Why would you want to play no transfers?

[phil_20686]

Not playing transfers is ok if you play an 8-11 NT. I did that one and it generally just produced carnage, which is ideal in a swiss pairs tournament. Also, a lot of people just assume that you forgot to alert a transfer, rather than asking, and end up forgetting to make a t/o double over them. A tiny part of me feels bad about this, but really they should be paying more attention in a serious tournament.

[rmnka447]

Playing transfers over the weak (12-14) point NT in the USA provides one major disadvantage.

 

Since the majority of players are playing strong NTs (15-17), they are opening 12-14 point balanced hands in one of a minor. As a result, the person responding to the weak NT is normally responding 1 of the major at most other tables. By playing transfers over a weak NT, you end up playing the contract from the opposite side of the table than most other pairs. On many hands, it doesn't make much difference. But on some hands, it does. So it makes for more variable results, especially at matchpoints.

 

One of the big reasons for using transfers is to ensure the opening lead comes into the strong hand and not through it. When you bid game after the weak NT, both hands are at least 12-14 points so there's no big incentive for ensuring the lead comes into either hand.

[NickRW]

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.

 

Well, I don't disagree with you. Except to say that the vast majority of us can't scrape a living from this game, let alone get rich, so even most experts are playing for fun :rolleyes:

 

Nick

[Vampyr]

One of the big reasons for using transfers is to ensure the opening lead comes into the strong hand and not through it. When you bid game after the weak NT, both hands are at least 12-14 points so there's no big incentive for ensuring the lead comes into either hand.

 

However, transfers allow you to show more hand-types than weak takeouts, and that is why they are extremely popular in weak-NT land.

 

I occasionally play without transfers, and though I don't think it is best, I really enjoy it. So perhaps one answer to the OP's question is that it is more fun.

[eagles123]

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.

 

always find it totally crazy this and very frustrating!

[Vampyr]

always find it totally crazy this and very frustrating!

Someone in another thread mentioned that if you are playing transfers, you have to have discussions about whether they are on over interference (primarily double) and whether they are on over 1NT overcalls. So for many scratch partnerships it is probably quicker and easier to not play transfers at all. I don't know why so many people are hostile to the idea -- if you can't manage to play without transfers, you should have learnt to do so before taking them up.

[eagles123]

Someone in another thread mentioned that if you are playing transfers, you have to have discussions about whether they are on over interference (primarily double) and whether they are on over 1NT overcalls. So for many scratch partnerships it is probably quicker and easier to not play transfers at all. I don't know why so many people are hostile to the idea -- if you can't manage to play without transfers, you should have learnt to do so before taking them up.

 

I never really learnt a system without transfers that's my main problem with people not playing them :D :D

[helene_t]

I never really learnt a system without transfers that's my main problem with people not playing them :D :D

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?

1NT-(x)-2♥

1NT-(2♦)-2♥

(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

 

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

[eagles123]

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?

1NT-(x)-2♥

1NT-(2♦)-2♥

(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

 

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

 

Oh sure I can play systems off - I don't have a regular system of definitely playing on/off though as I don't have a regular partner.

[plum_tree]

I have a counter question to the thread title:

Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

[Lord Molyb]

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?

1NT-(x)-2♥

1NT-(2♦)-2♥

(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

 

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

those are all natural in a weak nt system, which I currently play. :)

[akwoo]

I have a counter question to the thread title:

Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

 

Before transfers came around (e.g. in Goren), invitational hands in majors went through Stayman and game forcing hands with a 5 card suit jumped to the 3-level. Responses to 1N at the 2-level (except for 2♣ Stayman) were signoffs.

[Cyberyeti]

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).

I used to, people who play a wide range NT opener usually play something other than Stayman. We also did play transfers, but they were 4+ cards inv+.

[Vampyr]

those are all natural in a weak nt system, which I currently play. :)

 

I play them all as natural too, and I play a weak NT too, but would a strong NT affect any of them? In the last example, of course, the opening NT range is irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

I have a counter question to the thread title:

Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

It depends on the methods but one way is to use precisely the same basis as 2-way Checkback. That is 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2M = invitational, with 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 2♠ and 1NT - 2♦; 2♠ - 3♥ and 1NT - 2♦; 2NT - 3M = GF. There are many such methods around. Another possibility is to use 2♣ to ask about hearts and 2♦ to ask about spades. Many of the methods have been discussed on BBF at some point in the last year or so.

[Cthulhu D]

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.

 

How can someone who doesn't understand transfers be classified as intermediate?

[TylerE]

Don't knock it, necessarily. We had an older couple here (both were over 90) that played 4 card majors, staymen, transfers, and blackwood, and generally bid like Charles Goren after a few bottles of wine. Suffice it to say their auctions were....erratic at the best of times. Yet they still would manage a respectable placing (e.g. top 3 in Flight A) about one session out of 4...the wife especially could play the spots off when on her game.

[TylerE]

Don't knock it, necessarily. We had an older couple here (both were over 90) that played 4 card majors, staymen, transfers, and blackwood, and generally bid like Charles Goren after a few bottles of wine. Suffice it to say their auctions were....erratic at the best of times. Yet they still would manage a respectable placing (e.g. top 3 in Flight A) about one session out of 4...the wife especially could play the spots off when on her game.

[Cthulhu D]

Don't knock it, necessarily. We had an older couple here (both were over 90) that played 4 card majors, staymen, transfers, and blackwood, and generally bid like Charles Goren after a few bottles of wine. Suffice it to say their auctions were....erratic at the best of times. Yet they still would manage a respectable placing (e.g. top 3 in Flight A) about one session out of 4...the wife especially could play the spots off when on her game.

 

That's great cardplay though, and a great discrepency between the two parts of your game - it's obviously not a one dimensional question what your skill level is, and secondly they are employing transfers, which more or less makes my point I guess :D

[StevenG]

How can someone who doesn't understand transfers be classified as intermediate?

 

From the BBO definitions

Novice

Someone who recently learned to play bridge.

 

Beginner

Someone who has played bridge for less than one year.

 

Intermediate

Someone who is comparable in skill to most other members of BBO.

 

Advanced

Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments.

What else - for players who learned before transfers? Transfers, in my experience, have not reached much social bridge in England. I suspect, without analysis, I see the same thing for Australian Acol players too. I must check a few profiles sometimes.

 

I don't see why failure to know one particular convention, however prevalent amongst serious players, can make one a permanent beginner.

[Vampyr]

I don't see why failure to know one particular convention, however prevalent amongst serious players, can make one a permanent beginner.

 

Nor do I. I play from time to time without transfers, and I suspect that many here would be surprised at how infrequently you wish you were playing them. Of course the same holds true for pretty much any convention.

[mycroft]

Playing a weak NT, there are several times I wish I *wasn't* playing transfers. Not only the two bites issue, but also 2♥ "5+hearts, 0-10 or so, any hand" has advantages of being hidden that "protecting the 'strong' hand" doesn't because opponents can place cards better (again, less useful in a strong NT world, as protecting the strong hand from the lead is a bigger issue, and because drop-dead 2♥ is 0-7 *and* more likely to not be a "competitive" auction at other tables.

 

There are benefits to playing transfers, of course, even with a weak NT, and in the system I'm currently playing, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

 

And there are people with many years of experience who don't now, either in general or in their partnerships, what 1NT-2red-accept-4NT means, or 4♣, or 4♦...or how to show "slamtry with 5" in general. Not just "intermediates".

[Vampyr]

And there are people with many years of experience who don't now, either in general or in their partnerships, what 1NT-2red-accept-4NT means, or 4♣, or 4♦...or how to show "slamtry with 5" in general. Not just "intermediates".

 

Quite. This is why, if I played on BBO, I would probably have "no transfers" on my profile.

[Cthulhu D]

Playing a weak NT, there are several times I wish I *wasn't* playing transfers. Not only the two bites issue, but also 2♥ "5+hearts, 0-10 or so, any hand" has advantages of being hidden that "protecting the 'strong' hand" doesn't because opponents can place cards better (again, less useful in a strong NT world, as protecting the strong hand from the lead is a bigger issue, and because drop-dead 2♥ is 0-7 *and* more likely to not be a "competitive" auction at other tables.

 

Yeah sure, there are lots of reasons not to play transfers, but they are so prelevant that you need to understand them imho even if just to defend against them. If you don't have a working understanding of them, you don't know what's going on in common auctions like (1NT) - P - (2H!) - X are. If you don't have an agreement about what that means, in my view, you are a beginner. I do agree that you can get by without knowing the difference between 1NT-2H-2S-4S and 1NT-4H-4S is.

 

From the BBO definitions

 

What else - for players who learned before transfers? Transfers, in my experience, have not reached much social bridge in England. I suspect, without analysis, I see the same thing for Australian Acol players too. I must check a few profiles sometimes.

 

100% of ACOL players at my club understand transfers - not everyone plays them, but understanding is universal and people have a clear understanding of what doubling a transfer means etc.

[StevenG]

100% of ACOL players at my club understand transfers - not everyone plays them, but understanding is universal and people have a clear understanding of what doubling a transfer means etc.

"at my club" is the critical phrase. Most intermediates in the BBO Acol club don't actually seem to play club bridge (certainly, checking real names for English players against the EBU database comes up with more misses than hits). I think you are forgetting that bridge exists other than in clubs.

 

The point at which social players, however able, learn transfers seems to be when they start playing in clubs.

 

This is speaking from the perspective of an English player in an area where, with few exceptions, the only players coming into the game are of retirement age.