Transfer Responses to a Sweedish Club

[relknes]

Two questions.

1. Is it reasonable to use transfer responses to a Sweedish Club opening, expecting partner to complete the transfer with a weak balanced hand or refuse the transfer with the strong variety?

2. Would this be legal in ACBL land?

the response structure would look something like this:

Opener: 1♣ = 11-13 balanced or 17+ any

Responder: 1♦ = 4+ hearts

1♥ = 4+ spades

1♠ = 4+ clubs

1N = 9-11 balanced

2♣ = 4+ diamonds

If opener completes the transfer then responder, knowing that opener has 11-13 balanced, can set the final contract. If opener bids something else, showing 17+, the bidding continues on much as in a standard strong club context.

[mgoetze]

1. Sure, why wouldn't it be?

2. Not at GCC level.

[awm]

I'd be a little concerned about responder's (32)44 or 33(43) hand patterns with about 5-8 hcp. If you transfer to a minor and opener accepts on his 11-13 balanced, you may reach a kind of silly contract (i.e. a 4-2 fit in a minor) when you have about half the high card points. You'd rather play these hands in 1NT or a 4-3 major fit at the one-level.

[hrothgar]

1. Is it reasonable to use transfer responses to a Swedish Club opening, expecting partner to complete the transfer with a weak balanced hand or refuse the transfer with the strong variety?

 

I won't address transfers in general, however, I will comment on the specific structure that you describe

 

Simple, put the answer is "No"

 

More explictly, if I am reading your system correctly, the following hand needs to respond 2♣ to a 1♣ opening that could show a balanced 10 count.

 

♠ xxx

♥ xxx

♦ xxxx

♣ xxx

 

2. Would this be legal in ACBL land?

 

What clause in the GCC leads you to believe that this system is legal?

[relknes]

More explictly, if I am reading your system correctly, the following hand needs to respond 2♣ to a 1♣ opening that could show a balanced 10 count.

The structure that I described has you respond 1N with 9-11 points and balanced.

 

What clause in the GCC leads you to believe that this system is legal?

I had no idea if this was legal at midchart or not, or general chart or not, hence the question.

I should probably add the caveat that a hand which wants to play 1M opposite a balanced 11-13 should simply transfer to that major and then pass, and a hand which is undecided about playing 1N or 2M opposite an 11-13 balanced should transfer to the major and follow up with 1N. That would adress some of the more obvious flaws in the orriginal plan.

If it is not GCC or midchart legal, however, it is probably not worth developing. I have few hopes of getting something new approved for midchart, even something as vanilla as this.

[hrothgar]

The structure that I described has you respond 1N with 9-11 points and balanced.

 

When I referenced a balanced 10 count, I was describing your 1♣ opening, not the response.

 

I had no idea if this was legal at midchart or not, or general chart or not, hence the question

 

A more fruitful avenue of discussion might be

 

Here is a description of my system

I have done some basic homework

The GCC contains the following clause <<insert foo>>

I believe that this sanctions my system

[awm]

ACBL allows the following responses to 1♣ openings:

 

(1) Natural responses.

(2) 1♦ as an artificial forcing response.

(3) Responses which guarantee game forcing values.

(4) Jump shifts which indicate a raise.

(5) Jump responses which show 5+/4+ in two known suits.

(6) Any responses provided 1♣ is strong (15+ hcp) and forcing.

 

Since your 1♣ is not unambiguously strong, your 1♥/1♠/2♣ responses will not be allowed.

 

However, there should be no problem on the mid-chart where "all constructive responses are allowed."

[benlessard]

we are playing something like

 

1C--???

 

1D= 4H or inv pts

1H = 4S not inv

1S = no M not inv

 

1C-1D

 

1H = with at least 3H

1S = min withut 3H (4S or 3244,3253,3235_

1Nt extras

 

The ability to be able to play 1M in fit or partial fit is a big plus.

[Free]

The 1♠ and 2♣ responses suck, I'd rather play 1♠ as a negative or a catchall. Using transfers is not really an issue as long as you can handle the weak hands without a Major as well.

 

I can't respond to question 2.

[Bende]

An expert Swedish pair plays the following responses to 1♣=17+ or 11-13 balanced (any 5-card suit; sometimes (4441) or (5431)):

 

1♦ = 4+♥, 0+ hcp

1♥ = 4+♠, 0+ hcp

1♠ = denies 4+M, denies 5+m with 8+ hcp

1NT = 5+♣, 8+ hcp

2♣ = 5+♦,8+ hcp

[glen]

An expert Swedish pair plays the following responses to 1♣=17+ or 11-13 balanced (any 5-card suit; sometimes (4441) or (5431)):

 

1♦ = 4+♥, 0+ hcp

1♥ = 4+♠, 0+ hcp

1♠ = denies 4+M, denies 5+m with 8+ hcp

1NT = 5+♣, 8+ hcp

2♣ = 5+♦,8+ hcp

and what do they bid with fewer than 8 hcp and no four card major?

[gnasher]

and what do they bid with fewer than 8 hcp and no four card major?

 

They bid 1♠.

[mgoetze]

and what do they bid with fewer than 8 hcp and no four card major?

 

I suppose that should be read "denies (5+m with 8+ hcp)".

[Bende]

I suppose that should be read "denies (5+m with 8+ hcp)".

 

Correct.

[glen]

Correct.

and are the 2♣ and 2♦ responses forcing and unlimited, such that 11-13 balanced opposite 8 points will end up at 2NT or higher?

[mgoetze]

and are the 2♣ and 2♦ responses forcing and unlimited, such that 11-13 balanced opposite 8 points will end up at 2NT or higher?

 

2♦ response wasn't mentioned. I expect with 11-13 balanced opener completes the transfer (1♣-1NT-2♣ or 1♣-2♣-2♦) and I don't see why responder would be forced to go on from there.

[gordontd]

I suppose that should be read "denies (5+m with 8+ hcp)".

No need for the brackets - the comma did the job perfectly well.

[glen]

2♦ response wasn't mentioned. I expect with 11-13 balanced opener completes the transfer (1♣-1NT-2♣ or 1♣-2♣-2♦) and I don't see why responder would be forced to go on from there.

You are right. I prefer the direct, non-transfer, approach, which puts the opponents in a guess:

 

1NT: 11+, 5+ minor

2m: 8-10, 5+ minor

 

Now 2m is not-forcing (11-13 will pass, 17+ will bid and establish game force), and opponents have to guess whether to enter the auction after 1♣-2♣ and 1♣-2♦. In the transfer approach, they just wait for 1♣-1NT;-2♣-Pass or 1♣-2♣;-2♦-Pass.

[relknes]

You are right. I prefer the direct, non-transfer, approach, which puts the opponents in a guess:

 

1NT: 11+, 5+ minor

2m: 8-10, 5+ minor

 

Now 2m is not-forcing (11-13 will pass, 17+ will bid and establish game force), and opponents have to guess whether to enter the auction after 1♣-2♣ and 1♣-2♦. In the transfer approach, they just wait for 1♣-1NT;-2♣-Pass or 1♣-2♣;-2♦-Pass.

I like the general idea. Would it be good to extend this principle to the majors as well? Something like...

 

1♦ = 4+ hearts, 0-7 or 12+

1♥ = 4+ spades, 0-7 or 12+

1♠ = 0-7, no 4+ major

1N = 12+, 5+ minor or balanced with no 4 card major

2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs

2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds

2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts

2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades

 

This eats up a lot of space with the 2M responses, but it is a fairly narrow bid, and as you mentioned it is GF if opener dosn't have the weak balanced variety. The preemptive value drops a bit since one opponent has already had a chance to speak, however. Is it worth putting pressure on partner like this to pressure opponents who may very well have nothing to say?

[WellSpyder]

An important objective in my mind with this sort of system is to avoid making it easy for oppo to double 1N when you get there - eg if they know you have 11-13 opposite 0-7 they can double all the time! (Presumably those using a 1♠ negative avoid this by rebidding 1N with eg 16-7 balanced as well as 11-13.)

 

We also prefer to be able to play in 1M with a 4-3 fit, but 1N with only a 4-2 major fit. With this in mind, my partner and I use broadly transfer responses to a Swedish-style 1♣, but with a much more Precision-like philosophy, and also with the proviso that the 11-13 balanced 1♣ opener must contain a 4-card major. In response:

 

1♦=negative (most 0-7, or 8-11 balanced)

1♥=5+♠, 8+pts

1♠=5+♥, 8+pts

1N=5+♣,8+pts

2♣=5+♦,8+pts

2♦=14+ balanced

2♥/♠=6 card suit, 4-6pts

2N = 12-3 balanced

 

As suggested by the OP, opener completes the "transfer" with 11-13 balanced, otherwise bids like a strong club (we use Precision asking bids, etc).

 

Over the 1♦ response, opener bids 1M with the weak balanced hand not 1N (but also bids 1M with 5M and 16-19).

[relknes]

An important objective in my mind with this sort of system is to avoid making it easy for oppo to double 1N when you get there - eg if they know you have 11-13 opposite 0-7 they can double all the time! (Presumably those using a 1♠ negative avoid this by rebidding 1N with eg 16-7 balanced as well as 11-13.)

It is true that the opponents could double, but that would also give us another chance to pull to a better contract. For instance, after 1♣-1♠-1N (confirming 11-13 or 17-18 balanced), responder passes with no 5 card minor (showing 44 or 43 in the minors with 33 or 32 in the majors), or bids 2m with 5.

If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-1N-P-(x), then opener can bid their better minor which is guarenteed to be at least a 7 card fit, likely 8, or can pass with 17-18 points giving responder the choice to play it, redouble with a good 5-7 points or pull to their better minor.

If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-1N-(x), then responder bids a 5 card minor, redoubles to show 44 or 43 in the minors, or passes to show 5-7 points and let opener decide if they want to pull it, play it, or redouble to show 17-18 points.

Either way, it seems there is little risk of playing in 1Nx and going for a bunch, unless there is something I had missed.

 

side note: it is true that you will end up playing 1N with 18 opposite 7, when the majority of the field will probably be in 3N, but my general phillosophy is never to bid a game with 23 points (with the exception of very good fits) and never to miss a game with 26 (with the exception of bad misfits), so this seems acceptable to me.

[hrothgar]

Either way, it seems there is little risk of playing in 1Nx and going for a bunch, unless there is something I had missed.

 

Polish Club spends an awful lot of time and effort trying to avoid getting doubled when opener has a weak NT and the auction starts

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

Their prepared Club is a lot stronger than yours.

Moreover, they're scarmbling at the 1 level. You're hoping that 2mX will be your salvation.

 

Who knows, maybe you've figured something out that that whole country missed over the last 40 odd years.

Personally, I think that they know what they're doing...

[relknes]

An expert Swedish pair plays the following responses to 1♣=17+ or 11-13 balanced (any 5-card suit; sometimes (4441) or (5431)):

 

1♦ = 4+♥, 0+ hcp

1♥ = 4+♠, 0+ hcp

1♠ = denies 4+M, denies 5+m with 8+ hcp

1NT = 5+♣, 8+ hcp

2♣ = 5+♦,8+ hcp

 

 

Polish Club spends an awful lot of time and effort trying to avoid getting doubled when opener has a weak NT and the auction starts

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

Their prepared Club is a lot stronger than yours.

Moreover, they're scarmbling at the 1 level. You're hoping that 2mX will be your salvation.

 

Who knows, maybe you've figured something out that that whole country missed over the last 40 odd years.

Personally, I think that they know what they're doing...

Since I took the 1♠ bid almost directly from Bende's post, which he says is a system used by an expert sweedish pair, it is not that "I figured out something that the whole country missed over the last 40 odd years," it is that some expert pairs use one system while others use a different system. Maybe you think that I chose the wrong one, but both Bende and Free suggested a 1♠ negative. If you would like to point out some specific weaknesses of that and suggest an alternative approach, I'd like to hear it. If you think there is a better way to handle a 1♠ negative, I'd like to hear that too.

[olien]

Since I took the 1♠ bid almost directly from Bende's post, which he says is a system used by an expert sweedish pair, it is not that "I figured out something that the whole country missed over the last 40 odd years," it is that some expert pairs use one system while others use a different system. Maybe you think that I chose the wrong one, but both Bende and Free suggested a 1♠ negative. If you would like to point out some specific weaknesses of that and suggest an alternative approach, I'd like to hear it. If you think there is a better way to handle a 1♠ negative, I'd like to hear that too.

 

 

The drawback to 1♣-1♠ as a negative is that constructive partscore bidding (when opener has 17-21ish) becomes more difficult. I'm not saying the losses aren't off-set by the gains of the transfer responses (of which I'm a fan), but that 1♣-1♠ isn't that great. I've played 1♣ (always strong) - 1♦ as any GF for a while and have had much more success than I expected (I thought opps would preempt more KNOWING we have game). The advantages have more than off-set the inferior part-scores we've reached after 1♣-1♠ (immediate double neg). We also gained by having immediate semi-positives in response to 1♣.

 

Anyways, I think the structure mentioned by Bende is a good starting point.

[Free]

Maybe you think that I chose the wrong one, but both Bende and Free suggested a 1♠ negative.

For what it's worth, I didn't say this was a good method in a Swedish system. I also didn't say this approach of 1♠ as a negative or as a catchall works in that system. All I did was express that I'd prefer that approach opposed to the suggested method.

 

I used to play some sort of Fantunes which uses the transfer responses over 1♣ openings (1♦/♥ were transfers 0+HCP ; 1♠ was 0-9 without 4+M). This worked very well imo. However, the Swedish 1♣ opening is quite different: Fantunes 1♣ shows 14+ natural or 15+ balanced, Swedish shows 17+ any or 11-13 balanced.

- The balanced ranges in Fantunes are 15-18 (rebid 1NT)/19-20 (rebid 2NT)/23+ (rebid 2♦ artificial). After 1♣-1♠ responder already denied 4M, so there's no real need to start scrambling at the 1-level for a Major fit. This makes auctions like 1♣-1♠-1NT not much different than a strong 1NT opening (which is pretty safe). Changing the NT range to 11-13 or 17+ means a huge difference. If you can't show the difference between 11-13 and 17+ at 1-level you might end up in 2NT with ~17HCP vs ~0HCP. This is also one of the reasons why Polish ♣ uses 1♦ as a negative without denying a 4 card M. This way it makes sense for opener to rebid 1M (even on a 3 card) so they can show the difference between the strong and the weak NT version below 1NT.

- There's another huge difference: the other strong options in the Fantunes 1♣ opening imply opener has ♣ (not 'any distribution'), which means that opener can easily rebid a second suit at 2-level opposite a 0-9 'any' (without 4M) and responder will be able to evaluate properly. In the Swedish opening that's not possible because the first suit isn't known yet.

 

So while this approach works for Fantunes, it needs a lot of fixes to work with the Swedish 1♣ imo.

 

If you want to use transfers after a 1♣ opening, it requires negatives without 4M to respond at least 1♠. I don't think it's workable unless the stronger NT opening can be safely bid at 2-level (for example 19+). Therefor I'd suggest you make 1♣ 15+ balanced/17+ any, which basically means it's no longer Swedish... :rolleyes: An alternative is to make 1♣ 11-13 balanced/17+ unbalanced/19+ balanced, but this will give you problems with balanced 14-18HCP.