Transfers after (1C) X (P)

[EricK]

Does anybody play transfers by 4th hand when the bidding starts (1♣) X (P)? It seems like the extra space could be useful eg to allow jumps to 2M to promise 5+, while a transfer-completion-raise sequence could show the same strength but only 4 in the major; or to allow 4th hand to show both majors at the 1 level by transferring to ♥ then bidding 1♠.

 

Because you've lost the natural 1♦ response, you could also play that a 1♠ response shows a balanced-ish hand with no 4cd major, and 2♣ is 2-way, either weak with 5+♦ or various strong hands.

[PhilKing]

I play transfers there, but they start from 2♦.

[gnasher]

... to allow 4th hand to show both majors at the 1 level by transferring to ♥ then bidding 1♠.

 

That assumes that opener will allow you to show both majors at the one level. If he bids 2♣ or 3♣ over 1♥ you're not well-placed. If I played transfers here, I'd play 1♥ followed by 2♥ as 4-4

[whereagles]

Transfers after 1m (dbl) ?? are arguably superior, but they require memory work. That is probably the only downside, but it's a major one.

[1eyedjack]

I play transfer jump advances after any 1-suit X. The marginal utility at the 1 level is lessened by the unlikelihood of a free run.

[steve2005]

Of note to those in ACBLland conventional redoubles and free bids are allowed over a double in GCC.

 

you probably need a bid to show min hand 5-4 in the majors (1N is convenient or 2♦=5♥4♠ & 2♥=5♠4♥)

 

If there is no competition with 4-4 in majors you show ♥ and its partners job to show ♠, with competition opener can make a negative double with 4♠ hopefully.

[Zelandakh]

This seems like something of a cross between Ken's Intentional Insanity post and the discussions between Transfer Walsh versus Montreal Relay. Except that here the relay seems to have more going for it than in response to an opening bid. If willing to give up 1♦, perhaps we can combine ideas:

 

1♦ = negative

1♥♠/2♣ = constructive, non-forcing

2♦♥♠ = GF with ♥/♠/♦ respectively

NT bids = as normal

 

Am not sure how useful the transfers really are if jumps show a GF though. It seems like we would be better off putting Opener on OL and we have plenty of space to sort out 4 cards versus 5 starting at the 2 level. I assume in PK and Jack's schemes the jumps are INV+ and that makes for quite a big difference.

[fromageGB]

In my transfer walsh partnerships, after (1♣) X (p) we play system on, with X meaning that overcaller would have opened 1♣. Transfers work well for us.

 

To answer your questions, there are no differences in this situation to normal twalsh (as we play it), so a jump to 2M is 6 card weak (max 8hcp), transfer completion raise is 6 card 9-12, and 1♠ is a relay with balanced or a minor. For Steve's weak 54xx or 45xx we use the 1NT bid. We can't show spades in a weak 44xx without a free run, as another X from overcaller would then be 3 card heart support, not a negative for spades.

 

1eyedjack : at the 1 level you have shown your major even if opener competes, and when you have a strong hand you show it in your continuation anyway. I see no downside here.

 

Whereagles : one reason I like this is that there is absolutely no memory work. Completely untouched normal continuations. I agree with Zel that this is not ideal, as it would be advantageous to have advancer declare, but like you the memory overload for me that something different would entail is a deterrent. Maybe after a 1♣ open overcaller should give his response to an assumed 1♣ open by advancer !

[whereagles]

Well, I'm glad it works for you. My experience hasn't been so positive, though :)