transfer openings - plusses & minuses

[shevek]

The main advantage of 1♦ = ♥s is responder's natural 1♠ response.

Our 1♥ shows hearts (not spades) with 1♠ as relay. This means we have to respond 1NT on something like

♠KJxxx ♥x ♦Axx ♣xxxx.

 

Right-siding is not a big deal. Sure you end up in 4♥ by opener if 1♥ = hearts but (1) most other games are right-sided and (2) the opening lead aqainst 4♥ is still blind, though the subsequent defence might be a touch easier. I'm struggling to recall an instance of that costing.

 

A big disadvantage of transfers is the inability to sit in 1-of-a-major. This has a cascading effect on other responses. When you pick up a hand that wants out, the choices are pass, 1NT & raising to 2♥. Such as

♠Kxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Qxxxx

 

You may think this is an easy 1♦ - 2♥. As you wish. I guess you can bid 1♦ - 2♦ as a real raise. Etc, etc. Just love them transfers. (by opponents)

 

1♠ with spades is bad too, so we do 1♦ = spades & 1♥ = hearts, which we are happy with.

 

Of course we prefer Pass = 13+, 1♣ = hearts when allowed.

[slyq]

i think its a good idea plus alleviating the problem of not having to make an uncomfortable bid after a 1d or 1h opening that sometimes happens would agree that moscito needs at leat one major transfer responses to work well and as an aside that after an opening from partner transfers are quite different you may also be able to drop your opening requirments for 1d showing spades by a point because of the extra room ( personally i would drop it from 11 -15 to 10 -15 but i guess it wouldn't be moscito then)

[Free]

I think the newest methods are a clear improvement, where 1NT to 2M-1 are transfers and the relay can be done with any balanced hand. Example, after a 1♦ opening showing 4+♥:

1♥ = GF relay or some NT hand

1♠ = 4+♠, F1

1NT = TRF, 5+♣

2♣ = TRF, 5+♦

2♦ = constructive raise, 3(+)♥

2♥ = weak raise, 3(+)♥

 

The transfers are played as 6-11HCP, although you could agree to play them wider (include minimum GF hands for example). It combines "natural" auctions for invites to game and weak hands, and relays for slam investigation, which is clearly the way to go if possible.

 

The relays are not as efficient anymore, since opener must rebid natural to compensate for the possible weak NT hands, but usually it's the same or +1 step. Worst case is probably 1♥-1♠-2♠ showing a singlesuited hand (+2 steps). So the damage is limited.

 

Also, if opening 1♦ promisses an unbalanced hand, opener can show the difference between 5M-4m (rebid 2m on the relay) and 4M-5m (rebid 1NT on the relay) immediately, which was sometimes a problem in the old versions (1♦-1NT-2m could be 5-4 or 4-5).

 

It's definitely an improvement for hands weaker than GF, compared to previous versions. Before, INV+ hands started with a relay which let opener describe his hand (hopefully) and we could break the relays to show our type and strength. Now invites have it way easier, and we still have the possibility to play 2 of our own suit if we're weak.

 

- Playing a natural system, you just don't have all these possibilities.

- Since we're playing relays, it's always useful to get the known hand as dummy. As you immediately "rightside" Major suit contracts, transfer openings help a lot.

- You have 2 ways of raising immediately to 2-level.

- Opening 1♠ showing an unbalanced hand with 4+♦ is really awesome imo, opps lost space to overcall at 1-level, and we have a good picture of partner's hand: either 2-suited m, or 6+♦.

[slyq]

have you ( both looked) at a variation on the viking club theme where

1d 1h for example could be h gf or a spade hand with responders bids of

2h > show both majors allowing p to drop out into 3s to play if they have to

then 1s = c or bal or 3-suited short s ( incl sht spade in bal resolustion)

1nt = d

2c = ss

2d = min both majors or 5-5 ( 2h relay +1 step 2s to play)

2h max h>s

2s 3 suited with spades

2nt max s>h

 

 

step or break here ars 4s hands while double step = gfr e.g. 1d 1h 1s 2c gfr

then 2d bal 2h reverser

this means 1d 1s becomes nt trans got its -ves but you might be able to work it out

over 1d showing spades 1h would be gf or h) good luck

[helene_t]

I think there is lots of scope for improvement of the standard opening scheme by using the distinction between the minor suit openings more efficiently. If you have a balanced 12-14 or 18-19 you might as well flip a coin as to which minor you open, and some people do just that in order to avoid helping the defense when they become declarer in a notrump contract.

 

Something like 1♣=balanced or 3-suited or strong with one minor, 1♦/♥=transfer, 1♠=both minors, 2m=intermediate has some appeal but I am not sure if I really want to play that. If you use the extra bidding space to open a wider range of 5-card major suit openings, you get problems in contested auctions.

 

Low-level transfers give opps a cuebid so they can (for example) play raptor and natural notrump overcalls at the same time. For the same reason I am not convinced that T-Walsh is better than i.e. Montreal Relay if opps have time to discuss defense against your methods.

 

I think standard bidding is flawed because of the ill-defined minor suit openings, and a system based on transfer openings could be an improvement, but something else, like for example

1♣=includes balanced hands with a 4-card major

1♦=includes balanced hands without a 4-card major

would be better I think.

[mgoetze]

If you keep this up, Helene, you may eventually invent Polish Club. :P

[awm]

Really you're just exchanging steps in one opening for steps in another, so I don't think that's exactly the advantage it's made out to be. Basically, all the "steps" advantages that you gain for 1♦ showing hearts are lost when you open 1♠ showing diamonds, and it comes out even.

 

The transfers come into play because of the desire to show majors before minors. Assuming that you'd rather show a major suit whenever you hold one, your frequency of openings which show a major will be much higher than your frequency of openings which show a minor. Thus it makes sense for the cheapest suit-showing opening (1♦ if you're playing 1♣ strong) to show a major suit.

 

Note that you could easily play a Moscito-style system with natural openings and have the relays work nicely with 1♦=4+♦ may have longer suit, 1♥=4+♥ may have longer clubs, 1♠=4+♠ may have longer clubs. The problem with this is not the relays/space constraints but that opening 1♦ (showing diamonds) when holding a five-card major suit is potentially a big loser in competitive sequences.

 

There is also something of a siding advantage, in that when you have slam (or even game, really) it will often be the case that responder's hand is both stronger and less well-described to the opposition than opener's hand. So it makes sense to try to put opener's hand down as dummy, and the transfers help improve the odds of this.

 

The main disadvantage (other than shuffling steps around between openings and regulatory issues) is what happens when responder has a lousy hand. Passing can lead to a pretty silly contract, but bidding makes it easier for opponents to double you and can also get too high. Effectively your openings are "almost forcing" (at least at vulnerable when partner doesn't have length in the suit bid), which can be problematic when you don't have good cards or a good fit. This is especially the case because "accepting" the transfer is normally played as forcing (otherwise you lose steps).

 

Of course, there are also inherent advantages and disadvantages to the MAFIA (majors first always) opening style, but again I don't think these are inherent in the transfers so much as that the two go together.

[hrothgar]

The main disadvantage (other than shuffling steps around between openings and regulatory issues) is what happens when responder has a lousy hand. Passing can lead to a pretty silly contract, but bidding makes it easier for opponents to double you and can also get too high. Effectively your openings are "almost forcing" (at least at vulnerable when partner doesn't have length in the suit bid), which can be problematic when you don't have good cards or a good fit.

This is an interesting postulate, but has little / nothing to do with the actual response structure used playing MOSCITO.

 

Paul was always very explicit that the strength requirements for a response to a limited opening bid needed to be kept up to snuff.

 

Systemically, some of the best results occured when the opponents decided to intervene in auctions where

 

Opener showed a limited hand

Responder shows a constructive response (and denied a fit)

RHO intervenes

Opener drops the axe

 

Conversely, you end up with a lot of miserable results when

 

Opener showed a limited hand

Responder shows a constructive response (and denied a fit)

RHO intervenes

Opener drops the axe

Responder decides that his hand is too weak to leave the double in and runs

 

In theory, if you are Red V White, you can end up with some hideous scores if you play in 1♥ -5 in your 3-2 trump fit or some such.

 

In practice, you don't get left in that contract very often and if you do, the opponents will often have game.

[awm]

What I'd expect to be more common is situations like playing 1♥-2 for -200 on a hand where opponents can make 2♥ and we can make 2♠. So the normal result is +110 and we lose a bunch of IMPs for our -200. This isn't a "game swing" in any sense, but rather is due to playing in a silly partial when natural bidders will have little difficulty finding a good partial.

 

If this doesn't happen in practice, I suspect that opponents may not have a good defense. It seems like if the Moscito pair opens our long suit when they are vulnerable, we should just pass and let them play it there (or come in later if they bid on in a non-strong way).

 

An interesting observation is that this defense is somewhat vulnerability dependent. For example, say RHO opens 1♥ (showing spades) and I have hearts. If we are NV vs V, then passing will often work out well. The opponents may play 1♥ (probably a better score for us than making a partial, and if we have game it's probably also a better score than our game!). If they don't play 1♥, backing in later at favorable is usually not that risky. On the other hand, if the same situation occurs and we are V vs NV, then passing is quite bad. The opponents may play 1♥-5 into our game (a big loss), or may quickly reach a large number of spades and put us to a dangerous guess. Backing in at unfavorable is very risky!

[hrothgar]

What I'd expect to be more common is situations like playing 1♥-2 for -200 on a hand where opponents can make 2♥ and we can make 2♠. So the normal result is +110 and we lose a bunch of IMPs for our -200. This isn't a "game swing" in any sense, but rather is due to playing in a silly partial when natural bidders will have little difficulty finding a good partial.

For what its worth, Josh Sher agrees strongly with you...

 

He believes that leaving the opponents to play 1♦ or 1♥ leads to a lot of good scores when the opponents are red.

 

In practice, I don't recall all that many bottoms from 1X - all pass. However, its entirely possible that the opponents were bidding more than they should.

[slyq]

at red vs green maybe pass should be weak hand or 3+h letting p pass more easily and x a weak t/o of h 1s normal t/o minor oriented

[gerry]

FWIW I have recently began playing a very, very basic moscito with a new partner and in about 15 sessions so far the bidding has never gone 1♦/♥ all pass and only once or twice 1♦-2♥ all pass. I guess round here people like to bid too much, but I played a lot of transfer openings with cascade (many years ago now) and we didnt find it came up enough to worry about it either (he may well recall better than I).

[Free]

I recall being passed out in 1♦/♥ around 6-7 times in 3 years. Sometimes a few down, in which case it was almost every time a bottom. Only once I passed out with the suit in hand, and it was a top score. At imps I've had a few gains and a few losses. I think that there are many cases where 2nd seat can't pass 1♥ with confidence holding a good hand with ♥s. Also after a 1♦ opening, people want to get their ♠s in.

 

To solve the issue you could use the simple rule: "If we're V vs NV responder is allowed to respond lighter, so opener must not axe as often." This has the disadvantage that you can't penalize opps, but they're NV anyway. Doubled -1 is still worse than 2M=...

 

Since the relay can be bid easily and opener will respond natural (btw he will only jump on very good and distributional hands, in which case it's still safe enough), there isn't much trouble.

 

Being V vs V is more difficult: you don't want to go down a few, but you want to be able to penalize opps. I think it's best to respond constructively, as usual, since the situation is pretty rare.

[Crunch3nt]

We solve this problem by playing 2-under opening transfers with relay:

 

1C=H, 1D=S, This allows you to get out in 1 of a major.

 

Obviously we don't play big club. This also puts a lot of pressure on the rest of your system. Only way we have found to get it to work is to play a HUM.

 

You have to open something else with 12-19 Bal outside your 1NT opening range. Opening 1H/S with a balanced hand the only option is a HUM is New Zealand, but not in Australia or WBF.

 

Also you have to find sensible openings with wide-ranging minor hands. I would play that 1H was clubs or diamonds, 1S=12-14 Bal, 1NT=15-17 Bal, 2C=18-19 Bal, 2D=GF, if allowed, but the 1H opening is a HUM.

 

So if you are going to play a HUM, you might as well play Crunch or Forcing pass.

 

 

Michael

[rbforster]

We solve this problem by playing 2-under opening transfers with relay:

 

1C=H, 1D=S, This allows you to get out in 1 of a major....

 

So if you are going to play a HUM, you might as well play Crunch or Forcing pass.

Right, and you can get both benefits, limited openings and 2-under transfers, by playing P=strong and 1H=fert.

[akhare]

We solve this problem by playing 2-under opening transfers with relay:

 

1C=H, 1D=S,  This allows you to get out in 1 of a major....

 

So if you are going to play a HUM, you might as well play Crunch or Forcing pass.

Right, and you can get both benefits, limited openings and 2-under transfers, by playing P=strong and 1H=fert.

Heh, heh, a throw back to the Tresboof days :D...