The "T" word

[Wackojack]

Over the few years now that I have been reading this forum and learning from the contribuions, I have noticed derision given to Gerber and Flannery (the G and F words) Isnt it time another forbidden word should be added to that list? The "T" word. It is an artificial transfer bid of 4♦ or 4♥ in response to an opening bid of 1NT. It is designated to have no interest in slam.

 

Standard systems already have 2 other ways of saying the same thing. NB

1. 1NT -2♥-2♠-4♠ and 1NT-2♦-2♥-4♥ or

2. 1NT-4♠ and 1NT-4♥ non transfer

 

and slam interest are 1NT-3♥ and 1NT-3♠

 

Texas Transfers (Its no good I have to use the word) are learned by beginners where the scope for accidents are enormous for zero possible gain. I know that in lieu of the redundancy offered by the use Texas transfers, knowledgable players use 1NT-3M for different purposes. Significantly these conventions dont have a name, so beginners do not learn this. At least not to my knowledge. Defenders of Texas tranfers will say that it "right sides" the contract at the same time as reducing the risk of opps finding a sacrifice. OK so it is just possible that after 1NT-p-2♦-you get an intervention of say 3♠ which is then raised to 4 when had you responded 4♦ the opps would have been silenced. But OTOH 1NT-4♥(natural) would in similar circumstances silence the opposition and might even be the best side to play the contract.

 

One thing I can't help noticing is that useless conventions have names and useful conventions don't.l

[rogerclee]

lol

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

One reason to play Texas Transfer is to differentiate

between hands, which only want to bid game, and

hands which have slam interest.

For this purpose you use 4D and 4H, hence freeing

up 3H and 3S, two bids on lower level, giving you a

chance to assign other meanings to those bids, one

possible meaning is 4333 to avoid hopeless 4M games.

 

Additional you have now the option as responder to

show strong bal. hand with a 5 card major.

 

1 NT (1) - 2D (2)

2 H (2) - 4NT (3)

 

(1) your NT range

(2) transfer to hearts

(3) quantitative, showing a bal. hand with 5 hearts,

you dont need RKCB, because you would have

been able to bid Texas Transfer

 

In standard, the a similar auction would be

 

1 NT (1) - 3H (2)

3 NT (3) - 4NT (4)

 

(1) your NT range

(2) strong hand with hearts

(3) denies 3 hearts

(4) ???

 

You may not think it worth while, but there are hands,

which would be awkward to bid without such an agreement.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[TylerE]

Additionally, for many of us 3♥ and 3♠ are both used for other things. Also, it gives additional auctions that can be useful.

 

For instance, in one partnership of mine, here are our transfer slam options.

 

1N-2♦-2♥-4♥ - Non-forcing RKC (opener passes with a bad hand for slam, shows keycards otherwise)

1N-2♦-2♥-4NT - A 1N-4N quant. raise, but with 5♥.

1N-4♦-4♥-4NT - Forcing keycard for ♥

1N-4♦-4♥-Cue - Self sufficient heart heart suit opp. xxx or Hx, strong slam interest

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that when people on the Internet describe something as "useless", what they really mean is "I don't like it".

 

Texas transfers aren't useless. Using them does require some thought, however... and as I overheard a woman at a local club say to her partner one day after the game "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge!" :rolleyes:

[mcphee]

I was a bit surprised with this post suggesting that a texas transfer shows a hand with no slam interest. The facts are: Texas SETS trumps and a follow up 4N is your RKC.

 

I see many players start a stayman sequence, hear a major response and now bid 4NT which they consider RKC, the facts are: this also aint so joe. For example you happen to have a balanced hand 16 hcp and pard opens 1NT. This is wonderful new to you and you just happen to hold this pattern, 2-4-4-3 and 16 large and lovely HCP, begin with stayman in hopes if uncovering the 4-4 H fit. Sadly on this day partner bids S. Is it not sensible to still want to invite a NT slam? So what do you do, well you bid 4NT an invitational slam sequence.

 

Maybe I am a left fielder playing short stop, but it strikes me that what has happened is because the texas transfer is most often passed, players just assume it is not a good hand.

 

My question to you is what happened to trump agreement when launching into RKC?

 

Why does this stayman thing follwed with 4NT become RKC when it will simply fit as that tool only part of the time?

[jdonn]

I have noticed that when people post about things they don't like but which are obviously good, they claim the proponents use arguments that I never hear them use, but ignore all the good arguments.

[Wackojack]

Additional you have now the option as responder to

show strong bal. hand with a 5 card major.

 

1 NT (1) - 2D (2)

2 H (2) - 4NT (3)

 

(1) your NT range

(2) transfer to hearts

(3) quantitative, showing a bal. hand with 5 hearts,

you dont need RKCB, because you would have

been able to bid Texas Transfer

 

 

With strong 5332 hands, Texas is no good to you. Thats what GIB has just been cured of doing after complaints. Agreed 1NT-2♥-2♠-4NT should be quantitative, but I bet most non experts who play Texas would still take 4NT in this sequence as key card. If you really want to find 3 card support and then ask for aces with this type of hand, then why not rebid a 3 card minor (partner to take it as 4) and then bid key card if partner shows 3 card support for your major. If inconveniently, partner raises your minor, you can still cue bid.

 

Additionally, for many of us 3♥ and 3♠ are both used for other things. Also, it gives additional auctions that can be useful.

 

For instance, in one partnership of mine, here are our transfer slam options.

 

1N-2♦-2♥-4♥ - Non-forcing RKC (opener passes with a bad hand for slam, shows keycards otherwise)

1N-2♦-2♥-4NT - A 1N-4N quant. raise, but with 5♥.

1N-4♦-4♥-4NT - Forcing keycard for ♥

1N-4♦-4♥-Cue - Self sufficient heart heart suit opp. xxx or Hx, strong slam interest

 

Yes agreed that these follow-ups do add something significant. The lesson here then is that agreeing to play a convention is useless unless you have agreements on the follow-ups that actually bring something extra.

[Finch]

Texas transfers seem to be one of those things that nearly everyone in North America plays, but are almost completely unknown here in England. I don't think I've ever come across someone playing them in f2f bridge.

 

I think wackjack's (slightly indirect) point is a good one: there's no point agreeing to play yet another convention if you already have various ways of playing in 4M. The only benefit is if you take the system as an integrated whole and don't have multiple ways of showing the same hand.

 

And TTs do have a huge downside as a 'quick' agreement: there are no end of rulings (and appeals) where a pair have not known whether they still apply in competition or not.

 

I don't like texas transfers, because I like to be able to respond 4H to 1NT showing a desire to play in 4H - the disadvantage of having the lead through the strong hand is compensated for by the advantage of bidding the final contract immediately and concealing what can be a weak distributional hand.

 

What I do play in one partnership is 4C as a slam try in hearts and 4D as a slam try in spades, over both 1NT and 2NT openings. My other regular partnership plays some grotesquely complicated kit over 1NT, but still has a 4H and 4S response as to play.

[TylerE]

If you're really concerned about right siding the contract, you can use the South African version (Esp. good opposite 10-12 and similar openings)

 

4♣ - Wants to play 4♥, opener can either bid 4♥ or bid 4♦ to let responder play it

4♦ - the same, but for spades

4M - to play

2♣ - 2x - 4♣ - G-----, not promising 4M

[mikeh]

Texas is more complex and more powerful than the OP appears to understand. It is foolish to trash a convention when you don't even know how to play it.

 

The OP suggested that jacoby followed by a raise to game is equivalent. It is not. Indeed, part fof the power of Texas lies in the difference.

 

We use Jacoby then game to show a 6+ suit in a hand with mild slam interest.. a hand that may make slam opposite a good 1N... a 'good' 1N, for these purposes, being a hand heavy in Aces and Kings, rather than Queens and Jacks.

 

We contrast that with Texas which shows (most commonly) a hand with NO interest in slam.

 

But, of course, Texas is more than that... we also use it to set trump on hands where responder can afford to take control. Thus 1N 4♥ 4♠ 4N is keycard.

 

And this allows 1N 2♥ 2♠ 4N to be quantitative... responder has shown a 5 card spade suit and then about 15-16 hcp in a balanced hand.

 

We also get to texas and then use exclusion.

 

So Texas actually complements Jacoby... use of texas allows us to make jacoby a more flexible bidding tool while adding the texas adjuncts to our arsenal. Note that replacing Texas by direct jumps to game does not have the same effect... in particular, the direct jump eliminates the use of texas in slam auctions. It also has a tendency to make the wrong hand the declarer, altho 'right-siding' game contracts is not a big deal.

 

As for Frances' point about texas being the cause of director rulings... well, that will be the case with most conventions when a pair has had zero discussion beyond 'let's play such-and-such'. No real-life experienced pair would ever have such a problem.. the usual treatment in my circles has been 'texas is on over interference through 3♣... off if they bid 3♦ or higher...on over a double'. That doesn't add a lot to the discussion, as one fills out one's convention card.

[Walddk]

Mike, what is ..

 

1NT - 3♥

1NT - 3♠

 

for you?

 

Som use it to show a 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 ... 1-3-4-5 or 1-3-5-4 respectively. Do you? Others use 1NT-3M to show a slammy hand with six cards. Then there is no need to use Texas. If you use that method, it's even better than Texas, because you have more room to investigate.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

Mike, what is ..

 

1NT - 3♥

1NT - 3♠

 

for you?

 

Som use it to show a 3-1-4-5 or 3-1-5-4 ... 1-3-4-5 or 1-3-5-4 respectively. Do you? Others use 1NT-3M to show a slammy hand with six cards. Then there is no need to use Texas. If you use that method, it's even better than Texas, because you have more room to investigate.

 

Roland

3Major in response to 1N: the answer is 'it depends on the partnership'. I haven't played it as natural and slamming in many, many years. Most often it is a gf 31(54) or 13(54), always with Hxx or better in the major, to facilitate playing the moysian... opposite very weak notrump, it is to play, opposite 11-14 (I hate the range but enjoy the partnership) it is invitational, but not to 3N.

 

BTW, even using it as natural and slammish doesn't obviate texas... it renders it less useful.. but there is still a minor advantage to being able to blast to the 4 level on game-only hands, where jacoby would allow 4th seat room to make a call other than pass, perhaps with some effect... and it does preserve 'right-siding'... I agree that these are very small advantages and probably not enough to warrant playing an 'extra' convention, as texas would now become.

 

However, what else are you using the 4-level for?

 

All serious partnerships view methods in a holistic fashion... not merely as the sum of the individual parts. When we use one convention, we lose alternate meanings for the bids involved, and must find other means of describing the family of hands that might otherwise have been shown by those bids. This has a ripple effect... the serious partnership spends a lot of time trying to accommodate maximal flexibility (ie being able to accurately describe the widest possible range of hands) with partnership tolerance for complexity.

 

Texas (in one partnership, S.A. Texas) is a tool that meshes well with the other methods that I have used in serious partnerships. And it meshes well, imo, with fairly straightforward, common, NA treatments. That doesn't mean that, as an individual convention, it is on my list of 'essential' conventions, but it is certainly something that I would expect any NA expert to play, and (probably) to play it in much the manner I have described, without need for discussion.. altho I always make a point of discussing it when filling in the cc... it takes about 15 seconds with an experienced partner, familiar with the method.

[awm]

The advantages of Texas, most that people have already mentioned:

 

(1) You can distinguish between five and six-card suit in slam situations.

(2) You can make a "mild slam try" via transfer and raise.

(3) Texas is on after low-level competition, maintaining the advantages of transfers.

(4) Texas keeps the 4th hand from making a cheap call, while still letting opener declare.

 

South African transfers are a fine treatment that may be better than Texas -- basically you lose Gerber in exchange for being able to declare 4M from either side.

 

Elianna and I actually play 1NT-3M natural and forcing and still play texas. The overlap between these treatments is actually pretty minor. We use 1NT-3M for the following reasons:

 

(1) Sometimes you want to make a slam try with a five-card major. Our approach is to bid 3M, then partner cuebids with 3+ support or bids 3NT without (which we can pass or bid 4NT over depending). Without the natural 3M treatment, we would have to transfer and then either bid 4NT (quantitative) or 3NT and move if partner corrects to 4M, either of which eliminates 4-level cuebidding from the equation.

 

(2) Sometimes you want to make a "serious" slam try in a major without shortage, but you don't really want to blast RKC. Our approach is to bid 3M, then cuebid over 3NT by partner. Without the natural 3M bid, we have basically no options with this hand type.

 

(3) Sometimes you really want to declare the hand from your side (assuming you trust partner's play, this is mostly when you have a lot of side suit kings etc. to protect). While using 1NT-4M "to play" would allow you to do this, there is normally no way to do it when you have only a five-card major. And we play texas anyway so 1NT-4♥ is not "to play."

[Wackojack]

A partnership say agrees to use the response of 3M to 1NT as showing a singleton in the suit and 5-4 in the minors. Lets call it (for the sake of brevity) the Walddk convention. Accordingly that partnership should recognise that there has now to be another forcing bid that sets the trumps in order to ask for key cards. Ok TT could fulfill that need. TT is now an adjunct to the Walddk convention.

 

Should not beginners learn Walddk before they learn TT?

[Walddk]

South African transfers are a fine treatment that may be better than Texas -- basically you lose Gerber in exchange for being able to declare 4M from either side.

What a big loss. Now I will lose some of the sleep I never get ;)

 

I prefer to use 4♣ as either SA Texas, slam invitational or better, or 5-5 in the majors, slam invitational. With 5-5 and just game going I transfer and bid hearts next, if necessary again at the 4-level on this auction:

 

1N - 2♥

2♠ - 3♥

3N - 4♥

 

If my agreement is that 4♣ is 5-5 in the majors, I use 4♦ to show a slam going 5-5, asking for preference.

 

Anything is possible, Texas included, but like Frances I want 4M as natural to play. Perhaps because I grew up with the weak NT where responder often is stronger than opener. If you play 4M as natural, you can also decide that opener (Jacoby transfer) is better suited as declarer.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

A partnership say agrees to use the response of 3M to 1NT as showing a singleton in the suit and 5-4 in the minors.  Lets call it (for the sake of brevity) the Walddk convention.  Accordingly that partnership should recognise that there has now to be another forcing bid that sets the trumps in order to ask for key cards.  Ok TT could fulfill that need.  TT is now an adjunct to the Walddk convention. 

 

Should not beginners learn Walddk before they learn TT?

No. In fact, I use texas in partnerships where we have other meanings for 3M, so my experience is that texas is not an adjunct to 'waldkk'. If anything, it is the adoption of texas that permits the use of 3Major for other purposes. Actually, as I tried to say earlier, a comprehensive response structure to 1N openings should be holistic: not merely a combination of conventions, but a selection of conventions that work harmoniously, maximizing the variety of hands that can be usefully described. In that context, most of the conventions in use in a particular approach are co-equals, even tho some of them will certainly arise more often than others.

[blackshoe]

I don't like texas transfers, because I like to be able to respond 4H to 1NT showing a desire to play in 4H - the disadvantage of having the lead through the strong hand is compensated for by the advantage of bidding the final contract immediately and concealing what can be a weak distributional hand.

 

What I do play in one partnership is 4C as a slam try in hearts and 4D as a slam try in spades, over both 1NT and 2NT openings. My other regular partnership plays some grotesquely complicated kit over 1NT, but still has a 4H and 4S response as to play.

I was going to suggest South African Texas if you don't like Texas. Some people dislike it because they have to give up 4♣ as Gerber, but how often does that come up? Anyway, it appears you do play SAT in one partnership, albeit as a slam try rather than just to play. I gather then that 1NT-transfer-4M is just to play, no slam interest?

 

I do like the ability to declare in 4M as responder when I think it's right. B)

[peachy]

If you like the standard system, then you don't need the "T" convention. Many people have assigned a meaning other than "slammish and long suit" for 3H and 3S and they need a method to show mild slam interest [1NT-2d-2h-4h] and a method to show real slam interest [1nt-4d-4h-4nt = RKC] .

 

Besides, the assigned meanings for 3H and 3S can be real lifesavers for certain types of hands, depending on what those bids are used for. Some play it as singleton with 5-4/4-5 minors, some play it 4-3-3-3, some as 5-5 majors inv and gf, etc.

[peachy]

And TTs do have a huge downside as a 'quick' agreement: there are no end of rulings (and appeals) where a pair have not known whether they still apply in competition or not.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't meet Texas players at the table and nobody plays them there, where do the frequent problems and appeals pertaining to Texas are coming from B)

 

Seriously, I can't remember a single Appeal from NABC booklets that involved a problem with Texas. I always thought it was the Guess-Them 'Ghestem' that was notorious for problems at the table. Also, it is a very common agreement for Texas players to agree it is Texas if it is a jump to 4D or 4H in competition, I would almost venture to say this is standard without agreement.