Why would you want to play no transfers?

[twinkletob]

Jacoby, specifically. And with a SAYC environment.

[Stephen Tu]

You wouldn't be playing SAYC anymore. It'd be an "SA" base.

 

Why would you not play transfers? Mainly if partner doesn't know how to use them yet. What the bids mean the second round, which are forcing, which are invitational, how to offer choice of games, how to make slam tries, etc.

[twinkletob]

Not exactly what I was going for here. Sure, if your partner can't understand transfers, don't play them with that partner. But I'm getting a new partner! :unsure:

 

Would there be any reason to specifically choose not to play trasnfers as a partnership, despite both partners knowing how to play them?

[Stephen Tu]

Doubt it. Transfers are nearly universal among tournament players up to the highest level of play, which tells you that good players think the pros outweigh the cons.

 

The main advantages of not playing transfers are:

- get to play in 2d

- in theory, harder for opps to defend against direct signoffs in partial battles (after xfer, 4th hand can differentiate between direct & delayed action, gaining lots of calls), but in practice I rarely see opps really take advantage of this even when playing weak NT when it's their hand more often.

 

One might choose/invent some fancy, complicated, non-std, non-SAYC scheme that includes a lot more artificiality, as some posters have described in other threads, to achieve goals of describing certain hand types better and/or concealing opener's shape more often, but that's not really something for the novice/beginner forum. Plus most of these fancy systems include transfers of some sort (sometimes only promising 4 of the major though, not always 5+), so you aren't really getting away from transfers.

[Hanoi5]

Because you want to create swings.

[Vampyr]

Would there be any reason to specifically choose not to play trasnfers as a partnership, despite both partners knowing how to play them?

 

If you are playing in a field in which you and your partner are serious underdogs, you might want to use some anti-field methods.

 

EDIT: As above -- posts crossed.

[SteveMoe]

I choose to NOT play transfers if we use the 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. The rationale here is there is much less value to have the 1N opener declare, and we can use 2 versions of stayman with natural 2M bids.

 

Transfers help when there is a lead advantage (Jacoby/Texas), a bidding accuracy advantage (Jacoby/Texas, transfers over their takeout double or our overcall), or to induce momentary ambiguity while telling partner something important about your hand (Transfer McCabe over Weak-2 - Double auctions).

[aguahombre]

We could choose not to play transfers and not to use Stayman either. Then, we could play 2C or 2D as a final contract :rolleyes:

 

It wouldn't take a Simulation effort or much brainwork to figure out that Stayman and transfers will allow us to get to a correct strain and level more often than not using them.

[the hog]

Just because nearly everyone plays something does not mean it is the best method available. Look at the number of people who play sayc or 2/1 for example. Many players are unfamiliar with other methods or have no interest in system design. Having said this, I do play transfers

 

BUT

 

A number of very strong players play Gladiator style responses to 1NT. Not saying they are better or worse, but they do have some advantages eg

 

1NT 2H

P

2H = 5+ H invit, pass = min, no support. So you are now playing 2H rather than 2NT

 

They also add some other responses. eg 1NT 2D 2H 3C/D = to play

[Antrax]

I'm guessing the OP is asking because of the surprising amount of BBO profiles that have NO TRANSFERS written on them. I never figured this one out, myself.

[awm]

Advantages of transfers:

 

(1) They create a lot more sequences for game and slam hands, because you can transfer and then bid again.

(2) They allow opener (usually the stronger hand) to declare a lot of contracts.

 

Disadvantages of transfers (ignoring "forget" possibilities):

 

(1) They make it easier for opponents to get in the bidding (mostly because the person in 4th seat gets two chances).

(2) They allow for lead directing doubles on some auctions that would otherwise be unavailable (double the transfer bid).

(3) They take away your 2♦ bid (which you could otherwise use as "to play" or as a stronger stayman bid).

 

In general it is probably better to play transfers. However, the advantage is significantly less if you play a weaker notrump opening (like 12-14 or even less). This is because you are less likely to be in the game/slam range (advantage 1 is less), opener is less likely to have the much stronger hand (advantage 2 is less), and it's more likely that opponents will be in the bidding (disadvantage 1 is more severe). Even so, more than half the pairs I see playing weak notrump are playing transfers too.

[gordontd]

Even so, more than half the pairs I see playing weak notrump are playing transfers too.

Over here, in the home of the weak NT, it's more like 95%.

[wank]

Over here, in the home of the weak NT, it's more like 95%.

 

in america the people playing weak no trump are doing so because they've thought about its tactical consequences. in uk most of the people playing weak no trump are doing so because that's what they learned and they've no idea what the tactical considerations are.

[StevenG]

in uk most of the people playing weak no trump are doing so because that's what they learned and they've no idea what the tactical considerations are.

 

Like insisting on playing strong NT, and not finding anyone in the club to play with?

[StevenG]

In the Acol Club, most "no transfers" players are intermediates who don't fully understand them. There's a high correlation with people who play strong twos, which suggests they learned a long time ago but have never played club bridge.

[Vampyr]

Over here, in the home of the weak NT, it's more like 95%.

 

So few? I know of one regularish pair who play something other than Stayman (and they might, for all I know, play transfers) and one occasional pair who play Stayman and weak takeouts (I am half of this pair; but I think we play strong NT).

[mikestar13]

One thing I am quite sure of: the advantage of transfers is greater the stronger the no trump is, and the disadvantages are greater the weaker the no trump is. Not playing transfers over 2NT natural is virtually unheard of. and nobody who played the 8-10 ultra-mini 1NT (no longer legal in ACBL, not sure about the rest of the world) has ever wanted to play transfers. In the case of the classic 12-14 weak NT, I think the advantages and disadvantages are about equal, but the average opponent's failure to take advantage of the greater number of sequences available to the defense tips the scales in favor of transfers. If playing a long match against a partnership both expert enough and aggressive enough to take full advantage of the extra sequences allowed by transfers, I'd rather not play them with a weak NT. This is not normally the case, so it is unsurprising that transfers with weak NT are quite popular in England.

[fromageGB]

(I am half of this pair; but I think we play strong NT).

Yes, I agree that remembering how strong your NT is is more important that remembering transfers. Get your priorities right ! :)

[Lord Molyb]

I am teaching my 11 year old brother how to play; he knows transfers as it is one of the first things I taught him.

I'm guessing the people that don't know transfers are the ones that aren't inspired to learn it, the ones that play for fun.

[billw55]

In my experience, the most common reason for not playing transfers is that you are old, learned and played for decades without them, and can't/won't change.

 

Of course there may be other reasons but I don't see them much in practice.

[RunemPard]

Just something from my club at least...

 

Most use transfers and play a 15-17 NT, however, a surprising amount of players have no clue about the actual follow ups. Not many know what a super accept is, and some assume that after a transfer the only possible contract is that suit. The funny thing about this is that not knowing the follow ups pretty much makes all the reasons for transferring pointless.

 

Auctions like...

1N-2♦

2♥-2N/3N

 

Just simply do not exist, or it is assumed that partner always wanted to play NT even in a 5/3 fit.

[neilkaz]

In my experience, the most common reason for not playing transfers is that you are old, learned and played for decades without them, and can't/won't change.

 

Of course there may be other reasons but I don't see them much in practice.

 

I'm oldish and live and play in the land of 15-17 NT and honestly have to strain to remember how to play without transfers.

[aguahombre]

I'm oldish and live and play in the land of 15-17 NT and honestly have to strain to remember how to play without transfers.

I am oldish too, but using my limited brainpower sparingly and won't strain it to remember.

[nigel_k]

Advantages of transfers:

 

(1) They create a lot more sequences for game and slam hands, because you can transfer and then bid again.

(2) They allow opener (usually the stronger hand) to declare a lot of contracts.

 

Disadvantages of transfers (ignoring "forget" possibilities):

 

(1) They make it easier for opponents to get in the bidding (mostly because the person in 4th seat gets two chances).

(2) They allow for lead directing doubles on some auctions that would otherwise be unavailable (double the transfer bid).

(3) They take away your 2♦ bid (which you could otherwise use as "to play" or as a stronger stayman bid).

 

In general it is probably better to play transfers. However, the advantage is significantly less if you play a weaker notrump opening (like 12-14 or even less). This is because you are less likely to be in the game/slam range (advantage 1 is less), opener is less likely to have the much stronger hand (advantage 2 is less), and it's more likely that opponents will be in the bidding (disadvantage 1 is more severe). Even so, more than half the pairs I see playing weak notrump are playing transfers too.

Re disadvantage 1, the opponent in second seat is in a worse position with transfers because he has to act without knowing responder's strength. The opponent in fourth seat will get two chances, but the first chance is also versus an unlimited responder and the second chance may not be at the two level even if responder is weak.

 

Re disadvantage 3, you are losing the 2♦ bid and gaining the 2♠ bid. Obviously you may play 2♠ as a transfer as well, but you are gaining a bid somewhere in exchange for giving up 2♦, and the more transfers you play, the more extra sequences are unlocked.

 

The ability to make a lead directing double is not an unmitigated disadvantage for the opening side either. Apart from the ability to redouble and play there sometimes, there are extra sequences available after the double.

 

In the end, what matters is the weight of the various advantages and disadvantages, not the quantity. My view is that the disadvantages are really quite small and easily outweighed by advantage 1 alone.

[kuhchung]

An interesting effect of not playing transfers is that the sequence 1N (p) 2H (2S); p (p) 3C is unambiguously not game forcing.