Cyclic Transfers

[cloa513]

Why not have 1♣ transfer to 1 ♦, 1♦ to 1♥, 1♥ to 1 ♠, 1 ♠ to 2 ♣ with fairly unlimited strength 11+ and allowing 4 card majors with longer minors? 1♣ can include the flat strong hands or even all flat hands not covered by 1 NT? 2♣ can be powerful two or three suit hands or even powerful NT hands that need little or nothing to be 3NT or higher. 1 NT is variable 12-14 (non-vul) 13-15 (vul-vul) and 14-16 (against). Advantages- one clear suit with most first bids so it is harder for opponent to confuse. 2C prevents preempts being to too preemptive especially with against - so it is probably the other three suits. What do you think?

[Ant590]

Would you make completing the transfer show? I.e. does it show a fit, does it have values, can it be passed?

[helene_t]

I am a little worried about the transfers to majors being vulnerable to obstruction from opps.

 

I have puzzled a little with 5-card major transfers (for that reason) but it is hard to make the 4M5m and three-suited hands fit into the system.

 

Whether you opt for 4cM or 5cM you probably need to utilize some 2-openings for hands that would otherwise cause problems.

 

But basically I like the idea.

[dake50]

Yes,yes. Now signoff/accept/super-accept/non-fit/competing/'right-siding' problems to solve. Barring a forcing pass to collect some a-systemic hand types, this may even be ACBL/GCC. Freed 2-bids?

 

A germinative idea. Publish the 'proof in the details' when you get there.

[awm]

I suggested something similar a while back. However I think it works a bit better to play five card majors for a number of reasons. I used a slightly different structure of:

 

1♣ = natural or balanced or some three-suiters (like 4441)

1♦ = 5+♥

1♥ = 5+♠

1♠ = 5+♦

1NT = 14-16

 

Using 1♠ to show diamonds gives a bit more space before two of the minor, allowing to find possible major-suit fits and still get out in 2♦ if both are minimum and no major fit exists.

 

Over 1♣ I was using transfer responses! :unsure:

 

Accepting the transfer generally shows a weak hand (say 0-9). If at the top end of the range it also denies a real fit or a six-card suit to bid. Opener can pass this or bid on with extra strength or extra shape (was using something like gazzilli to handle the really big hands). Other bids were more or less "standard" responses to 1M except that 1NT promised 10+ hcp and either balanced or three-suited short in opener's major (inv+ and could start relays). Thus 2/1 calls are always a real suit (5+) but could be one-suited invitations (i.e. 2/1 GF except suit rebid).

 

The unfortunate thing is that this is nowhere near ACBL legal (not even mid-chart) and since I live in North America I'm unlikely to get to play it in any serious events anytime soon...

[Rossoneri]

I suggested something similar a while back. However I think it works a bit better to play five card majors for a number of reasons. I used a slightly different structure of:

 

1♣ = natural or balanced or some three-suiters (like 4441)

1♦ = 5+♥

1♥ = 5+♠

1♠ = 5+♦

1NT = 14-16

 

Using 1♠ to show diamonds gives a bit more space before two of the minor, allowing to find possible major-suit fits and still get out in 2♦ if both are minimum and no major fit exists.

 

Over 1♣ I was using transfer responses! :)

 

Accepting the transfer generally shows a weak hand (say 0-9). If at the top end of the range it also denies a real fit or a six-card suit to bid. Opener can pass this or bid on with extra strength or extra shape (was using something like gazzilli to handle the really big hands). Other bids were more or less "standard" responses to 1M except that 1NT promised 10+ hcp and either balanced or three-suited short in opener's major (inv+ and could start relays). Thus 2/1 calls are always a real suit (5+) but could be one-suited invitations (i.e. 2/1 GF except suit rebid).

 

The unfortunate thing is that this is nowhere near ACBL legal (not even mid-chart) and since I live in North America I'm unlikely to get to play it in any serious events anytime soon...

Sounds interesting, do you have anything more substantial? I wouldn't mind giving this a try.