what do you think?

[whereagles]

1C 1S ...?

X = balanced unlimited. If 4 hearts then 6-9 or 13+

1NT = DIAMONDS 7+

2C = nat weak

2D = hearts 7+

2H = bal 4 hearts 10-12, no stopper

2S = clubs, strong

2NT= bal 4 hearts 10-12, with stopper

 

1D 1S ...?

X = balanced unlimited. If 4 hearts then 6-9 or 13+

1NT = clubs 7+

2C = HEARTS 7+

2D = nat weak

2H = bal 4 hearts 10-12, no stopper

2S = diamonds, strong

2NT= bal 4 hearts 10-12, with stopper

 

1C 1H ...?

X = 4+ spades, unlimited. If 5 spades then 5-7 hcp. Opener can supp dbl if RHO bids

1S = balanced, unlimited, no 4 spades

1NT = DIAMONDS 7+

2C = nat weak

2D = SPADES 8+

2H = clubs, strong

 

1D 1H ...?

X = 4+ spades, unlimited. If 5 spades then 5-7 hcp. Opener can supp dbl if RHO bids

1S = balanced, unlimited, no 4 spades

1NT = clubs 7+

2C = SPADES 8+

2D = nat weak

2H = diamonds, strong

 

1C 1D ...?

X = 4+ hearts

1H = 4+ spades

1S = 44 major unlimited

1/2/3NT = nat, limit bid

2C = nat weak

2D = clubs, strong

 

1C X ...?

XX = diams

1D = 4+ hearts

1H = 4+ spades

1S = balanced, unlimited

1NT = clubs, strong

2C = clubs, weak

 

1D X ...?

XX = 4+ hearts

1H = 4+ spades

1S = balanced, unlimited

1NT = clubs 7+

2C = diamonds, strong

2D = diamonds, weak

[Free]

Is there any logic or simple rule to remember all this? Otherwise I don't like it...

[whereagles]

Yes, there is some logics.

 

After 1m followed by 1-level overcall or double..

 

1. Raises are natural, weak.

2. Other bids are transfers, with double transfer to next step. Valid up to cue-bid.

3. Cue is, as usual, a strong raise of the minor.

 

Pros:

- Transfers allow you to bid 5-card suits on both weak and strong hands.

- Allows you to often support pard's suit at the ONE-level (should show 3 cards, min).

- Excellent flexibility in competitive situations.

 

Cons:

- You could lose a 44 heart fit after 1m (1S) dbl.

- Requires some work and won't make a difference on most hands.

[Chamaco]

This is what I play.

Basically:

- Redouble is 10+ usually balanced

1-level responses are natural, forcing

- single raise is weak

- all responses from 1NT to below the single raise are xfers, whose strngth is different in various situations.

 

We lose the xfer at the 1 level, but so far it has not been a big deal...

 

1C-X-?

 

-XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers)

-1♥♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R

- 1NT = GOOD xfer to clubs, invitational+, forcing

- 2C = weak raise, NF

- 2D/H/S = free for partnership agreement (weak/strong, FJS, etc)

 

1D-X-?

 

-XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers)

-1♥♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R

- 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2C = GOOD xfer to diamonds, invitational+, forcing

- 2D = weak raise, NF

- 2H/S = free for partnership agreement (weak/strong, FJS, etc)

 

1H-X-?

 

-XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers)

-1♠ natural 4+ forcing 1R

- 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2C = xfer to diamonds, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2D = GOOD xfer to hearts, 8+, if opener has a good hand, he either superaccepts of makes a help suit game try

- 2H = weak raise, NF

 

1S-X-?

 

-XX = natural 10+, usually no 5 bagger (otherwise use xfers)

- 1NT = xfer to clubs, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2C = xfer to diamonds, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2D = xfer to hearts, either weak or strong (inv+)

- 2H = GOOD xfer to spades, 8+, if opener has a good hand, he either superaccepts of makes a help suit game try

- 2S = weak raise, NF

[whereagles]

Hum.. seems you only play transfers after double. In which case it is indeed more or less the same. Just that I rotate 1-level bids a step down, using 1S to show the balanced hand (instead of redouble). Your methods allow to look for a penalty at the 1-level, whereas mine are more geared towards finding a 5-3 fit of our own.

 

Note that I did not mention sequences of type 1M (dbl). Here it is more profitable to look for a penalty because opps must often try an escape at the 2-level (1 trick higher - big difference) and the 1M opening shows a lot more shape (thus much easier to gauge a misfit).

[Chamaco]

Hum.. seems you only play transfers after double. In which case it is indeed more or less the same. Just that I rotate 1-level bids a step down, using 1S to show the balanced hand (instead of redouble). Your methods allow to look for a penalty at the 1-level, whereas mine are more geared towards finding a 5-3 fit of our own.

We do play the same structure after a 1-level overcall (excluding 1NT overcall).

 

All the transfers are the same , and Double is negative, and may be played in different style according to pd , e.g.

 

1) 1m-1H-?

Now double can show exactly 4 cards or deny the suit according to pship

 

2) 1m-1S-?

Bidding a suit above 2m can be forcing or Negative free bid according to pship (below and including 2m, 1NT/2C/2D transfer or weak raise bids apply).

[inquiry]

I don't like any transfer advance options that give up a natural, and non-forcing 1NT bid. The 1NT bid is a useful a time-honored bid that often lands you in the best darn spot.

 

If you are interested in playing something like what is proposed here, but want to to keep 1NT natural, take a look at equality method. There are several post on it here on the BBF, or you can find a word document explaining it in considerable detail on Dan Neill's page.

 

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/ search for Equality near the bottom of the web page.

 

Ben

[Chamaco]

I should add that we use xfer responses after 1-level overcalls to LIMITED openings, and that invitational NT-oriented hands can be bid via a neg. double.

[whereagles]

Hum.. interesting, ben. I downloaded the file and will have a look asap.

[whereagles]

Well, after thinking a bit and browsing through the equality file, I concluded the following.

 

Suppose that, instead of a game-forcing 2/1, you play the following thing, a "transfer 2/1" system:

 

1H 1S = any balanced hand, or 5 spades 5-7 points, or very weak raise 3-7

.....1NT= clubs 7+

.....2C = diamonds 7+

.....2D = spades 8+

.....2H = ok raise 8-10

 

This scheme shares a feature with the wierd thing I was proposing in my first post: the 2-level bids can be done rather light. In one single transfer bid, you put in the negative free bid hands, plus the strong hands.

 

But now notice that in the transfer 2/1 scheme, you are effectively making a 2/1 bid not with a game-forcing hand, nor with a sayc 2/1 hand, but with a hand that can be rather weak. 30 years ago, the requirements for a 2/1 were very relaxed. In time they got stricter, so in sayc you need 10 hcp, and in the more modern 2/1 gf, you need at least 12 hcp.

 

So basically the scheme I was proposing goes, instead of being a novelty, actually goes back 30 years in bidding philosophy. The reason the 2/1 got stricter over the years was to facilitate opener's rebid, and avoid opener and responder to guess how many points the other has. Using 1NT to truncate the lower requirements for a 2/1 made bidding much easier. The scheme I proposed goes against this.

 

HOWEVER.. despite this, the 2/1 bids are forcing and allow opener to make a waiting bid (completing the transfer) whenever he's minimum and has a mild fit (2 cards will do). Whether or not this is enough to mitigate the uncertainty in points, I do know know. Therefore, until the scheme is thought out better and tested with some simulators, it is probably unsound to use it.

 

The equality method does a bit better, as it tries to separate the negative free bid from the strong variant using two bids. The downside is overloading the other bids, but you can't have it all. However, in some cases it does fall into the trap of forcing the bidding too high.

 

hum..............

[hrothgar]

Well, after thinking a bit and browsing through the equality file, I concluded the following.

 

Suppose that, instead of a game-forcing 2/1, you play the following thing, a "transfer 2/1" system:

 

1H 1S = any balanced hand, or 5 spades 5-7 points, or very weak raise 3-7

.....1NT= clubs 7+

.....2C = diamonds 7+

.....2D = spades 8+

.....2H = ok raise 8-10

Magic Diamond has a well constructed transfer response structure over 1M openings.

[pclayton]

We play transfers starting with the redouble. We can even transfer into a natural 1N, but its played from the correct side.

 

As I've said before, it is a huge advantage getting the opening bidder on lead.

 

The 2-way pass showing weakness OR 10+ and no fit is also a big advantage. When was the last time you nailed the opponents at a higher level after a redouble? Its not very common.

 

I'm toying with some kind of transfer structure over the opponents overcall, but I don't such a scheme would be legal in the ACBL, would it?

[han]

It would not be legal under GCC, but transfers after take-out doubles are also not legal.

[hrothgar]

It would not be legal under GCC, but transfers after take-out doubles are also not legal.

Transfers over takeout doubles are most certainly legal at the GCC level

the proof is left as an exercise for the reader

[whereagles]

Magic Diamond has a well constructed transfer response structure over 1M openings.

I had a look at it, thanks. The transfer response works ok in the magic D system because the opening is limited. If the opening is unlimited, it's a whole other ball game, as they say.

 

I'm toying with some kind of transfer structure over the opponents overcall

Well, as I argued above, a naive approach to transfers may be unsound strategy. Example:

 

Opener Resp

Kxx.......xxx

x...........KQxxx

AQxx.....xxx

Kxxxx....Ax

 

1♣ (1♠) 2♦ (p)

...??

 

2♦ shows hearts, 7+ points. What now? Playing standard methods responder could double and hear 2♦, but playing transfers the 2♦ bid forces the bidding beyond the safety level. Even opening 1♦ won't save transfers, as it would go

 

1♦ (1♠) 2♣ (p)

 

where 2♣ showed hearts. Again opener is stuck for a rebid. 2NT might work in both cases, but it's a bad contract in the long run.

 

Transfers work ok in three cases:

 

1. The opening is limited. Here it is much easier for responder to gauge what opener has.

 

2. After a 5-card 1M opening followed by double. Here responder is less likely to hold a good hand, and the transfer usually won't go beyond the negative free bid range. Also, since fit is highly likely, it is very important to split good from bad raises.

 

3. After a 5-card 1M opening followed by low-level overcall. Again fit is likely (though not as much as after double) and responder knows a bit more from opener's hand than if he had opened 1m.

 

After a 1m 3-card opener, it is unsound to play naive transfer methods that force the bidding too high on too little (note that double is different: it doesn't force the bidding any higher, which is why it works). And if you're going to transfer only on 10+ hcp, you might as well play bids as natural, 1-round forcing B)

 

All in all transfer schemes after 1m openings have to be VERY WELL thought out before put to practice. I won't say it's impossible, but it definitely needs careful study.