Are transfers actually a good idea?

[mycroft]

I am going to agree with MikeH while disagreeing with him...

 

Tranfers do three things:

1) make the NT opener declarer

2) open up the number of bidding sequences for responder by allowing her the second call

3) kill the diamond suit :-)

 

As many have said, 1) is an advantage for strong NTers, less so as the range decreases. I don't know where the break-even point is, but I know playing 12-14, when in game, there *is* no strong hand, so it is almost certainly a plus to have the less well-defined hand concealed. How much of a plus I do not know, but in the land of the strong, I had many more bad results from 1NT(weak)= vs 1m-1M; 2M= than I ever had due to wrongsiding game (after all, in game, we *weren't* wrongsiding; most strong NT auctions went 1m-1M;...and the same hand declared).

 

Again, in partscores, "wrongsiding" didn't hurt us, because the field were playing it the same way; I don't know how much transfer-rightsiding the partscores would have gained us. Probably a lot, if we got to play it...

 

2) is definately an advantage for transfers, when you are going to want the space or the second chance to call (here's where I disagree with MikeH). As the NT gets weaker, the number of hands where space conservation helps the opponents more than you becomes greater. Same with that "second call": one of the strong wins of a weak NT is preemption - a Kamikaze NT more so; giving fourth hand a guaranteed second chance to call in 10-12-opposite-3 situations *has* to be a loser (especially 10-12, pass, 2H-on-3 HCP, where fourth hand is the known monster, and gets *one* chance to make the right decision).

 

Remember also that if we switch second and third hand and it's 10-12, pass-on-3, 2H-on-10, and fourth hand has that same monster, he also has one chance to make the right decision, and it's a different one than the previous case.

 

3) I pass on this one, because I used to play Forcing Stayman, so I didn't have a diamond suit either (except when a PH, of course).

 

I like science, and use a lot of it. But with a weak NT, given the choice between sticking it to fourth seat (frequently) or having one of those beautiful game auctions (note that with slam, there aren't all that many "extra" auctions in transfers) every two or three sessions, I'll go with no transfers all the time. I'm obnoxious that way; of course, the better my opponents, the better they'll guess. But they're still guessing.

 

(and they're guessing more often now that WeaSeL vs. NT has been preempted in the ACBL by Announcements).

 

Michael.

[willow23]

I would stick to transfers as it appears to have more for than against it..not that I have willingly tried natural responses ..often I play it, when my partner(new) plays natural.

 

1. Most material that I have read prefer to keep the stronger hand concealed; think about it..entire systems have been designed to accomodate that situation ..like transfer positives..

 

2. One often picks up a trick of two with the lead coming into strength. Especially with nice intermediates..with the rule of 11, 7 and others working for you.

 

With that 3 point margin a king or queen is concealed from opps :P...that can go a long way..as well as the NT openers with a five card minor..hidden..the possibilities are endless :P

[mgoetze]

It's really amazing to me what a lot of... uh... things have been said in this thread. Why do transfers kill the diamond suit? Even talking specifically about 1NT openers, we have 1NT-2NT of course. :P Anyway, I just wanted to point out that transfer positives are generally used in relay systems. In relay systems, it is 20 times as important to right-side the contract as in any natural system, and it's not about strength at all...

 

Anyway, thanks to mikeh for bringing some sense into this thread. :P

[Gerben42]

In my view, transfers represent one of the most powerful advances in the theory of bridge

 

I agree! But there are situations where they bring the opponents more than they bring you. A simple example is transfer preempts.

[mikeh]

In my view, transfers represent one of the most powerful advances in the theory of bridge

 

I agree! But there are situations where they bring the opponents more than they bring you. A simple example is transfer preempts.

Agreed:))) A good friend of mine and an excellent player persuaded me to play transfer (two under) preempts. My experience with them confirmed my prejudices: they give the opponents two chances to bid, while also giving them extra bidding space.

 

This is an extension of a comment I (and others) have made already in this thread: the weaker the range of the 1N opening, the less effective are transfers: indeed, I do not play transfes over weak notrumps for this reason.

[1eyedjack]

I would stick to transfers as it appears to have more for than against it..not that I have willingly tried natural responses ..often I play it, when my partner(new) plays natural.

I don't think that many players would argue that natural responses are superior to transfers. That does not mean that transfers are better than other alternatives.

[helene_t]

I think that transfers as a means to placing the declaration in one hand or another is pretty neutral, and was never the primary reason for their adoption.

I wonder if this is historically correct.

 

I agree that right(?)-siding the contract is generally not a good reason for playing transfer in response to a 1NT-opening.

 

But text books, especially old ones, emphasise making the strong hand declare. It's my impression that bidding theorists of the 50-60-70s found this issue more important than we do today. It may also make some sense in the context of a style in which a key criterion for opening 1NT was that you want to declare in 3NT. 4432-shapes with the honours concentrated in the long suit were frequently treated as two-suiters, and the off-shape 1NT opening still had to be invented.

 

At least that's my impression. I haven't done any (systematic) research on this issue so I might be wrong.

[whereagles]

I think that transfers as a means to placing the declaration in one hand or another is pretty neutral, and was never the primary reason for their adoption.

I wonder if this is historically correct.

 

I agree that right(?)-siding the contract is generally not a good reason for playing transfer in response to a 1NT-opening.

 

But text books, especially old ones, emphasise making the strong hand declare. It's my impression that bidding theorists of the 50-60-70s found this issue more important than we do today. It may also make some sense in the context of a style in which a key criterion for opening 1NT was that you want to declare in 3NT. 4432-shapes with the honours concentrated in the long suit were frequently treated as two-suiters, and the off-shape 1NT opening still had to be invented.

 

At least that's my impression. I haven't done any (systematic) research on this issue so I might be wrong.

I've seen quoted in a sef textbook that putting the strong hand to play was indeed one of the motivations for transfers. But then people quickly realized that showing shape/strength and economize bidding space was FAR more important than right siding.

 

In fact, it is so much more important that even after a 9-11 NT the motivation for transfers remains 99% valid.

[mycroft]

"kill the diamond suit" - yeah, you can play *three* diamonds. But you can no longer play *two* diamonds. More particularly, you can't escape into two diamonds and let them play. As the NT gets weaker, this becomes more of an issue (but then again, as the NT gets weaker, the number of times this is an issue after 1NT-pass- goes way down, too; and after weak 1NT-X, if you can't get out in diamonds, you need a new runout system).

 

At MPs, at least, the number of times that *three* diamonds will be preferable to *one* notrump are small and obvious. The number of times that bail-to-two and either play or let them bail you is preferable to 1NT is higher. Not high enough to outweigh the advantages of transfers, but it does have its weight in the balance sheet.

 

Okay, I'm a weak NTer at heart - I'm more concerned about surviving after opening 1NT than I am about finding a minor slam :-).

 

Michael.