1M (X) XX

[pooltuna]

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

 

What is the strength of 2M-1?

IMO this needs to be a constructive raise to reduce the effects of opps X and the 2M qbid. Consequently your 2M bid is equivalent to a raise that would go thru a F1NT auction (i.e. uncontested)

[gwnn]

1S-x-2H*

 

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

 

I do bid 2H with 4 spades too when I think I am too flat.

[gnasher]

1S-x-2H*

 

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

It might (I'm not sure) be better to play the transfer as weak or invitational+, and the direct raise as exactly constructive. That gains when we're bidding constructively, but loses a bit by letting advancer double or cue-bid over the weak raise.

[pooltuna]

1S-x-2H*

 

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

It might (I'm not sure) be better to play the transfer as weak or invitational+, and the direct raise as exactly constructive. That gains when we're bidding constructively, but loses a bit by letting advancer double or cue-bid over the weak raise.

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

[gnasher]

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

My responder is showing a hand which is exactly constructive, whereas gwnn's responder is showing "8+". Is that the part that you missed, or were you hoping for a more general exposition of the advantages of making bids whose range is limited?

[Jlall]

Yes 8+ seems terrible since you have to drive to the 3 level to show a 3 card LR. Yes sometimes if it gets competitive you have to do that also after XXing, but more often imo you get to XX and raise to 2 and stop in 2.

 

Same problem to me with gnasher's idea, an inv hand will have to force to the 3 level. The biggest benefit of XX with a 3 card LR to me is that you can stop in 2.

[pooltuna]

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

My responder is showing a hand which is exactly constructive, whereas gwnn's responder is showing "8+". Is that the part that you missed, or were you hoping for a more general exposition of the advantages of making bids whose range is limited?

I misunderstood gwnn's take on the position and agree that the call should be limited otherwise the opener gets preempted into a swamp.

[gnasher]

Yes 8+ seems terrible since you have to drive to the 3 level to show a 3 card LR. Yes sometimes if it gets competitive you have to do that also after XXing, but more often imo you get to XX and raise to 2 and stop in 2.

 

Same problem to me with gnasher's idea, an inv hand will have to force to the 3 level. The biggest benefit of XX with a 3 card LR to me is that you can stop in 2.

So you play transfers, but with redouble retaining its standard meaning? Does that mean that you can't show a natural 1NT bid?

[aguahombre]

most people couldn't play it in 1NT after a major suit opening anyway, so no big deal. although, 1s is natural after 1hX ---so that one could play in nt.

[awm]

When I play transfers, I prefer after 1M-(X):

 

2M = 4-7 point raise of the major

2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call

1N through 2M-2 = transfer to the next suit up, 5+ cards in suit transferred to, wide range of hcp

XX = natural, denies support for the major

1♠ (over 1♥) = natural, forcing one round

 

A "normal" 1M-2M is probably 6-9. So the "width" of our ranges is roughly the same as standard, but by having two raises we both manage to compete on weaker hands and manage to get our 3-card limit raises in at the two-level.

 

My preference is to use 1M-(X)-transfer-accept-2M as showing decent values with doubleton major and length in the suit transferred to, rather than as a "lead direct" with a single raise. There are several reasons for this, including that I think my hand type is more common (and harder to bid otherwise) and that the purely lead-directional actions seem more likely to run into trouble when the opponents don't pass over the transfer.

[gnasher]

2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call

So far as I can see you're actually playing this as any 8+ with 3-card support, so the same as what gwnn plays and justin dislikes.

[gnasher]

most people couldn't play it in 1NT after a major suit opening anyway, so no big deal. although, 1s is natural after 1hX ---so that one could play in nt.

In an uncontested auction you still have a way to bid a balanced hand with 5-9 points and not 3-card support. The fact that your way to bid this hand involves a forcing bid doesn't seem especially relevant to me.

[andy_h]

I play 2M-1 as weak or GF raise, with 2M=8-11

[awm]

2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call

So far as I can see you're actually playing this as any 8+ with 3-card support, so the same as what gwnn plays and justin dislikes.

Perhaps, but Justin's implication about driving to the three-level doesn't hold here.

 

The 2M-1 bid normally shows 8-11. If responder has 8-11, he doesn't force to the three-level. Of course, opener might risk the three level if holding some hand that wants game opposite 10-11 but not 8-9, but this is roughly the same problem everyone faces after single raises (except that responder is two points better). It's okay to have a slightly wider range for a raise to the two-level (where opener has room for a try if he wants) than you have for a raise to the three-level.

 

If responder has a game forcing three-card raise without a five-card suit, he can bid 2M-1 and then take another call. But in this case you are going to game anyway, so it hardly matters that you are "forced to the three-level."

[Phil]

I've played transfers over doubles (starting with xx) in all my partnerships for at least 6-7 years and like them a lot.

 

1x - dbl - 2x-1 is 7/8 - 10 or so. 3 card raises that are limit or better are handled by a pass followed by a raise which sounds weird but works fine in practice.

 

Hate the idea of 2x -1 as weak or strong. Most of the time its weak and you give the 4th chair not only one extra bid but a whole round of bidding to split their ranges.

 

Also don't like this 8+ idea. I've played this.after overcalls and it is unmanageable.

[Jlall]

Yes 8+ seems terrible since you have to drive to the 3 level to show a 3 card LR. Yes sometimes if it gets competitive you have to do that also after XXing, but more often imo you get to XX and raise to 2 and stop in 2.

 

Same problem to me with gnasher's idea, an inv hand will have to force to the 3 level. The biggest benefit of XX with a 3 card LR to me is that you can stop in 2.

So you play transfers, but with redouble retaining its standard meaning? Does that mean that you can't show a natural 1NT bid?

Yeah exactly, that is the normal way to play it in USA dunno about other places.

 

Re awm:

 

You can include constructive raises and limit raises into one raise but to me that puts a ton of pressure on partner to game try some hands, or otherwise you might miss some games. It's not the same as like a 6-9 range even though it encompasses the same amount of points.

[bluecalm]

What about the idea I mentioned (it's from Martens' book btw) to use 2M-1 as either weak or almost GF and 2M as constructive "in the middle" raise (like 8-10/11).

This way you only go to 3level with really solid raise so it shouldn't be that much of a problem I think and rdbl denies support which may come in handy when penalizing.

[Free]

What about the idea I mentioned (it's from Martens' book btw) to use 2M-1 as either weak or almost GF and 2M as constructive "in the middle" raise (like 8-10/11).

This way you only go to 3level with really solid raise so it shouldn't be that much of a problem I think and rdbl denies support which may come in handy when penalizing.

I play the transfer raise as around 8-10, while the direct raise is 5-7. The reason is that you put pressure with the weak raise, while that's probably not as important when you have a constructive raise.

 

What you do is basically the opposite, and add the possibility to describe the INV+ hands better. On the other hand, if you have a 5-7 hand, you give opps more time to compete, which is imo a bigger loss than what you gain.