One-level Transfer Openings

[awm]

A one-level transfer opening involves an opening bid at the one-level, which is used to show at least a minimum opening hand (say 10+ points) with four or more cards in a specific suit other than the one opened. An example would be opening 1♥ to show 4+♠ and 10-15 hcp.

 

Should this method be allowed in "major" events like national or world championships, assuming proper disclosure?

 

In favor of allowing: These methods are constructive, not garbage hands, and are usually adopted to help with slam bidding. It is in some ways easier to defend 1♥ showing 4+♠ than to defend 1♠ showing the exact same hand types, because you have the cheap one-level cuebid available. The idea of transfers is familiar to all serious players from methods over 1NT. These methods are part of a number of moderately popular systems (like Moscito) and while they are far from "standard" anywhere, they are played by a number of top players in Australia.

 

Against allowing: Designing the best defense to transfer openings is not a trivial task (what should the "cuebid" be used for? what should double be?) It is possible to mess with opponents by passing out a transfer opening whereas a transfer over 1NT is never passed by opener (barring a psych). It is also possible that the best fit for the opponents is in the suit transferred to (since opening shows only four cards in that suit), whereas this is never true after 1NT and a transfer. The idea of transfer openings at the one-level is unfamiliar to many players (even top flight players). Transfer openings make top-level bridge less watchable for the general bridge playing population. Transfer openings "wrong-side" a lot of contracts, thus potentially randomizing the results as many contracts will be played from the opposite side from tables using "normal" opening bids.

[hrothgar]

You might want to an additional reason in favor of allowing:

 

Let's assume that my partnership uses a 1♠ to show 4+ Spades, 9 -14 HCP, might have a longer minor.

 

We decide to switch methods and use a 1♥ opening to show precisely the same hand.

 

There is NOTHING stopping the opponents from using precisely the same defensive methods that they used against our 1♠ opening versus our 1♥. It's true that the opponent won't be able to take advantage of the extra bidding space that the a 1♠ overcall would allow them. However, its hard see how this makes them any worse off...

[cherdano]

You might want to an additional reason in favor of allowing:

 

Let's assume that my partnership uses a 1♠ to show 4+ Spades, 9 -14 HCP, might have a longer minor.

 

We decide to switch methods and use a 1♥ opening to show precisely the same hand.

 

There is NOTHING stopping the opponents from using precisely the same defensive methods that they used against our 1♠ opening versus our 1♥. It's true that the opponent won't be able to take advantage of the extra bidding space that the a 1♠ overcall would allow them. However, its hard see how this makes them any worse off...

Bullshit. What do I do with a penalty pass over (1H) X (P)? What is (1H) X (1S) X?

[hrothgar]

You might want to an additional reason in favor of allowing:

 

Let's assume that my partnership uses a 1♠ to show 4+ Spades, 9 -14 HCP, might have a longer minor.

 

We decide to switch methods and use a 1♥ opening to show precisely the same hand.

 

There is NOTHING stopping the opponents from using precisely the same defensive methods that they used against our 1♠ opening versus our 1♥.  It's true that the opponent won't be able to take advantage of the extra bidding space that the a 1♠ overcall would allow them.  However, its hard see how this makes them any worse off...

Bullshit. What do I do with a penalty pass over (1H) X (P)? What is (1H) X (1S) X?

With respect to the (1♥) - X - (P) - ??? auction:

 

If i were sitting on a hand that would convert partner's takeout double of a 1♠ opening, I'd be quite content to pass the double of the 1♥ opening.

 

Partner's double is the same as a takeout double of Spades. Partner is strongly suggesting 4+ Hearts AND the opponents haven't shown any heart length.

 

As for "What is (1H) X (1S) X?"

 

To some extent, this depends on what 1♠. (I'm going to assume that it shows a desire to play 1♠ rahter than some kind of strong relay)

 

Once again, nothing is stopping me from using this double as penalty, showing that same hand that would have passed partner's takeout double...

[han]

Surely you do understand the point Arend was making.

[david_c]

The fact that we're talking about "top-flight events" makes it easy enough to vote for the first option.

 

But actually this convention is a bit of a sore point for me: the EBU now allows it in general tournament play (i.e. including local pairs events), which I don't think is appropriate.

[cherdano]

Btw, I am absolutely in favor of allowing transfer one-level openings in any top flight event. But we should give honest reasons in favor of it.

For example, it strikes me as silly not to have a way to show a penalty pass of 1S X in the first auction. We could be red vs white, pass could show hearts, we may have an easy 4S game. But that is just my opinion. Which means that if hrothgar and me sat down to play vs transfer openings, we had better discuss some things we didn't need to discuss versus a natural system. (And, given this is a top flight event, we surely don't want to toss IMPs on silly misunderstandings....)

[Cascade]

These methods are allowed in any (well almost any there are a few restricted events) Open pairs event in New Zealand.

 

As far as I am aware this causes few if any problems or complaints.

 

Disclaimer: While I did play submarine symmetric for many years I have not done so for well over 10 years.

[EricK]

They seem pretty harmless to me. Especially when compared with a lot of stuff which is already allowed.

[paulg]

One of the English Camrose pairs will be playing 1♥ as suggested above.

 

But more difficult to defend is their 1♠ opener, that shows 5+ hearts and 10-16 points.

 

This is legal in most English events. Any thoughts on how to defend it?

[NickRW]

One of the English Camrose pairs will be playing 1♥ as suggested above.

 

But more difficult to defend is their 1♠ opener, that shows 5+ hearts and 10-16 points.

 

This is legal in most English events. Any thoughts on how to defend it?

Yeah, 1♠ showing hearts is fairly wicked. I don't think X showing spades is going to get you rich - they are running to hearts or maybe a minor every time responder doesn't have a bucket load of spades. What is wrong with a simple X = t/o of hearts?

 

You mainly lose your 1♠ overcall being forced to the 2 level to show spades - which is why it is wicked - but they have compressed their normal heart auctions - so I don't think that in the long run they're gaining that much over you.

 

Or you can devise some transfer overcalls too - but I wouldn't be sure it'd gain you much compared to the simple approach.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

To reply to the original post, they are already allowed in England in level 4 events - which is what some clubs play as their normal club night. Very uncommon - but not the sort of thing you should be shocked to encounter where I am.

 

Nick

[kfay]

I would love for my opps to play transfer openings. Allow them.

[maggieb]

I would love for my opps to play transfer openings. Allow them.

Are you implying that you think this is an inherently inferior bidding system? I think there is not enough information to draw this kind of conclusion about any reasonable bidding system, and certainly not about a system which is becoming very popular among top-level European players.

[kfay]

I would love for my opps to play transfer openings.  Allow them.

Are you implying that you think this is an inherently inferior bidding system? I think there is not enough information to draw this kind of conclusion about any reasonable bidding system, and certainly not about a system which is becoming very popular among top-level European players.

I'm implying that it's better for both sides, but moreso for the defense.

 

As far as I can tell there's only a slight theoretical advantage to making a transfer opening but the step that defenders gain is huge because it allows you to come into the auction much more easily, you gain a double AND a cuebid.

[brianshark]

In contrast to your thread on forcing pass, your introductory arguments against seem rather tame, as if you were stretching to find things to suggest as opposition arguments. I can't think of much either.

 

"Wrong siding the contract -> variance -> bad" just doesn't work for me.

 

Not accessible to general public is true of virtually every artificial sequence in existence today.

 

The possibility of the suit transferred to being our best fit is also true for a natural 4 card Major opening or natural response.

 

As for "messing with the opponents" by passing out 1H (showing spades), I find this the same problem as what to do with a penalty pass of 1S:

- The disadvantage for the opening side is giving the defence extra bidding space.

- The advantage for the opening side is giving yourself extra bidding space (ie. the ability to play 1H when Hearts is your best spot despite showing a spade opening)

 

As for the spade opening showing hearts, well the opposite is true... they have taken away your bidding space (by one bid) at a cost of their own bidding space. You just have to show your spade overcall at the 2-level or use up 2C as your t/o bid or something like that. And sure you can't penalty double them in hearts anymore, but if spades was their best fit, they were always able to run there anyway.

 

And yes, it needs a bit of preperation, but this seems to be minimal, especially compared with other bids such as multi, ekrens, etc.

 

With most of my partners, I have a general purposes agreement that after a transfer bid, double shows the suit they bid and the cue is take-out. Sure we miss out on the penalty double of spades on the one level (in an auction where they are actually less likely to be caught because they have the option of playing 1H). But it hasn't cost us any imps yet. And it's simple.

 

The biggest endorsement has to be that a number of places already allow transfer openings with few problems. So I would encourage them to be allowed in events of all types.

[fromageGB]

I haven't come across them but I would allow them anywhere on the principle that the development of the game shouldn't be stifled. If they prove beneficial then people will adopt them, and then there are fewer playing Culbertson etc.

 

Bridge moves on - let it.

[paulg]

I would love for my opps to play transfer openings.  Allow them.

Are you implying that you think this is an inherently inferior bidding system? I think there is not enough information to draw this kind of conclusion about any reasonable bidding system, and certainly not about a system which is becoming very popular among top-level European players.

I'm implying that it's better for both sides, but moreso for the defense.

 

As far as I can tell there's only a slight theoretical advantage to making a transfer opening but the step that defenders gain is huge because it allows you to come into the auction much more easily, you gain a double AND a cuebid.

So how do you defend the opening I mentioned, where 1♥ shows spades and 1♠ shows hearts?

 

The 'clever' aspect of these transfers is that they give you an extra bid when they hold spades and one less bid when you might hold spades.

 

I've played quite a few boards against this but still unsure of what is best. But I have no objection to them playing it.

 

p

[akhare]

Why on Earth would anyone want to ban a method that actually makes it easier for the opposition to compete? Opening 1S = a minor might make it slightly difficult to introduce S, but you can easily rectify that by using X = S and cue bid of the anchor as a TOX....

[Free]

Lol are we still on this? Only narrow-minded people who need lots of patronizing don't accept evolution.