Transfers over 2NT

[Walddk]

It makes a lot of sense that you must accept the transfer on these auctions:

 

1NT - 2♦

 

1NT - 2♥

 

Bid 2♥ and 2♠ respectively unless you have the agreement that you can break the transfer with 4-card support.

 

In my view, it also makes sense that you should not accept the transfer indiscriminately after:

 

2NT - 3♦

 

2NT - 3♥

 

I think that in the long run it's better only to accept the transfer if you have a fit (3 or more cards) and bid 3NT if you have a doubleton. By having this agreement you gain two significant advantages.

 

1. It's easier for responder in the subsequent auction.

2. Responder won't have to raise to 4MA with only 5 and land in a 5-2 fit because he is afraid of a wide open side suit in 3NT (some 5431 shape).

 

To be fair, there is one drawback: you can't play in 3MA if you don't have a fit. This happens very rarely anyway, so I am prepared to give up on that.

 

There is nothing new about my thoughts here. Many pairs already play as outlined above, and my impression is that they are pretty pleased with the results. Feel free to express your view and let us know how you see it, and perhaps also if you have tried it at the table.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Transfers over 2NT help you to get out

at the 3 level, if responder is dead minimum.

 

The above structure certainly makes sense,

but only for certain very strong 2NT ranges.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[paulg]

I do not accept the transfer when I have doubleton support if I have 5 cards in the other major. I do not recall the last time we played in 3M successfully so like the treatment.

 

Paul

[1eyedjack]

When playing transfers over 2N I usually agree that:

2N-3H-3N = 5 Hearts and doubleton Spade

2N-3D-3S = 5 Spades and doubleton Heart

 

But otherwise I refuse transfers with a well fitting hand (which could be only 3 trumps, contrasted with 1N refusal), and accept with a poor hand in context (which could still have 3 trumps, ie a quacky hand without side doubleton but almost certainly will not have 4 card support).

 

I agree that protecting the weak take-out is not a high priority, (may even get to play in 3S after 2N-3D-3S) but choose to make slightly different distinctions from you.

 

I would almost never as responder rebid my major on only 5 after the transfer is accepted, but I would expect opener normally to pull 3N back to 4-Major. That can be a downside when 3N is right despite the 5-3 fit. An element of swings and roundabouts, I feel.

 

By preference I would not be playing transfers anyway.

[mike777]

No way Jose!

 

I think I just played in 3 of a major last week.

Do not buy that 5-2 major fit what do I do now stuff without a stopper.

What about if partner wants to make a side suit slam try over 3nt and make a retransfer, how do we do all of that?

 

2nt=3h

3nt=4h? now we got a real problem.

[hrothgar]

I think that you need to do a lot more work to convince me of the merits of the methods...

 

Traditionally, super-accept sequences after a 2-level transfer bid are used to show 4+ card support for partner's suit. I'm willing to accept that the limited bidding space available after a 2NT opening suggests adopting something different. With this said and done, I'm not convinced that using a 3NT advance to deny 3+ card support for responder's major is a particularly useful treatment. 2NT is an ugly contract. there are a lot of hands where responder wants to correct to a suit contract. I can't image that partner is going to appreciate you plopping him back into NT.

 

Case in point... Assume the following auction:

 

2N - 3♥

3N - 4♠

 

I doubt that there is anyone in the world who can't find red card...

[Walddk]

Case in point... Assume the following auction:

 

2N - 3♥

3N - 4♠

 

I doubt that there is anyone in the world who can't find red card...

Why is that? Responder should have 6 spades on this auction (although I would prefer a re-transfer). I can't see why the opponents are in a position to double unless they also would after

 

2N - 3♥

3♠ - 4♠

 

Roland

[awm]

I'm not sure I see the advantage here. Let's suppose you have one of these 5431 patterns. You've decided that (playing that opener always accepts), you will bid 4M after 2NT-transfer-3M. This means you've decided to play in the major even though partner might have doubleton (otherwise you would bid 3NT to offer choice of games). So now opener bids 2NT-transfer-3NT. You know partner has doubleton. But apparently you think 4M is likely to be better than 3NT even when partner has doubleton... so why not bid 4M again?

 

The only real advantage I see is that after 2NT-transfer-accept you know of a fit, and could potentially start cuebidding to look for slam. But often times showing shape is better than cuebidding anyway, and that's what you would do if partner's accept didn't promise a fit. Basically it seems like the exchange is:

 

(1) You can't play 3M anymore.

(2) If you have a slam try and opener has a fit but not a great hand (which would super-accept), you can start cuebidding over the accept instead of having to pattern out.

[hrothgar]

Case in point...  Assume the following auction:

 

2N - 3♥

3N - 4♠

 

I doubt that there is anyone in the world who can't find red card...

Why is that? Responder should have 6 spades on this auction (although I would prefer a re-transfer). I can't see why the opponents are in a position to double unless they also would after

 

2N - 3♥

3♠ - 4♠

 

Roland

Because most hands with 6 Spades that wanted to play in a 4♠ contract would start with a 4♥ transfer (or alternatively with a direct 4♠ bid)...

[awm]

An alternate approach might be to play that accepting the transfer tends to deny a fit. The result could be something like:

 

Accept transfer = only doubleton, or 4333 hand with three.

Lowest non-accept = 3-card support + side doubleton, now bidding one below 4M is a re-transfer and other bids are cuebids agreeing the suit transferred to.

Other non-accept = 4-card support, cuebid, one below 4M is re-transfer when available (virtually always since 2NT opener usually has a cheap cue).

 

Playing this method you're only forced to game when you have a real fit, and can stop in 3M when you have a 5-2 or opener is 4333.

[Free]

Case in point...  Assume the following auction:

 

2N - 3♥

3N - 4♠

 

I doubt that there is anyone in the world who can't find red card...

Why is that? Responder should have 6 spades on this auction (although I would prefer a re-transfer). I can't see why the opponents are in a position to double unless they also would after

 

2N - 3♥

3♠ - 4♠

 

Roland

Because most hands with 6 Spades that wanted to play in a 4♠ contract would start with a 4♥ transfer (or alternatively with a direct 4♠ bid)...

So what is transfer followed by 4M? It's a slam invite! Why on earth would anyone put down a red card on that? :)

[hrothgar]

So what is transfer followed by 4M? It's a slam invite! Why on earth would anyone put down a red card on that? :)

Playing normal methods, a transfer followed by 4M is a slam invite...

 

Here? I have no idea... Is it a slam invite or a hand that expects to play better in Spades than in NT? It can't be both and you need some way to show the latter...

[keylime]

I play currently what Adam has mentioned in the Rubber Duckie Stayman approach I have.

 

The difficult area that you have with this is when responder is on a 5-5 major-minor hand and wants to try for slam. Sometimes when opener picks off your minor side suit it can be tricky to unravel the right strain of contract. Furthermore, when opener opens a lopsided 2NT to start the auction can get out of control (this is why I use Acol 3NT opening to prevent this).

 

The advantage to this concept is when opener rejects the transfer. The clarity of the auction is far better.

 

Admittedly, as our good friend Phil Clayton states, 2NT is a slam killa. Amen.

[pclayton]

Mike's right - you need a tool to stop in 3. If opener doesnt accept, you risk playing too high in a 5-2.

 

I think Roland secretly wants to play "Flint" or "Reverse Flint" (I get them mixed up) where 3♣ is a puppet to 3♦ to show verry weak hands that want to get out at the 3 level. I think 3♦ is stayman and 3 major is natural.

 

Using this method you can have a lot more flexibility with transfers (although transfers arent part of the original structure).

 

Perhaps 3 major can be a transfer to the OTHER major along with this scheme.

[barmar]

I do not accept the transfer when I have doubleton support if I have 5 cards in the other major. I do not recall the last time we played in 3M successfully so like the treatment.

 

Paul

I disagree with that. Remember the rule of thumb: play in the suit of the weaker hand. If responder has a bust hand, his 5-card suit will take at least 2-3 tricks if it's trump. But if responder's suit is not trump it can easily take zero tricks. Meanwhile, opener's hand will usually take about the same number of tricks whether his suit is trump or not.

[kgr]

I do not accept the transfer when I have doubleton support if I have 5 cards in the other major. I do not recall the last time we played in 3M successfully so like the treatment.

 

Paul

I disagree with that. Remember the rule of thumb: play in the suit of the weaker hand. If responder has a bust hand, his 5-card suit will take at least 2-3 tricks if it's trump. But if responder's suit is not trump it can easily take zero tricks. Meanwhile, opener's hand will usually take about the same number of tricks whether his suit is trump or not.

We play 2NT off shape (direct, after opening 2♣ or 2♦) with different point ranges and can have singleton M. We refuse transfer with a singleton.

For not experts: This does not happen very often and is easily forgotten!

[1eyedjack]

I do not accept the transfer when I have doubleton support if I have 5 cards in the other major. I do not recall the last time we played in 3M successfully so like the treatment.

 

Paul

I disagree with that. Remember the rule of thumb: play in the suit of the weaker hand. If responder has a bust hand, his 5-card suit will take at least 2-3 tricks if it's trump. But if responder's suit is not trump it can easily take zero tricks. Meanwhile, opener's hand will usually take about the same number of tricks whether his suit is trump or not.

If you have two x 5-2 major suit fits, it is far from universally correct to play in the weaker hand's long suit:

 

S:AKJTx

H:Ax

D:Axx

C:Axx

 

S:xx

H:Jxxxx

D:Kxx

C:Jxx

 

Leaving aside the merits of playing in NT, and just contrasting the trick-taking potential of a Spade contract v Heart contract, you have just one Heart loser if playing in Spades, but on a normal 4-2 Heart break you would expect 3 Heart losers playing in Hearts. (I expect a better example hand could be devised to illustrate the point).

 

If you expect the Heart suit to be required to provide a source of tricks, then yes, you would normally want that suit to be trumps. That requirement becomes less likely when opener has his own long suit to provide a source of tricks.

 

However, the main reason for the treatment discussed is so that you find the 5-3 fit in opener's 5 card major, and when that fit is available I will ALWAYS want to be playing in that fit rather than in a 5-2 fit in weaker/responder's 5 card suit.

[awm]

Basically you're sacrificing the ability to transfer with a weak hand and pass. This makes it hard to find light 5-4 fit games (where opener super-accepts) as well, as responder must either transfer (essentially forcing to game even when opener has doubleton or a lousy three-card fit) or pass (missing the 5-4 fit entirely).

 

Depending on how you play the transfer breaks, the benefit is either: (1) you can find a 5-3 fit with opener having five instead of playing 3NT on game-going hands or (2) you can easily cuebid for the major when you have a fit because opener's accept of the transfer guarantees this fit.

 

In my opinion both these potential benefits are slight. The situations where (1) apply are relatively infrequent, you basically need a 5-2 fit in one major and 5-3 in the other, with the 5-3 in the one where opener has 5. It's also not obvious that 4M is necessarily better than 3NT in a significant majority of these cases. While (2) might help you on slam hands, it seems like responder showing a second suit is of comparable use to responder cuebidding, and in fact this is the preferred method of some pretty good players in game-going auctions.

 

On the other hand, what you're sacrificing seems relatively substantial. I don't think transferring and passing is all that rare actually (simulations could determine this). And being forced to either pass or bid game when weak with a five or six card major seems like it could be pretty bad. It seems like a hand generator could check the frequencies at least for responder having 0-4 points and a five-plus major, responder having 5+ points with 5-3 majors with opener holding 2-5 in the majors, and responder having slam interest (say 10+ points) with a five-card major where opener has three in that major (all these subject to a 2NT opening in pd's hand).

[hrothgar]

Basically you're sacrificing the ability to transfer with a weak hand and pass. This makes it hard to find light 5-4 fit games (where opener super-accepts) as well, as responder must either transfer (essentially forcing to game even when opener has doubleton or a lousy three-card fit) or pass (missing the 5-4 fit entirely).

 

Depending on how you play the transfer breaks, the benefit is either: (1) you can find a 5-3 fit with opener having five instead of playing 3NT on game-going hands or (2) you can easily cuebid for the major when you have a fit because opener's accept of the transfer guarantees this fit.

 

In my opinion both these potential benefits are slight. The situations where (1) apply are relatively infrequent, you basically need a 5-2 fit in one major and 5-3 in the other, with the 5-3 in the one where opener has 5. It's also not obvious that 4M is necessarily better than 3NT in a significant majority of these cases. While (2) might help you on slam hands, it seems like responder showing a second suit is of comparable use to responder cuebidding, and in fact this is the preferred method of some pretty good players in game-going auctions.

 

On the other hand, what you're sacrificing seems relatively substantial. I don't think transferring and passing is all that rare actually (simulations could determine this). And being forced to either pass or bid game when weak with a five or six card major seems like it could be pretty bad. It seems like a hand generator could check the frequencies at least for responder having 0-4 points and a five-plus major, responder having 5+ points with 5-3 majors with opener holding 2-5 in the majors, and responder having slam interest (say 10+ points) with a five-card major where opener has three in that major (all these subject to a 2NT opening in pd's hand).

this is an example where Bridge Browser would be useful...

[neilkaz]

I haven't cared for this method and prefer to bid H as told unless I can superaccept. However, the method is not without merit, but can't 3S after 2N-3D-3H serve as the start of many slam invites to which opener with only 2H just bids 3NT and now nothing has been lost vs bidding 3NT directly and the ability to sign off in 3H with a Heart bust is retained.

 

However, after 2N-3H-3S there is no inbetween bid so responder with 5 Spades must bid NT. So perhaps then it can be useful to know about the 5-3 fit and that Spades are trumps so you can use the 4 level to explore for slam and even 3NT can ask opener to tell something more about his hand.

 

In short, if I understand correctly, accepting the transfer by bidding the major seems to make slam investigations easier when 5-3(and going past 3NT when only on a 5-2 fit) and refusing the transfer with only 2 means that you cannot play 3M with a bust.

 

My guess is that there more slam invitation hands that can benefit from this approach (noting that after a 3H acceptance both 3S and 3N are available to ask or tell something) than there are hands that gain from passing out 3M. Off course sometimes when 5-2 in the major and looking for slam you may end up in a minor slam or 6NT.

 

Interesting approach and I see it sometimes on BBO. .. neilkaz ..

[mike777]

all this talk of super accept over strong 2nt is a bit confusing.....Do you really think this is winning bridge? Is not responder going to bid game at IMPs with any excuse of a hand?...Are you putting slam before game here?

[awm]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakxxhaxdkqjxcaxx&s=sxxxxxhxxxdxxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

If opener has a prime hand with four-card support, you can make a game opposite virtually nothing. Note that responder could have a better hand and still not be bidding game. If you super-accept on a prime maximum with four-card support, you'll probably more than break even, and this is ignoring the slam-finding benefits.

[mike777]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AKxx ♥ Ax ♦ KQJx ♣ Axx ♠ xxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xxx ♣ xx

 

If opener has a prime hand with four-card support, you can make a game opposite virtually nothing. Note that responder could have a better hand and still not be bidding game. If you super-accept on a prime maximum with four-card support, you'll probably more than break even, and this is ignoring the slam-finding benefits.

if your are bidding 3h trf on this hand...no wonder I never win......

I repeat...is super accept over strong 2nt winning bridge?

[neilkaz]

I think you should super accept with any good 4 card supporting 2NT opener that can expect to make game opposite a hand that will definately pass 3M. Slam invite room is lost since 4m cannot be bid with a 2 suiter (or 3S after 3H) but, the prime fit and max may also lead to some slams being bid that otherwise wouldn't.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[mikeh]

if your are bidding 3h trf on this hand...no wonder I never win......

I repeat...is super accept over strong 2nt winning bridge?

It is, in my opinion.

 

While 2N has a narrow range of strength, it has a wide range in terms of suitability for play in partner's major should he transfer, and we have very little room. Thus, if we do not play super-accepts, responder is going to be forced to guess whenever he has a hand that will play well opposite a maximum with a fit and poorly otherwise. While the example of a hand that makes game attractive opposite a 5332 zero count is an extreme, and low-frequency, construction (and I would be tempted to upgrade the given example to 22, and open 2♣), there will be many others on which game is good and unbiddable without either a dangerous guess by responder or the use of super-accepts.

 

Super-accepts also can help in slam bidding, but their utility in this area is slightly reduced by the fact that responder's hand will usually be good enough that he can make some form of enquiry after a simple acceptance, if super-accepts are not in use. However, even with this caveat, super-accepts still help to differentiate amongst opener's degree of fit and slam suitability.

 

So there are two hand types on which a super-accept will be valuable: weak responding hands good enough for game opposite a fitting max and some slam hands. The downside is, of course, the risk of getting too high once in a while. My experience suggests that this is a good bargain for super-acceptors.