transfers after interference?

[tedi16]

Lately I've seen such a sequence on vugraph:

OPENER [space] LHO [space] RESPONDER
1[cl] [space] [space] [space]1[di] [space] [space] [space]1[he]

 

1♥ alerted as showing spade suit.

I tried to google for this convention but no success. Can anyone explain this treatment (transfer bids after opponent's overcall) in detail or give an appropriate link?

[skjaeran]

I play this with my regular partner.

 

Over 1♣ - (1♦) we play:

double show 4+♥'s, denies 4-4/4-5+ in the majors (but can have 5-6+)

1♥ show 4+♠'s

1♠ show 4♠'s and 4+♥'s

 

Over 1m - (1♥):

double = 4+♠'s

1♠ = <4♠'s

 

Support doubles is used by opener if responder showed 4+ in one major.

[jdonn]

It's not uncommon to play on that auction X = hearts, 1♥ = spades, though there is some variation in how people then play 1♠. What Skaeran plays looks good although I have never played it.

 

After 1m (1♥) I used to play either of DBL or 1♠ as 4+ spades and the other as denying 4 spades, but I am convinced there is a better way. I was told it came from the Italians.

 

X = 4 or 5 spades.

1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ = transfers (or can rearrange some of them, for example make direct raise of partner natural and transfer around it.)

2♥ = 6+ spades, at least negative freebid strength.

[pclayton]

I can see dbl = ♥'s, 1♥ = [sP's], 1♠ = 1N, 1N = good club raise and 2♣ as a junk raise.

 

I would think this is GCC too.

[hrothgar]

I can see dbl = ♥'s, 1♥ = [sP's], 1♠ = 1N, 1N = good club raise and 2♣ as a junk raise.

 

I would think this is GCC too.

Hi Phil

 

Not sure why you think that this is GCC legal.

 

Players are permitted to use transfer schemes if the opponents double an opening bid. The transfer schemes are clearly allowed by the following clause under Competitive

 

#7 DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above

and #7 under DISALLOWED below)

 

However, this clause does not apply if the opponent intervene with a natural call.

 

The closest regulation that I can find is the following

 

5. TRANSFER ADVANCES (responses to overcalls) where the call shows

length or values in the suit of the transfer.

 

However, I believe that this is intended to permit us to use Rubens advances over our overcalls. For example, LHO opens 1♠ and partner overcalls 2♣. We are allow to define a 2♦ advance as a transfer to Hearts.

 

I'd appreciate it if you can point out any part of the GCC that permit a scheme like the one that you suggest.

[dake50]

Awfully narrow to ASSUME 'Competitive' allowed GCC does NOT mean competing by the opening side??? Wouldn't that have been 'defensive bidding'?

[rbforster]

Here is some discussion of 1M-X, a similar situation where people also like to play transfers.

 

Players are permitted to use transfer schemes if the opponents double an opening bid.  The transfer schemes are clearly allowed by the following clause under Competitive

 

#7 DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below)

 

However, this clause does not apply if the opponent intervene with a natural call.

I agree it doesn't seem likely you could play transfers after a natural suit bid under GCC. Furthermore, you probably can't play then over a "non-conventional" double, either. I suppose that means you can't play transfers after 1(suit)-X if your opponents are playing old fashion penalty doubles? (I wonder if power doubles from overcall structure count as penalty doubles for this...)

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I play transfers after the other side overcalls. I think that an Italian pair was playing this in a Challenge the Champs contest from Bridge World. I seem to recall that Meckwell used much the same methods.

 

The Meckwell system is listed in "Bridge Files" so you might find this bidding there under the competitive bidding methods. If I find the Challenge the Champs contest(or if it really was a regular 'report', I will PM you the information)

 

My version is that double 'shows the next higher suit' and that 'a' bid also shows the

next higher suit. 1S*=a NT type hand(but might be somewhat off shape)

 

With 4-4 majors, we transfer to the lower major(bidding up the line) and partner either raises with a fit or bids spades holding four. We also use support doubles(and redoubles) after we have 'shown' a suit.

 

The lead advantage is sometimes very nice. If you had bid a suit naturally, the lead would have come to the overcaller and partners' KJx would be dead.

 

Having the overcaller get to lead away from his HCP is also an advantage.

Ax(x) in dummy and partner holding Qx(x) is a double stopper with the overcaller on lead. If partner was dummy, the lead into his Qx(x) with KJ10 behind it would lose a trick and often times a tempo.

 

You allow get some interesting information 'when' partner advances the auction.

My agreement is that a minimum or three card fit 'bids at the one level. A full opener 'jumps' to 2M to indicate more than a minimum with 4 trumps.

 

I like the method, heads you win and tails you tie is a great way to gamble. B)

 

Regards,

Robert

[pclayton]

I can see dbl = ♥'s, 1♥ = [sP's], 1♠ = 1N, 1N = good club raise and 2♣ as a junk raise.

 

I would think this is GCC too.

Hi Phil

 

Not sure why you think that this is GCC legal.

 

Players are permitted to use transfer schemes if the opponents double an opening bid. The transfer schemes are clearly allowed by the following clause under Competitive

 

#7 DEFENSE TO:

a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above

and #7 under DISALLOWED below)

 

However, this clause does not apply if the opponent intervene with a natural call.

 

The closest regulation that I can find is the following

 

5. TRANSFER ADVANCES (responses to overcalls) where the call shows

length or values in the suit of the transfer.

 

However, I believe that this is intended to permit us to use Rubens advances over our overcalls. For example, LHO opens 1♠ and partner overcalls 2♣. We are allow to define a 2♦ advance as a transfer to Hearts.

 

I'd appreciate it if you can point out any part of the GCC that permit a scheme like the one that you suggest.

Hey Richard: I was thinking more along the lines of that transfers over doubles are allowed. Maybe there's a specific section that allows this treatment, but doesn't extend to actions over overcalls. I'd have to look.

 

I looked. I can't find anything particular that would apply. What bothers me is that the transfers over doubles wouldn't be legal either.

[MickyB]

X = 4 or 5 spades.

1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ = transfers (or can rearrange some of them, for example make direct raise of partner natural and transfer around it.)

2♥ = 6+ spades, at least negative freebid strength.

I do this too. Presumably 2♦ isn't actually a transfer :P

[MickyB]

After 1m (1♥) I used to play either of DBL or 1♠ as 4+ spades and the other as denying 4 spades, but I am convinced there is a better way. I was told it came from the Italians.

 

X = 4 or 5 spades.

1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ = transfers (or can rearrange some of them, for example make direct raise of partner natural and transfer around it.)

2♥ = 6+ spades, at least negative freebid strength.

Interesting that you consider these to be different methods. Both use X as 4+♠, 1♠ as <4, leaving 1NT free...transfers seem the natural progression, and you've got a lot of bids (2♦/♥/♠) that can now be used to show various hands with more than four spades.

[cherdano]

After 1m (1♥) I used to play either of DBL or 1♠ as 4+ spades and the other as denying 4 spades, but I am convinced there is a better way. I was told it came from the Italians.

 

X = 4 or 5 spades.

1♠, 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ = transfers (or can rearrange some of them, for example make direct raise of partner natural and transfer around it.)

2♥ = 6+ spades, at least negative freebid strength.

Interesting that you consider these to be different methods. Both use X as 4+♠, 1♠ as <4, leaving 1NT free...transfers seem the natural progression, and you've got a lot of bids (2♦/♥/♠) that can now be used to show various hands with more than four spades.

Well I think X = 4+ spades or X=4/5 spades is a big difference, especially when the opponents jump to 4♥. (I have played X = <4 spades and 1S = 4+ spades for a long time, but was never sure whether it is superior to standard, giving the big IMPs that are on stake at the "4S over 4H?" decisions; but the Italian method seems superior for these decisions, too.)

 

Btw, I play it a little differently:

X = 4/5 spades, 1S = <4 spades, usually minor-oriented takeout (but can be balanced without a stopper), 1N = natural, 2m = nat forcing, 2H = 6+ spades, 2S = mixed raise of partner's minor.

 

I like it better than Josh's version but without a strong conviction.

[tedi16]

These methods seem very interesting, but there are still some things I'd like to know:

a) what does a transfer to opponent's suit show?

:P does opener always have to accept the transfer? If not what does breaking a transfer mean?

c) what's the subsequent auction after accepted/broken transfer

 

Thx

[Impact]

There are a lot of different schemes out there. I have experimented with a number over the last decade and my current preference is:-

 

NT are natural (positional advantage)

X of overcall up to & including 3D = transfer

other simple bids are transfers.

 

The scheme changes a little depending upon whether we opened a Major or an amorphous minor.

 

Following an amorphous minor opening:-

transfer INTO their suit promises at least 1x 4unbid Major with game-going values

transfer of their suit DENIES 1 x4M and acts as DAB (directional asking bid ie for stopper and tends to imply balanced lacking stop)

 

 

If we opened a Major:-

transfer into their suit shows DAB and cue of their suit is raise (slightly greater efficiency arises by reversing these two bids but the additional fudge factor of being able to transfer into their suit and accept the transfer with no clear direction OR with the hand which is super good and has self-supporting suit!! counterbalances this in practice).

 

 

I accept that the corollaries to this style in giving up low-level negative doubles are far more suited to limited opening style systems, and a number of wrinkles are specifically aimed at our 4M canape (except S) style

 

eg 1H (3D) 3S= DAB

1S (3D) 3H=DAB !!!!

 

THe reason to distinguish between 3D overcall and higher is the avaialbility of a bid to suggest 3NT without a stopper in the suit.

If they pre-empt higher than 3D, a reversion to more traditional methods is superior IMHO.

 

Non-acceptance of the transfer will depend on range and style of bidding (eg different meaning if very wide-ranging openings per standard style).

We raise per-emptively, new suit extreme distribution and all jumps are fit (typically fragment) in the context of limited style (big Club or strong Pass) main range openings.

 

regards,

[jdonn]

These methods seem very interesting, but there are still some things I'd like to know:

a) what does a transfer to opponent's suit show?

:ph34r: does opener always have to accept the transfer? If not what does breaking a transfer mean?

c) what's the subsequent auction after accepted/broken transfer

 

Thx

1) A good raise of partner (as though you had cuebid the suit playing normally)

2) Opener should generally accept the transfer since responder could be relatively weak with just that suit, but with extra values he is free to bid what he wants, or can rebid his suit if there is room (for example 1♦ (1♥) 1NT showing clubs, partner could rebid 2♦ instead)

3) Pretty obvious in all cases I think.