit. If responder has a five-card major, he will need to relay out opener's shape to the fullest just to determine whether opener has three card support.

Why? He is allowed to break the relay with no slam interest. If all he wants is 3 card support (else he bids 3N) then he bids 2♦ followed by his major. Use of relays is never mandatory in well-designed methods.