1M-1NT-2x transfers

[firmit]

After 1♥/♠-1NT openers second bid is transfers. What is the theory behind this, and what are the advantages? Responder may "super-accepts"?

 

1♠-1NT (non forcing (5)6-11hp)

2♣ 5+♠ 4+♦ or 5+♠ 4+♣ 16-17hp

2♦ 5+♠ 4+♥

2♥ 6+♠

2♠ 5+♠ 4+♣

2NT any GF hand ( own structure )

3x 5+ GF

 

Thoughts? Anyone playing this?

[helene_t]

I have never seen this before but I suppose it has the general advantage of transfers, namely being able to show strong two-suited hands economically.

 

For example, a strong 6-4 could start with a transfer to spades and then bid the second suit. A somewhat weaker 6-4 could transfer to the second suit (if it is not clubs) and then bid 2♠. A strong 54(31) could start with a transfer to hearts and then bid the minor 3-card. A good (equivalent to some 17 points) 5-5 could transfer to the 5-card and then raise.

 

Therefore I don't think it's a good idea to play 2N as any GF (well you also define 3x as GF so I suppose 2N is for GF hands that are not 5-5). The advantage of limited transfer is that responder can pass the transfer but that is not going to happen very often since opener could be void.

 

With spades+clubs you seem to come too high. Maybe 1NT should be non-forcing so opener will be either 5-5 or have extras if he bids on. Maybe use 2N for some hand with clubs that would be difficult to bid otherwise.

[awm]

I thought about this kind of structure a lot when deciding to play Gazzilli, but never really adopted it. The transfer structure will help you on strong hands, especially strong hands that are hard to describe, because opener is guaranteed a third call. You can occasionally get to a better partial on "false preference" auctions too (i.e. 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-P on hands where responder has 2♠ and 4♦ and would have to bid 2♠ over a natural diamond rebid to keep the auction alive).

 

You lose some on the 2♠ rebids of course, since occasionally partner has some minimum 1453 and can't really do anything.

 

Compared to Gazzilli though, one of the big Gazzilli advantages is that you can play in 2M on hands where opener has extras and responder has garbage, whereas in standard bidding you would have some auction like 1M-1N-2X-2M-2N/3Y. You don't really get that here; in fact the transfer structure only really helps you when responder is accepting the transfer (since otherwise responder is bidding the same thing he would bid in a natural auction).

[MickyB]

It's played by a few decent English pairs. You get to complete the transfer to 2♦ on, say, a 1435 9-count or a 1345 8-count, where in standard methods you don't have an attractive choice available. However, I'm more worried about the wide-range of the preference to 2M, which, as Adam says, this method doesn't solve but Gazzilli does. Xfers here certainly aren't silly, but just how they compare with other methods I'm not quite sure.

[the hog]

"It's played by a few decent English pairs. "

 

To see this elaborated on, look up "The Science". (Actually I am surprised this system is not known or popular in the States - 2/1gf,

forcing NT, lots of gadgets. Ah maybe its the 4 card majors...."

[rbforster]

I think if you want to play these methods, you need careful agreements as to what responder will bid after the "transfer" by opener. When will he accept the transfer, when will he bid the opener's first suit instead, etc.

 

If responder must always complete the transfer (or super accept) and opener will bid again, you might as well make opener's bids natural and forcing, right? It's not like you want responder to declare the 2nd suit since presumably opener is the strong hand on these auctions.

[benlessard]

This is the core of my system.

 

1M is unbalanced 12-14 or 18-22

1C--1D--1M is unbalanced 15-17 or 22+

 

So

 

1H---1S (relay)

 

1Nt= 4C

2C=4D

2D=6H

2H=5H+4S (12-14)

 

the rest is GF with 5H+4S

 

ex 2NT = 4522 (18-22)

 

1S---1Nt (relay)

2C= 4D

2D= 4H

2H= 6S

2S= 5S + 4C (12-14)

2Nt= 5224 18-22

3C = 5??5 18-22

 

etc...

[rbforster]

I think there's a big difference in benlessard's system where responder has shown inv+ for his relay bid and the original one suggested where 1S-1N was NF 6-11. If you're in an inv+ relay system, it may make sense to have transfer or other artificial bids. Especially when opener is usually 12-14, responder will be the strong hand and transfers help both with right-siding and act as a cheap further relay to ask again.

 

But if you're still just trying to find the right strain for a partial opposite a 6-11 NT response, I don't see how second round transfers helps with that especially if responder almost always completes the transfer. Opener is still pretty much in the dark as to the right strain and both hands could be on minimums. Does opener really want to be forced to take another call in that situation?

 

Edit: I suppose one advantage of this system is that the limited nature of the 2 level transfers means that responder can pass(!) the transfer with the right hand (a long weak suit). This will get you out at the 2 level some of the time when standard methods would have to sign off at the 3 level.

[MickyB]

The idea isn't that responder should just "complete" the transfer - on most hands, he makes the same bid he would have made in standard methods, except when he would previously have had to pass he can complete the transfer instead, giving opener another chance to bid (not that he always wants to).

 

This allows some hands that would previously have felt the need to take another call just to keep the auction open (eg four diamonds and an 8-count) to just complete the transfer, keeping the auction lower.

[skjaeran]

I play something like this.

 

1♠-1NT (NF)

2♣ = 4+♦

2♦ = 4+♥

2♥ = strong 2♠ rebid (2.5+♠)

2♠ = "weak" 2♠ rebid

2NT = conv GF

3x = 55+ GF

3♠ = natural and slammish

 

The big uspide is that opener has many more options when it comes to bid his hand, and can distinguish much more than with standard methods. Responder also has more options, and can just accept the transfer with mediocre hand and have the raise better defined.

 

We don't play transfers after 1♥-1NT.

[MickyB]

I play something like this.

 

1♠-1NT (NF)

2♣ = 4+♦

2♦ = 4+♥

2♥ = strong 2♠ rebid (2.5+♠)

2♠ = "weak" 2♠ rebid

2NT = conv GF

3x = 55+ GF

3♠ = natural and slammish

 

The big uspide is that opener has many more options when it comes to bid his hand, and can distinguish much more than with standard methods. Responder also has more options, and can just accept the transfer with mediocre hand and have the raise better defined.

 

We don't play transfers after 1♥-1NT.

This implies you have no rebid on hands with 5♠4+♣, is that the case?

[skjaeran]

I play something like this.

 

1♠-1NT (NF)

2♣ = 4+♦

2♦ = 4+♥

2♥ = strong 2♠ rebid (2.5+♠)

2♠ = "weak" 2♠ rebid

2NT = conv GF

3x = 55+ GF

3♠ = natural and slammish

 

The big uspide is that opener has many more options when it comes to bid his hand, and can distinguish much more than with standard methods. Responder also has more options, and can just accept the transfer with mediocre hand and have the raise better defined.

 

We don't play transfers after 1♥-1NT.

This implies you have no rebid on hands with 5♠4+♣, is that the case?

Indeed we haven't.

We pass 1NT with those or open 1NT if possible.

 

I'd like to have a 2♦ opening to cater for those hands; 11-15 5♠ 4-5♣, but we haven't added that so far.

 

Strangely though, so far that hand hasn't been a problem for us.

[benlessard]

The big uspide is that opener has many more options when it comes to bid his hand, and can distinguish much more than with standard methods. Responder also has more options, and can just accept the transfer with mediocre hand and have the raise better defined.

 

We don't play transfers after 1♥-1NT.

 

I agree but since opener is much better placed to describe his hand why dont you play 1Nt as 6+ unlimited relay. Its clear that its more efficient for opener to describe his hand then for responder to describe his since opener already have an headstart.

 

Make your opening always unbalanced in 1st & 2nd seat so that way when you open 1M you dont want to play 1Nt anyway. The advantage of unbalanced opening in competition & in defense and in relay auction far outweigh the disadvantage of 1Nt with a 5M this is obvious the 1st week after playing my sytem. (Even in Mp)

(for this you might have to use 1C for some balanced hand or play a wide range 1Nt)

 

 

Dont be afraid to use relay with the responder (6+) and play that the 2 level isnt forcing. The modern hype is to use 2C as a general GF and not as a pure 2-1, why not use 1S or 1Nt instead ? This single step is a big help.

 

When its goes

 

1H-----2D (GF)

3D----- the fact that responder conveyed information is a bad thing, since opener already made a description with his opening why responder just dont become captain instead of describing ?

 

1H------1S (relay 6+)

1Nt (clubs)-------2D (art GF)

???

 

2H=?6?4 no void

2S=3514

2Nt=2524

3C=?5?5

3D=1534

 

much more precision and at a lower level the only problem is that trumps isnt set.

 

It also free up the 1Nt and 2 level bid for probable misfit hands

 

1H-----???

 

1S=relay

1Nt single usiter 6-10

2C= NF C + other suit (with shortness in opener suit)

2D=NF D+S

2H= NF S+H tolerance with 10-11

2S= NF S (H shortness) 10-11

 

The main profit of allowing opener to describe his hand to the full are in slam zone. But playing transfer after a NF bid is a small slam zone.

 

Send me a couple of unbidabble hand that start with a unbalanced 1M opening and ill give you examples.