1C opening

[Viren169]

Hi,

 

I see that some partnerships playing 2/1 and SAYC have adopted the 1C with transfer responses.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of playing this?

 

Thanks,

Viren

[han]

If partner transfers to a major then you gain an extra step which you can use in various ways. For example, over 1C-1H (showing spades) you can play:

 

1S = 3 spades.

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Not only does this distinguish between 3- and 4-card support, it also can solve some rebid problems, for example for hands that hold 3 spades, 6 clubs and extra values (to do this you have to allow 1S to be bid on hands with extras).

 

Another approach:

 

1S = 1-3 spades (including all minimal balanced hands that don't have 4-card support).

1NT = strong balanced (18-19 in SAYC).

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Now you free up the 2NT rebid for other purposes and you stay lower with the strong balanced hands.

 

Disadvantages of the method:

 

- The opponents can double the transfer bid.

- You have less room when partner shows diamonds.

- It needs more discussion.

 

I think the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages for a serious regular partnership.

[Viren169]

Ummmmm,

 

Not many responses.... I guess it is not as popular as I thought?!?!

 

BR

Viren

[Fluffy]

I've been playing transfer walsh for several years, it has many advantages, specially on invitational hand. The only disadvantage is the extra space you leave for opponents, but I am yet to find someone who is prepared to get any advantage from it.

[Ant590]

There is an article by Mike Bell on the advantages of a short club & transfer responses. See http://sieged.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-use...h-transfer.html

[CSGibson]

There is one more disadvantage: You are allowed more complex conventional defenses to a short club. In one of my partnerships, we've decided to take advantage of that to play suction at all levels over the short club, which generally raises havoc when it comes up.

[mikeh]

If partner transfers to a major then you gain an extra step which you can use in various ways. For example, over 1C-1H (showing spades) you can play:

 

1S = 3 spades.

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Not only does this distinguish between 3- and 4-card support, it also can solve some rebid problems, for example for hands that hold 3 spades, 6 clubs and extra values (to do this you have to allow 1S to be bid on hands with extras).

 

Another approach:

 

1S = 1-3 spades (including all minimal balanced hands that don't have 4-card support).

1NT = strong balanced (18-19 in SAYC).

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Now you free up the 2NT rebid for other purposes and you stay lower with the strong balanced hands.

 

Disadvantages of the method:

 

- The opponents can double the transfer bid.

- You have less room when partner shows diamonds.

- It needs more discussion.

 

I think the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages for a serious regular partnership.

Or, as I prefer:

 

1♣ 1♥ (transfer)

 

1♠: 2-3 spades, usually weak notrump hand

1N 17+ - 19, a jump to 2n in standard

2♠ normal 4 card raise

2N Bridge World nightmare hand: gf with 3 spades, long clubs, no convenient rebid

 

The only awkward hand is 1=4=3=5, on which one has to rebid 2♣.

 

Over 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, use 2 way nmf (xyz): 2♣ puppet to 2♦, to play or most invitational hands, 2♦ artificial gf. This allows 1♠, which is the 4th suit, to be natural and nf. This gains compared to non-transfer responses if you would usually rebid 1N over 1♣ 1♥ with all in-range balanced hands, including hands with 4 spades...

[hrothgar]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1. Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure.

 

2. The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3. The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

[ArcLight]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1. Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure.

 

2. The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3. The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,

Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

[Echognome]

The only awkward hand is 1=4=3=5, on which one has to rebid 2♣.

Or a 3=1=4=5 or a 1=3=4=5, unless you are systemically opening 1♦.

 

I prefer to keep the methods as showing 1-3, with 1 being rare and used for these hand types, with judgment allowed to rebid a good 5-card suit (which is what I might do in standard when deciding whether to rebid 1NT or 2♣).

 

Say you have K AQxx KJx Jxxxx and the bidding goes 1♣ - 1♥ (showing spades). Wouldn't you rather rebid 1♠ than 2♣? I would certainly rather rebid 1NT in standard if it went 1♣ - 1♠.

 

We practiced bidding a lot of hands and found that the difficult ones were often difficult in standard as well. So yeah, on the rare occasion you will play in 1♠ or 2♠ when it's better to play in NT or you lose some of the accuracy when you don't know for sure that it's 2-3 spades, but we treat it as 2-3 spades, because when it's a singleton, it's going to be an honor. (Since with x AQxx KJx KJxxx we would suck it up and rebid 2♣.)

 

You just have to find a line to draw.

[han]

If partner transfers to a major then you gain an extra step which you can use in various ways. For example, over 1C-1H (showing spades) you can play:

 

1S = 3 spades.

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Not only does this distinguish between 3- and 4-card support, it also can solve some rebid problems, for example for hands that hold 3 spades, 6 clubs and extra values (to do this you have to allow 1S to be bid on hands with extras).

 

Another approach:

 

1S = 1-3 spades (including all minimal balanced hands that don't have 4-card support).

1NT = strong balanced (18-19 in SAYC).

2S = minimal, 4 spades.

 

Now you free up the 2NT rebid for other purposes and you stay lower with the strong balanced hands.

 

Disadvantages of the method:

 

- The opponents can double the transfer bid.

- You have less room when partner shows diamonds.

- It needs more discussion.

 

I think the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages for a serious regular partnership.

Or, as I prefer:

 

1♣ 1♥ (transfer)

 

1♠: 2-3 spades, usually weak notrump hand

1N 17+ - 19, a jump to 2n in standard

2♠ normal 4 card raise

2N Bridge World nightmare hand: gf with 3 spades, long clubs, no convenient rebid

 

The only awkward hand is 1=4=3=5, on which one has to rebid 2♣.

I think the only difference between what you play wrote and what I wrote is what to do with those awkward hands (I think 1-3-4-5 and 3-1-4-5 are also awkward). We choose to complete the transfer so that the 2m rebid still shows 6. I don't have strong feelings about this, it's the style we are used to (for example, after 1D -1S we tend to rebid 1NT with a minimal 1453).

 

Over 1♣ 1♦ 1♥, use 2 way nmf (xyz): 2♣ puppet to 2♦, to play or most invitational hands, 2♦ artificial gf. This allows 1♠, which is the 4th suit, to be natural and nf. This gains compared to non-transfer responses if you would usually rebid 1N over 1♣  1♥ with all in-range balanced hands, including hands with 4 spades...

 

We also play exactly this, in fact we use the structure that mikeh posted on the forums some years ago.

 

We decided not to play play 2-way checkback after 1C-1D-1S (1D showing hearts, 1S promising an unbalanced hand). There we think it is more important to be able to bid 2C non-forcing. I think the best method might be to shift 2-way checkback by one step: 2D is a drop in hearts or an invitational hand, 2H is an artificial gameforce. After 1C-1S-1NT (where 1S shows diamonds) we also don't play 2-way checkback, both 2C and 2D are natural and non-forcing.

[paulg]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

We all know that the ACBL Conventions Committee appears to be an easy target, but persistent sniping on the same topic is tiresome.

 

I am pleased that the committee adopted a relaxed attitude (at Mid Chart) to responses and rebids, largely permitting any methods.

 

I play these transfers in a similar manner to mikeh, except I use 2-level transfers after transfer completion rather than checkback.

 

Paul

[karlson]

We also play exactly this, in fact we use the structure that mikeh posted on the forums some years ago.

 

Link? I've been looking for a good structure, and I can't seem to find this thread.

[effervesce]

We also play exactly this, in fact we use the structure that mikeh posted on the forums some years ago.

 

Link? I've been looking for a good structure, and I can't seem to find this thread.

See http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry238456, copied below:

 

Quote Mikeh:

----

 

The approach I favour is:

 

1♣  1♦:

 

1♥   2 or 3 ♥s, balanced or semi-balanced, usually a weak 1N rebid type of hand

1♠  natural, unbalanced, fewer than 4♥s

1N  17-19 (in a 14-16 1N, if 15-17 1N, then this is 18-19)

2♣   natural

2♦  natural, reverse

2♥  4 card support, minimum opening

2♠  natural, game-force

2N  6+ clubs, 3♥s, 18+

 

The main followup over the 1♥ 'acceptance' is:

 

1♠  natural, non-forcing (allows backing into 4=4 fits)

1N  natural, non-forcing

2♣  puppet to 2♦, to play or invitational

2♦  artificial gf

2♥natural, constructive, but non-forcing, less than invitational

 

The same scheme applies over 1♣ 1♥

 

Over 1♣ 1♠: 1♠ shows either ♦s, unlimited, or a notrump hand either too weak to bid 1N in response to 1♣ (8-10) or too strong.

 

And we play transfer jumpshifts over 1♣:

 

1♣  2♦ is ♥s, weak or strong

1♣  2♥ is ♠s weak or strong

1♣  2♠ is limit or better in clubs

 

----

[the hog]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,

Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Why are you unethical enough to use it even though its not required?

[Viren169]

Hi,

 

As well as the 1345/3145 hands being difficult to bid.

 

How would you handle the 4441/4414 (15-17) hcps using the 1C transfer system?

 

BR

Viren

[han]

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)

3D

 

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

 

1C - 1S

??

 

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

[dougbennion]

I've been using those transfer responses for many months, with good results. They fit well with a weak notrump opener. To take maximal advantage, I stuff all my balanced hands (including 3=3=5=2) into 1C or 1N (I like 11-14), so 1C is 15+ balanced, or natural.

 

The two main advantages are these. It rightsides (almost) all of your major-suit fits, including those 18-19 HCP hands that are often declared by a weak responder (and for weak-notrumpers those 15-17 openers where responder declares the major and all the strong-notrumpers have rightsided with Stayman). And it gives you the two 'acceptances' 1M and 2M.

 

We started by using the 1M acceptance to show a 3-raise, and the 2M to show a 4-raise (usually a strong NT, sometimes unbalanced). Since I like to rebid 1NT with a balanced hand even with 3-support, this meant our 1M 'raise' was unbalanced, and that seemed to arise very rarely so we ditched that approach.

 

Next we decided that 1M would be the unbalanced opener say 4=3=1=5 or 4=4=1=4, and 2M the strong notrump. That doesn't happen much either, and often the unbalanced dummy will play as strongly as the 15-17 balanced, so it wasn't clear if you were gaining much.

 

I considered denial rebids by opener, so that 1M would deny four, and show two or three. We examined hundreds of auctions, and determined it was nice when opener had a reverse-strength hand, but otherwise didn't seem to add much.

 

What we decided was best, and it arises frequently, was to use it to narrow the range of our opening bid. We use 1M to show the top range of a 15-17 opener, say 16+ to 17, and 2M to show the bottom range say 15-bad 16. We appropriately include unbalanced hands. With opener describing his range so precisely, responder never has to invite. We have no invitational sequences, we never get to 3M or 2N down 1. Responder simply places the contract. If he makes any other bid, he is slamming. (Except here ... 1♣ 1♦; 1♥ 2♥ ... we permit responder to raise to 2♥ to make it harder for the opps to balance.)

 

There are a couple of lesser advantages. The 1♠ response (no majors) is mildly preemptive, and will rightside some notrump contracts. And since checkbacks aren't required after 1♣ 1♠; 1N ... responder can settle in a non-forcing 2♣ or 2♦.

 

A corollary to stuffing your balanced hands into 1♣, is that your 1♦ openers are unbalanced and usually 5+. For weak-notrumpers this has a further advantage. If opener has a 15 HCP hand with say 4=3=4=2, standard weak-notrumpers will open 1♦. Responder with no major and 6 HCP will respond 1N, wrongsiding the contract. Opener must show his strong notrump with 2N, down 1. We avoid that in the auction 1♣ 1♠; 1N Pass.

[Fluffy]

we open 1NT with 4414 sometimes, but its not standard.

 

Our ssytem says that the stanard bidding with that holding and 15-17 is 1♣-1♠-2♥.

 

It didn't happen to me yet that I remember.

[Bende]

Hi,

 

As well as the 1345/3145 hands being difficult to bid.

 

How would you handle the 4441/4414 (15-17) hcps using the 1C transfer system?

 

BR

Viren

This is how I play in a 5542-system with transfer responses to 1♣:

 

With 1345 after 1♣-1♥(=♠), I rebid 1♠ which is usually weak NT with 2-3 card support but can be 11-15 unbalanced with 3 card support. With 3145 I am forced to rebid 2♣ as 1♠ cannot be bid with a singelton heart.

 

4441 with 15-17 is opened 1♦ (always an unbalanced hand). 4414 is more difficult. There is a strong chance that I get a rebid problem if I open 1♣ so 1NT is defined as possibly being a 4414-shape.

[JLOL]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,

Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Why are you unethical enough to use it even though its not required?

LOL

[mtvesuvius]

I find the following rather amusing:

 

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

 

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,

Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Why are you unethical enough to use it even though its not required?

LOL

What took you so long? :P

[jdonn]

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)

3D

 

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

 

1C - 1S

??

 

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

What do you do with 16 or 17 and that shape and auction, reverse? I had the exact same problem with 4414 and 1♣ 1♠, I think I tended to rebid 1NT with up to 16 and reverse with 17. Blech.

[dougbennion]

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)

3D

 

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

 

1C - 1S

??

 

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

What do you do with 16 or 17 and that shape and auction, reverse? I had the exact same problem with 4414 and 1♣ 1♠, I think I tended to rebid 1NT with up to 16 and reverse with 17. Blech.

 

We open 11-14 notrumps, so with 15-17 or so and 4414, we'd reverse with an el primo top-end hand, rebid 1NT with a stiff diamond honor, and otherwise hold our nose and rebid 2♣. Partner will likely hold clubs on that sequence. We play that 1♠ is a major-denial, not that it promises diamonds although it strongly implies them. Responder might be 3334 or even 3325 with no suitable club raise. With game-forcing diamonds he can bid 2♦ directly; possibly with a 4-card major.

[jallerton]

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

 

It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid. However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

 

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

 

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

 

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

 

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

 

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.