Four-suit Transfers vs. Invitational 2NT

[fromageGB]

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

We are drifting away from N/B here, but I disagree with this. Super-accepts can gain when you are borderline slamming, but it doesn't happen often, of course. However, the problem comes when you want a weak takeout to a minor, and partner does not bid it, forcing you to play the hand. This happens OFTEN. (Comparatively!) So wrong-siding is the big downside of this method.

 

This is why I like NT->♣ and ♣->♦, to get the weak takeouts always played correctly, and ♠ as minor suit stayman. You can use this with a borderline slam 5 card minor to see if a fit exists, and if partner bids ♣ when you have the diamonds, you can always find out if he has diamonds as well. This seems to me to get the benefits of super-accepts without the drawbacks.

[Zelandakh]

This seems to me to get the benefits of super-accepts without the drawbacks.

Except that you have now lost the invites with a broken minor one-suiter. If you are willing to give up these then there are better methods around. One of the points of playing 2♠ as clubs and 2NT as diamonds is freeing up the 3m bids for some purpose. This is obviously not available if 3♣ shows diamonds. As I pointed out before, one way around this is to play 2♠ as clubs and pass diamond hands through Stayman. There are lots of potnetial solutions here though and so long as the methods fit together logically there is usually at least one advantage for any given method over another.

[fromageGB]

Except that you have now lost the invites with a broken minor one-suiter.

I take your point that your earlier idea has merits, particularly in my view with game invitational minors, but it is more complex than some prefer, and may conflict with other established system ideas. As you say, it is the integrated system fitting together that counts more than any particular method.

 

My approach is to have the slam invitational possibly broken minor one-suiter start with minor suit stayman 2♠ to ascertain the degree of fit. I have less need for the game invitation as I use a 2 point NT range, but agree that you lose this possibility with my simple approach. Other simple approaches may give you one or both game invitational minors but at the expense of wrong-siding when you play in a minor. This makes it possibly preferable to dispense with showing the minor, and just bidding 2NT as a natural invitation in ♠->♣ and ♣->♦ framework. Right-siding is important when one hand has a long minor and hence short in the majors.

[Cthulhu D]

My Statement should only be taken as this:

 

For a beginner: 2S -> Clubs, 3C -> Diamonds, 2NT natural invite vs 2S: Clubs, 2NT: Diamonds, invites via stayman is a wash.

[daveharty]

Here's a playable system for beginners:

 

After 1NT:

2C = Stayman (with a non-invitational club hand, rebid 3C next; any other new suit rebid shows a big hand)

2D = to play

2H = to play

2S = to play

2NT = natural, invitational

3C = natural, invitational

3D = natural, invitational

3H = natural, invitational

3S = natural, invitational

3NT = to play

 

I'm actually not being flip. Obviously this system is not optimal; but what is lost? Yes, you will "wrongside" most suit contracts; but in beginner games where system "forgets" are a serious issue, wrongsiding really isn't what you should be worrying about. Rightsiding contracts isn't the primary goal of transfer sequences, anyway; that's just an ancillary benefit. The real benefit comes because transfers open up a host of new sequences to describe various hand types. But beginners shouldn't be worrying about that; they should be worrying about knowing their basic system well enough that they don't have silly avoidable results based on partnership misunderstandings. Get to reasonable contracts, work on your defense and declarer play, and the more complicated system stuff will start to take care of itself, because as you gain experience, you will start to encounter situations where you will say to yourself, "Self, it would be really cool if our system had a better way to bid this type of hand." That's when you should start adding conventions, organically.

 

Of course, if you're a beginner but you already know that you're a system wonk, throw all this out the window.

[Quantumcat]

Here's a playable system for beginners:

This is a good idea, I have seen lots of supervised players/experienced beginners not know how to handle NT transfer auctions, they might rebid 3M with a gameforce hand with five major (thinking they are giving partner the choice of 3NT or 4 major), or rebid 2NT with a bad five card major and a weak hand (they were told they must transfer with a five card major, but didn't like the suit so tried to get out of it afterwards) etc.

 

Your comments about system forgets is sort of like in chess between beginners, where the person that wins has just made less silly mistakes along the lines of putting a queen on a square diagonally in front of a pawn because they forgot a pawn captures diagonally. In bridge between beginners the side that wins probably ended up in fewer stupid contracts than the other side due to forgetting system :-)

[mycroft]

two issues about Natural:

- most people can't remember how to play this (or never learned!), limiting your partners.

- Invitational has to be defined. It probably should be different for minors (as it's likely INV to 3NT, not the suit) than for the majors.

 

Of course all of that "extra discussion" should be done to play transfers as well...

[JLOGIC]

The great thing about bridge is you can play different things based on your comfort level. It sounds like you like natural 2N a lot and are uncomfortable not having it, which is fine, it's a matter of personal preference especially when you're first starting.

 

I would also recommend the bluecalm approach if natural 2N is important to you. 2S transfer to clubs, 3C transfer to diamonds, 2N natural. It's certainly a reasonable way to play.