Four-suit Transfers vs. Invitational 2NT

[tobycurtis]

Hi all.

 

I've been reading up on "Four-suit transfers", i.e. the sequence 1NT-2♠ showing 6 clubs, and 1NT-2NT showing 6 diamonds (generally speaking).

 

I like being able to transfer to the minor suits, but I also really like the simplicity of inviting a 3NT game with the sequence 1NT-2NT. Obviously can't have it both ways. Because the traditional invitational meaning of 1NT-2NT has been taken away using these transfers, supposedly you can start with Stayman and then rebid 2NT whatever the response, to achieve the same meaning (as in 1NT-2♣-2x-2NT).

 

I don't really like the sound of pretending you have a four-card major, with the risk of opponent's interference messing things up, responder not being able to fix the short-term lie, and opener getting confused.

 

Do most people use these four-suit transfers? How do most people deal with these issues?

 

And finally, I could have sworn I read about this alternative somewhere, but now, cannot find any references to it -- when you have either 6-card minor as responder opposite a 1NT opener, bid 2♠. Opener must rebid 3♣, and responder will correct to 3♦ if necessary, which opener must? should? pass. Did I make this up?? It sounds pretty good to me...you get to keep 1NT-2NT for a basic 3NT invitation.

 

Thanks for your input!!

[MickyB]

Not many serious partnerships play 1N:2N as natural - there's just too many other things to be doing with the bid. The big disadvantage of bidding Stayman with no 4-card major is that you are giving unnecessary information to the defence, it'd be better to just blast 3NT and hope they find the wrong lead.

 

You might consider playing a slight modification on 4-suit transfers - 2S = clubs or a balanced invite [now 2N = minimum, 3C = maximum].

 

The advantages of this structure over 2S = 1 minor weak, 2N = natural may not be immediately apparent, but as you improve you'll find that, with a 3-1-3-6 11-count opposite a strong NT, you really want to show both your clubs and your shortage in hearts without bypassing 3NT. This isn't really possible playing 2S as a weak hand with either minor.

Edited August 28, 2012 by MickyB

[Cyberyeti]

Do most people use these four-suit transfers? How do most people deal with these issues?

 

And finally, I could have sworn I read about this alternative somewhere, but now, cannot find any references to it -- when you have either 6-card minor as responder opposite a 1NT opener, bid 2♠. Opener must rebid 3♣, and responder will correct to 3♦ if necessary, which opener must? should? pass. Did I make this up?? It sounds pretty good to me...you get to keep 1NT-2NT for a basic 3NT invitation.

 

Thanks for your input!!

We at present play 1N-2♠ as a weak takeout into either minor (or some GF hands with both minors using the 3♥ and upwards rebids) with a natural 2N. I'm actually working on improving our system at the moment and this may not stay the same.

 

It also makes some difference if you're playing a strong or weak no trump, as on game going hands, you don't need to be as careful about ensuring the no trumper declares when playing weak as the two hands will not be markedly skewed with a large majority of points in the no trump hand.

 

Basically you need to decide (and there's not necessarily a right answer) what the following mean:

 

1N-3♣

1N-2♣-2any-3♣

1N-2♠-2N-3♣

 

The two disadvantages of putting all your 1N-2N invites through 2♣ are that of giving too much away as MickyB says, and either having to consign 1N-2♣-2♥-2♠ (which we use for some slamgoing hands) as the invitational hand with 4 spades, or playing in 2N when you wanted to be in spades on a 1N-2♣-2♥-2N if opener has both majors.

[jmcw]

>>>>>>EDIT....The big disadvantage of bidding Stayman with no 4-card major is that you are giving unnecessary information to the defence, it'd be better to just blast 3NT and hope they find the wrong lead......<<<<<<<<EDIT

 

 

 

Don't think I understand this part of your post, care to expand?

[MickyB]

Don't think I understand this part of your post, care to expand?

 

Defence is much easier after 1N:2C, 2H:2N, 3N than it is after 1N:3N or 1N:2N, 3N.

[bluecalm]

Just play 2S as clubs and 3C as diamonds and 3D as invitational diamonds (as there is no room for super accept) leaving your 1N - 2N for natural invite.

I do that with everybody I play with and it works great.

Bidding an invite via stayman is very bad, because:

-they can double 2C/take clues from lack of it

-you give them free information about majors suits in opener hand which will be declaring

 

Alternative is 2S = clubs or balanced invite. It's worse than my structure because they can double 2S on the way to 3N and you play clubs from worse hand opposite minimum but it leaves you one of the 2N/3C bid if you want to use it as puppet stayman or w/e.

[aguahombre]

Sometime I am sure there will be a meaningful study to determine the relative values of:

 

1) The possibility that information leaked to the defenders will result in a gain for them.

2) The ability to explore and arrive at the better contract.

 

Edit: When that happens, the conclusions will be challenged. The data will be skewed and the methods challenged.

[bluecalm]

I actually did a lot of this. Admittedly my methods wasn't very scientific (just deal a lot of hands and go through them one by one trying to guess what would happen) but it influences my strong opinion about those situations which is that giving away information is more important than any gains you may have from fancy stuff.

 

We will know the answer once the computers are good at bridge and we will have very good guess once they are decent. I suspect that even today if Jack's authors were willing to release a tool to analyzing such situations (or just API to let Jack play given layout with given info so other programmers could use it for taking care of bidding part) it would answer a lot of questions of this nature.

[jmcw]

Sometime I am sure there will be a meaningful study to determine the relative values of:

 

1) The possibility that information leaked to the defenders will result in a gain for them.

2) The ability to explore and arrive at the better contract.

 

Edit: When that happens, the conclusions will be challenged. The data will be skewed and the methods challenged.

 

A very good point!.

It's often the case that posters claim superiority of 1 method compared to another.

Intellectually I often agree, but some doubt often remains.

[tobycurtis]

Wow, thanks all. Very very useful information, and food for thought. Will be chatting with partner tomorrow about this :)

[blackshoe]

Some may consider this a bit complicated for theN/B forum, but I like an idea of Ken Rexfords: bid 2♠ with either or both minors, weak. Then, if opener prefers clubs, he bids clubs. If he prefers diamonds, he bids 2NT (there is no need for a natural 2NT for opener here). Now responder sets the contract, passing 3♣ if he has clubs or both minors, or bidding 3♦ if he has diamonds. If opener has rebid 2NT, responder bids clubs with only clubs, diamonds otherwise.

[RunemPard]

Based on the assumption that you are playing MPs...I find that the use of minor transfers is a rarity. I am not saying that I think having a minor transfer is a bad thing, but I see absolutely no reason to use 2 bids to show them. Simply using 2♠ as a minor transfer works just fine for more. We lose the ability to super accept, and possibly wrong side diamonds, but to me saving 2N/3C for other uses is a gain. That is my opinion.

 

One thing we do is play 2♠ as either a minor transfer or a NT invite. With a minimum partner will be 2NT, with a maximum partner will bid 3♣. This leaves 2NT open for whatever you wish. (Even a transfer to ♦)

[sailoranch]

You'll find most pairs use minor suit transfers in order to lump in as many hand strengths as possible, not just signoffs. The 2♠ pass or correct bid you describe is what's in SAYC, but it only includes signoffs.

 

The common scheme, 2♠ for clubs and 2NT for diamonds, asks opener about accepting an invite. Responder can then signoff or make a slam try or bid game when partner has accepted a hypothetical invite.

[aguahombre]

The 2♠ pass or correct bid you describe is what's in SAYC, but it only includes signoffs.

 

Here is the SAYC reference:

"A 2♠ response requires the 1NT bidder to rebid 3♣, which may be passed with a

club bust, or responder may rebid 3♦ with a diamond bust."

 

I never noticed that interesting fact. Thanks for pointing it out. Opener is forced to bid 3C. So when Yellow Card responders are 5/5 in the minors they can only sign-off clubs or in diamonds via 2S, regardless of whether it is a 5-2 fit or a 5-5 fit. Yuk.

 

Of course, if they don't really play the "yellow" as advertised; or, if they have some non-bridge method of knowing when to pull 3c to 3D, those are different subjects.

[fromageGB]

I for many a year played the simple approach to 4-suit transfers.

2♠ = compulsory transfer to clubs (so weak or strong)

2NT = natural invitation

3♣ = compulsory transfer to diamonds.

This worked fine, and I would recommend it to any who doesn't want anything more complicated. The suit is always played by opener. I think the only reason to change is if you want something like minor suit stayman, or to investigate slams if opener has a decent support, but that is outside the remit of novice and beginner methods.

[Siegmund]

bluecalm's method is one of several playable versions, if you insist upon keeping the natural NT invitation in the pic.

 

Another method I used to use was 2S = invitational (balanced, or clubs or diamonds), 2NT clubs (weak or strong), 3C diamonds (weak or strong).

 

But -- you will actually be doing yourself a favor by cutting out the invitational 2NT bid. Just pass your flat 8s and jump to 3NT with your flat 9s. Almost everyone loses more from making an invitation than they get back in improved game decisions as a result. I didn't start playing 2S=clubs and 2NT=diamonds until after I had decided it was time to dump the invitational sequence.

 

(Fine print: 1NT-2NT "8-9" gains when 8 opposite 16 or 17 makes game, loses when 8 opposite 15 takes 7 or fewer tricks, loses when 8 opposite 16 or 17 fails to make game, and loses when 9 opposite 15 makes game. It breaks even with 8 opposite 15 and you have 8 or more tricks, and with 9 opposite 16 or 17 when you make game, )

[aguahombre]

Yes, we should encourage N/B players to chuck partnership bidding methods and just decide, based on their experience, what the final contract should be.

 

There would probaby be a statistical advantage, when none of the other 3 people know what is in your hand.

[fromageGB]

I think when 1NT has a 3 point range most people will feel happier with an option to invite, as I would, so I would not suggest discarding it. However, if the 1NT range was reduced to 2 points, with the 17 point hand opening a minor, then I agree that you can quite happily get by without an invitation opposite 15/16. The trouble with that is that you do need to decide how you are going to find say 5-3 major fits opposite a 19 count (if 17/18 rebids 2NT) so again that is not suitable for someone starting out.

 

No, keep the invitational 2NT, just have compulsory minor transfers.

[Cyberyeti]

I think when 1NT has a 3 point range most people will feel happier with an option to invite, as I would, so I would not suggest discarding it. However, if the 1NT range was reduced to 2 points, with the 17 point hand opening a minor, then I agree that you can quite happily get by without an invitation opposite 15/16. The trouble with that is that you do need to decide how you are going to find say 5-3 major fits opposite a 19 count (if 17/18 rebids 2NT) so again that is not suitable for someone starting out.

 

No, keep the invitational 2NT, just have compulsory minor transfers.

You can solve the 19 count issue in 4 ways that I've used in some form or another without getting exotic (like using Mexican 2♦).

 

1: there are no 19 counts, only good 18s and bad 20s and leave 2N untouched at beginner standard 20-22

2: play a 19-20 (if you have space to include 21-22 in your other 2 bids) or 19-21 2N opener

3: what I currently do, play 2N opener as good 19-21, treat bad 19s as 18, and play Kokish to sort out the overloaded 2♣-2♦-2N

4: adjust your no trump ranges, add a point to your 1N rebid, take it out of the 1N opener and use something more complicated than simple checkback with an element of range enquiry, this works better in a weak no trump context I suspect.

[Quartic]

4: adjust your no trump ranges, add a point to your 1N rebid, take it out of the 1N opener and use something more complicated than simple checkback with an element of range enquiry, this works better in a weak no trump context I suspect.

This is what I play in a 12-14 NT context - my 1NT rebid is 15-18, and we use 2♣ to sort out the ranges and shape. 19 points balanced now go in the semi-balanced 2NT GF rebid.

[jmcw]

Defence is much easier after 1N:2C, 2H:2N, 3N than it is after 1N:3N or 1N:2N, 3N.

 

Okay I see your point, but I'm not convinced yet.

As responder I may or may not have a 4 card M when I invite.

 

So when I do have a 4cM, then, presumably the auction would be the same, regardless of which method we play 1NT>>2♣ etc.

 

The only time when the auction will diverge should be when responder does not have a 4cM. But in these instances it is not be immediately known whether responder has a 4cM or not.

 

1NT>>2♣>>2D>>2N in this scenerio we reveal that opener has no 4cM, but responders hand remains unknown

1NT>>2NT in this scenerio we know that reponder has no 4cM and openers hand remain unknown.

I don't see why case 1, neccessarily makes the defence much easier.

 

I think I would lead "normally" against both auctions, but I do agree that after seeing dummy I would likely be better placed knowing opener has no 4cM.

 

Similarly,

1NT>>2C>>2M>>2NT

1NT>>2NT

The defence learns about openers 4cM but once again responers holding may still be unknown.

 

Anytime responder has GF values the auction should be the same regardless, so 1NT:3NT would be repeated in both scenerios.

[mycroft]

Any time that responder shows something, that helps the opening lead.

Any time that declarer shows something, that helps throughout the hand.

 

There's a difference - especially at the N/B/I level.

 

When you *have to* give away information about the closed hand to the defence to invite, the situation where the contract is most likely to be touch-and-go (whether partner takes the invite or not!), you're hurting yourself. When you can choose to give away information about the closed hand, because it benefits you in other ways (choice of games, for instance); you're still hurting yourself, but there's a compensatory benefit.

 

Leaving the realm of the theoretical, for N/B, I recommend learning how to play whatever the people you look up to, and would like to play with occasionally, play. For one thing, you're more likely to be invited to play with them - or the group between you and them, who are also probably learning from these people - which can't hurt; for another, if you're playing something your mentors play, it's more likely they will have assistance for you when you ask about a hand.

 

Having said that, a variation on fromageGB's system seems to be a minimal-cost improvement (except in "oops, forgot" and "nobody plays it here, so unless I'm playing with <favourite pard>, I'm swapping back and forth." Note that that increases the "oops, forgot" quotient significantly!) - spoilered because it really isn't N/B:

 

 

2♠ - balanced invitation

2NT - forced club transfer (weak or strong)

3♣ - forced diamond transfer (weak or strong).

 

This allows other things to be piled into the invite, like being able to accept the invite with a 5-card major, or as Keri does, throwing all the "single-suit slam tries" into the invite (opener accepts with 3♣).

 

The cost is that they can double for a spade lead into NT instead of into a likely trump contract; in exchange, they're less likely to be able to find their 3♠ contract over your 3♣ bailout.

 

[Zelandakh]

Bluecalm's idea would be my first suggestion within the parameters of the OP too. A second idea is to hide diamonds in Stayman. For example

 

2♠ = weak/invitational with clubs; or clubs and another suit, slammy

2NT = natural invite

3♣ = clubs only, slammy

3♦ = diamonds only, slammy

 

2♣ - 2M - 3♣ = forces 3♦; weak with diamonds; or diamonds and a major

2♣ - 2M - 3♦ = invitational with diamonds

2♣ - 2♦ - P = weak with diamonds or normal Exit Stayman

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♣ = diamonds and another suit, slammy

2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ = invitational with diamonds

 

This allows you to get out in 2♦ with the weak takeout hand sometimes (also has some disadvantages). Probably bluecalm's approach is more suitable for you and your partner though.

[Fluffy]

I've always played 2NT natural with 3♣ transfer to diamonds, it has worked very well for me.

[Cthulhu D]

I've always played 2NT natural with 3♣ transfer to diamonds, it has worked very well for me.

 

This is fine,I suspect the gains from 2S-> clubs, 2NT-> diamonds enabling super accepts are marginal or non existent.