Transfer defense over 1N

[Fluffy]

what Free said, don't lose the preemptive effect of 3M for a lead purpose, the preemptive effect is more important, and also havign 3♦ avaible as preemptive is good.

[jillybean]

Thanks guys.

[ArtK78]

I don't know if anyone made a comment on it, but if 2♣ shows majors, a response of 2♦ should not be "bid your best major." It should be "I heard you bid 2♣ for the majors and I want to play 2♦." I think that makes a lot more sense than passing the buck. The number of hands where it is right to have the 2♣ bidder choose which major he prefers has to be smaller than the number of hands where responder has long diamonds. Furthermore, on many hands where responder would like to offer a choice of majors back to the 2♣ bidder, it is likely to make little difference which major is chosen.

 

Clearly, if responder wanted to play 2♣, he could pass. He should be given a similar opportunity to play in 2♦.

[gwnn]

I don't know if anyone made a comment on it, but if 2♣ shows majors, a response of 2♦ should not be "bid your best major." It should be "I heard you bid 2♣ for the majors and I want to play 2♦." I think that makes a lot more sense than passing the buck. The number of hands where it is right to have the 2♣ bidder choose which major he prefers has to be smaller than the number of hands where responder has long diamonds. Furthermore, on many hands where responder would like to offer a choice of majors back to the 2♣ bidder, it is likely to make little difference which major is chosen.

 

Clearly, if responder wanted to play 2♣, he could pass. He should be given a similar opportunity to play in 2♦.

Disagree strongly with this. 2♦ helps you a lot when you have 1-2 or 2-1 or 2-2 or 3-2 or 2-3 or 3-3. Long diamonds don't come up nearly as often, but yea I can't prove this logically. It is simply my experience. I will note in passing, though, that I've never seen any strong players on vugraph to play this 2♦ as natural. Of course that is not a logical proof either.

[blackshoe]

This looks an awful lot like Hello:

 

X - penalty

2♣ - diamonds or Mm

2♦ - hearts

2♥ - both M

2♠ - spades(!)

2NT - clubs

3♣ - both m

3♦ - both M, forcing.

 

Here, you get to keep the penalty double (not so important over a strong NT, perhaps) but lose the ability to suggest clubs at the two level (which is probably also not so important - are they likely to let you play in 2♣?)

[Free]

I don't know if anyone made a comment on it, but if 2♣ shows majors, a response of 2♦ should not be "bid your best major." It should be "I heard you bid 2♣ for the majors and I want to play 2♦." I think that makes a lot more sense than passing the buck. The number of hands where it is right to have the 2♣ bidder choose which major he prefers has to be smaller than the number of hands where responder has long diamonds. Furthermore, on many hands where responder would like to offer a choice of majors back to the 2♣ bidder, it is likely to make little difference which major is chosen.

 

Clearly, if responder wanted to play 2♣, he could pass. He should be given a similar opportunity to play in 2♦.

I also disagree strongly. Not only does overcaller have a 5-4 quite often, advancer can have an invitational hand. In that case it's possible to invite at 2/3-level in ♠ or at 3-level with ♥, plus you get more info before actually inviting.

[jillybean]

This looks an awful lot like Hello:

 

X - penalty

2♣ - diamonds or Mm

2♦ - hearts

2♥ - both M

2♠ - spades(!)

2NT - clubs

3♣ - both m

3♦ - both M, forcing.

 

Here, you get to keep the penalty double (not so important over a strong NT, perhaps) but lose the ability to suggest clubs at the two level (which is probably also not so important - are they likely to let you play in 2♣?)

My partner plays HELLO with other partners so I'm not surprised by the likeness. It does lack 2♣ showing both majors which seems to be important, atleast as far as forums contributors are concerned and I'd like to give it a try.

[helene_t]

are they likely to let you play in 2♣?

No but if we have a misfit we will rather let them compete over 2♣ than let them double 3♣.

[Fluffy]

Also disagree strongly with you Art, can't remember ever disagreeing so strongly of one of your thoughts.

[Zelandakh]

My partner plays HELLO with other partners so I'm not surprised by the likeness. It does lack 2♣ showing both majors which seems to be important, atleast as far as forums contributors are concerned and I'd like to give it a try.

It is important to have bid(s) to show both majors which differentiate between relative lengths in the suits if at all possible. This does not have to be 2C but that is the simplest.

[Venom]

KJ:

 

I've played various conventions over opp's 1NT including many years of transfer over-calls. The two constants that I have found to be very important is to have bids to identify your major immediately with a 1-suited hand, and to have a bid to show a major 2-suiter asap (the latter not being quite as important as the first). The reason for the first is that you can get out-competed and not have sufficient time to show your major if you use a bid like Capp 2C or DONT X to show unspecified 1-suited hand.

 

The idea of using transfers to put the 1NT opener on lead is not something to be minimized. It is likely worth a trick. So don't feel that you have to give them up. However, as with any convention, you give up something to get something. So pick something you like and work on it. In particular, work on advancer's responses, over-caller's rebids, and what you are going to play in balancing seat (often over-looked). Whatever you select, play it well. Sometimes it's what agreements you have and what you do next that is equally as important as what convention you choose to use.

 

DHL: aka Double !

[JmBrPotter]

All this tempest in a teapot about defense to 1NT! As a confirmed wide range weak (10-14) 1NTer, I can only say that I am very pleased when my opponents use ANY method other than DONT—especially, if I'm playing with a partner who has dragged me into a strong notrump agreement.

 

Right siding contracts (or "wrong siding" the lead) is a good thing, but so is the ability to stop at the 2-level in any fit you might have. Just because the 1NT opener probably has a powder puff does not mean that responder cannot make a penalty double at the 3-level. It is easy to go -200, -300, or -500 at the 3-level even when the NT opening side has no game. Partner and I have collected telephone numbers defending 3-suit doubled after one of us opened 1NT (10-14). That is generous compensation for our missed game.

 

So, please, keep using defenses to 1NT that might land you at the 3-level in a seven card fit when Partner and I have a balanced 19-23 (and no game) in our combined hands. We know where the red cards are.

[Lurpoa]

deleted

[mycroft]

Wow. As a confirmed weak NTer (12-14, 11-14, 10-12), I *love it* when they play DONT against us. They can't show strength (yeah, the double never nets the 1100 that people think happen, but it sets the standard for the partscore fight that's about to happen), and they're always playing their minor fit instead of their major fit. Plus, and this is the key one - they either give up on game, or they don't know how to find it when they overcall. 1NT is a great preempt; it's even better if the opponents aren't trying.

 

So, please keep using systems that allow us to defend 2♣ when the field is in 3NT or 4♥ (or even 2♥!), and allow us to escape to our fit before they know what suit to compete in (after the double).

 

After a weak NT, there will always be hands where the opponents are in no-win situations - if they bid, they're going for -500 when pard has the rest; if they pass, they're getting 50-a-trick into game. If you don't look for game with those hands, you don't go for 500+; but you're giving at least as much up in +100 vs +140, or +170 instead of +620.

[nigel_k]

I agree that DONT is poor, especially against a weak notrump. You really need a penalty double otherwise you're stuck with a strong balanced hand and when you can double and partner has values as well, they usually have enough shape to wriggle out somewhere.

 

If you are determined to give up on penalty doubles (which I would only do against a strong notrump, or as a passed hand obviously) I suggest something like Lionel, i.e.

 

Dbl Spades and another

2C/D Bid minor plus hearts

2H/S Natural

 

You are giving up one and two suited hands with minors where you probably would be outbid anyway, and getting your major suits into the game right away and can still play your best fit at the two level.

 

IMO transfers are also overrated. Sometimes they gain you a trick, but they also give responder's partner an extra turn which is quite valuable to them as well as consuming space that could be used to show more hand types.

[benlessard]

regular transfers when you are probably outgunned in values = You do not understand competitive bidding.

 

Look at it for opponents point of view

 

It allow 2 options for bidding a suits . direct bid & Pass and bid,

 

It allow 3 options for X. X and pass, X and X & pass and X

 

It also allow a cheap cuebid.

[mycroft]

regular transfers when you are probably outgunned in values = You do not understand competitive bidding.

 

Look at it for opponents point of view

It allow 2 options for bidding a suits . direct bid & Pass and bid,

It allow 3 options for X. X and pass, X and X & pass and X

It also allow a cheap cuebid.

In exchange, the (strong) NTer is on lead if we play.

The described hand is on the table if we play.

Wild two-suiters can get both suits in, and you can (at least frequently) distinguish which one's longer.

At least with the system I used to play, you don't get to bid 2♣, so you don't overcall on stupid club hands. In addition, when you *do* overcall in clubs, you take the entire 2 level away (while still allowing lebensohl over 2♠, of course).

 

None of the above apply when we choose to pass the transfer to play in our suit, of course, but then again, neither of your first two apply either. When you overcall very aggressively, the chance that "my suit is better than your suit" is high enough that the opponents do have to deal with it (I would suggest that the right hand for that came up once or twice a year (almost always in diamonds, for some reason)).

[the hog]

As someone who has often played a 10-12 NT, I am delighted when i sit down against opponents who play transfer overcalls. Why? The method id inferior for reasons i have mentioned earlier, and it also indicates to me that the opps have not thought through the ramifications of the method. If you reallu must play something like this, at least play SOAP, which is far better than any of the methods described in this thread so far.

[glen]

Compare:

 

2♦: either major (multi, but not weak)

 

to

 

2♦: transfer to ♥s

2♥: transfer to ♠s

 

Scheme 1 (2♦=1M) frees up the use of 2♥ for other meanings, at not that much cost compared to the transfers of Scheme 2.

[benlessard]

agree and it make life much more difficult for the oppenent.

 

PS Glen there is a typo in your signature its a great quote by H.L Mencken

[gwnn]

not a typo, it's a pun.

[jillybean]

As someone who has often played a 10-12 NT, I am delighted when i sit down against opponents who play transfer overcalls. Why? The method id inferior for reasons i have mentioned earlier, and it also indicates to me that the opps have not thought through the ramifications of the method. If you reallu must play something like this, at least play SOAP, which is far better than any of the methods described in this thread so far.

Hi Ron, what is SOAP? I can't google it.

[gwnn]

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt11.htm :)

 

2♣=♥

2♦=♠

2♥=4 hearts+6m

2♠=4 spades+6m

[mycroft]

Compare:

2♦: either major (multi, but not weak)

to

2♦: transfer to ♥s

2♥: transfer to ♠s

Scheme 1 (2♦=1M) frees up the use of 2♥ for other meanings, at not that much cost compared to the transfers of Scheme 2.

Except, at least in the ACBL, the inability of legally playing it in 90% of the games. But then you knew that :-)

 

Having said that, it will change eventually. I'm hoping, really, that when it does, we go back to "all defences to NT allowed" rather than carving another "one-system" exception into the GCC.

[jillybean]

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt11.htm :)

 

2♣=♥

2♦=♠

2♥=4 hearts+6m

2♠=4 spades+6m

 

Wow, you're a wizz, thanks. ♥ B-)♥