Texas xfer

[Bbradley62]

I'm sometimes "behind the times" with regard to conventions. Is this a modern understanding of the meaning of a Texas transfer?

 

[hv=nn=Robot&n=SQJ9863HK32DJ76CA&d=e&v=o&b=6&a=P1N(notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points)P4H!(Texas%20--%206+%20%21S%3B%2010+%20total%20points)]270|270[/hv]

[manudude03]

Seems normal enough for 4H, planning on playing 4S (2H followed by 4C/4S are mild slam tries)

[iandayre]

Deleted

[iandayre]

Yes this I consider a normal Texas transfer. It wants to play in the suit game, not enough for a slam try. This is one area that GIB does pretty well. The other options after Texas are 4NT (RKCB) and any minimum new suit (Exclusion RKC). After Jacoby, a jump to game is a mild balanced slam try, 4NT is quantitative, new suits are natural, with single jumps in new suits being splinters.

 

Simply for your information, none of this is new. This has been standard in 2/1 for more than 30 years.

[Bbradley62]

I don't like the description being "10+ total points". I would want it limited to something that has no interest in slam, as Dude implies.

[broze]

I don't like the description being "10+ total points". I would want it limited to something that has no interest in slam, as Dude implies.

 

GIB could have a hand that wants to set trump and ask keycard.

[BillHiggin]

... The other options after Texas are 4NT (RKCB) and any minimum new suit (Exclusion RKC). ...

Simply for your information, none of this is new. This has been standard in 2/1 for more than 30 years.

 

I have wanted to advocate new suits after Texas transfer as exclusion RKC, but felt it was not standard. So, I am happy to see someone assert that it is somewhat standard.

 

Do others concur that Exclusion RKC is standard for new suits after Texas?

[cloa513]

I'm sometimes "behind the times" with regard to conventions. Is this a modern understanding of the meaning of a Texas transfer?

 

[hv=nn=Robot&n=SQJ9863HK32DJ76CA&d=e&v=o&b=6&a=P1N(notrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20%21C%3B%202-5%20%21D%3B%202-5%20%21H%3B%202-5%20%21S%3B%2015-17%20HCP%3B%2018-%20total%20points)P4H!(Texas%20--%206+%20%21S%3B%2010+%20total%20points)]270|270[/hv]

Texas transfer is a bad idea- it also a terrible idea for GIB which has no bidding sense.

Give 1NT ♠AKx♥AQxx♦Ax♣xxxx and its a fairly good slam. The GIB hand is low slam potential hand but not so low that Texas Transfer is good idea.

[Bbradley62]

I also thought a slam try was right, but maybe I was resulting (go figure!).

[iandayre]

Certainly slam isn't impossible with this hand. I would tend to expect though that trying for one will get you to more bad slams than good ones.

 

But it is definitely a judgement issue not a system one.

[Trinidad]

Texas transfer is a bad idea- it also a terrible idea for GIB which has no bidding sense.

Give 1NT ♠AKx♥AQxx♦Ax♣xxxx and its a fairly good slam. The GIB hand is low slam potential hand but not so low that Texas Transfer is good idea.

The question is not: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good?"

 

The question is: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good and where a different approach (e.g. a Jacoby transfer) would have given us the necessary information?"

 

The 1NT openers where slam is good have four characteristics:

• They are maximum.
  
• They are very rich in controls.
  
• They have a doubleton in one of the red suits.
  
• They don't have wasted values in clubs.
  

If you can get this information from the 1NT opener by bidding something else, by all means do. But I suspect that GIB can't. So GIB judged quite well not to play partner for the perfect hand and simply signed off in game.

 

Rik

[johnu]

Texas transfer is a bad idea- it also a terrible idea for GIB which has no bidding sense.

 

"GIB which has no bidding sense" is the key point. Percentage wise slam probably won't be good opposite a random 1NT, you aren't going to get any cooperation from GIB in determining if it is any good, so why risk a disaster. Suppose you moved the ♣A to one of the 3 card suits, so you could Jacoby transfer and splinter. Even then, you never see GIB evaluate their strength or lack of strength in the splinter suit. Lot's of luck with this hand. Just take your average+ and go to the next board.

[Bbradley62]

The question is not: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good?"

 

The question is: "Can we construct hands where slam would be good and where a different approach (e.g. a Jacoby transfer) would have given us the necessary information?"

 

The 1NT openers where slam is good have four characteristics:

• They are maximum.
  
• They are very rich in controls.
  
• They have a doubleton in one of the red suits.
  
• They don't have wasted values in clubs.
  

If you can get this information from the 1NT opener by bidding something else, by all means do. But I suspect that GIB can't. So GIB judged quite well not to play partner for the perfect hand and simply signed off in game.

 

Rik

 

As it happened, South's response to Jacoby 2♥ would have been to show a max with 4 spades and doubleton diamond.

[Trinidad]

As it happened, South's response to Jacoby 2♥ would have been to show a max with 4 spades and doubleton diamond.

Nice, you would have gotten half way (2 out of 4). Would GIB also have been able to find out all about your controls and the xxx(x) in clubs (or alternatively show a slam try with club shortness)? If he can't, Texas is still the right bid.

 

Rik

[Bbradley62]

Nice, you would have gotten half way (2 out of 4). Would GIB also have been able to find out all about your controls and the xxx(x) in clubs (or alternatively show a slam try with club shortness)? If he can't, Texas is still the right bid.

 

Rik

After the superaccept and re-transfer, RKC would have told North about South's 4 Keycards. After that, it's a gamble as to whether there is a 12th trick. Alternatively, North could cuebid ♣ after the superaccept, which also might get you there.

 

Cloa got my hand right, except that I had 2 small spades and 1 small heart, not vice versa.

[Trinidad]

After the superaccept and re-transfer, RKC would have told North about South's 4 Keycards. After that, it's a gamble as to whether there is a 12th trick.

If it's going to be a gamble whether there would be a 12th trick, what do you think is better bridge:

- Immediately gambling game or slam

- First telling the opponents what all you have and then gamble game or slam

 

The key to the slam still lies in the four small clubs. Would GIB have been able to find that out? If not, he will need to gamble about it, and he would be better off doing that rightaway.

 

You suggest the auction should start:

1NT-2♥

3♦-3♥ (max, 4♠, doubleton ♦*, retransfer)

3♠-4NT (forced, RKCB)

5m (4 keys)

 

And you won't be able to tell the difference between:

♠AKxx

♥AQx

♦Ax

♣xxxx

(the hand that you seemed to have and that makes slam good)

and

♠AKxx

♥Axx

♦Ax

♣Qxxx

where slam has virtually no play.

 

----

 

* It is common to play that 3♦ shows a small doubleton diamond. If GIB plays like that (I don't know), GIB would certainly sign off in 4♠ as soon as he can.

 

 

Rik

[cloa513]

If it's going to be a gamble whether there would be a 12th trick, what do you think is better bridge:

- Immediately gambling game or slam

- First telling the opponents what all you have and then gamble game or slam

 

The key to the slam still lies in the four small clubs. Would GIB have been able to find that out? If not, he will need to gamble about it, and he would be better off doing that rightaway.

 

You suggest the auction should start:

1NT-2♥

3♦-3♥ (max, 4♠, doubleton ♦*, retransfer)

3♠-4NT (forced, RKCB)

5m (4 keys)

 

And you won't be able to tell the difference between:

♠AKxx

♥AQx

♦Ax

♣xxxx

(the hand that you seemed to have and that makes slam good)

and

♠AKxx

♥Axx

♦Ax

♣Qxxx

where slam has virtually no play.

 

----

 

* It is common to play that 3♦ shows a small doubleton diamond. If GIB plays like that (I don't know), GIB would certainly sign off in 4♠ as soon as he can.

 

 

Rik

Rather it should go 1NT, 2♦, 2♥, 4♣(splinter)- showing a weak slam chance, 4NT....6H.

 

Bidding an intermediate suit shows a stronger slam chance when you force to game.

[Trinidad]

Rather it should go 1NT, 2♦, 2♥, 4♣(splinter)- showing a weak slam chance, 4NT....6H.

 

Bidding an intermediate suit shows a stronger slam chance when you force to game.

There are two slight problems:

 

• 
   
  
• In this case, opener will not rebid 2♠ (I suppose you meant to transfer to spades), but superaccept with 3♦ (at least that is what Bbradley claims he would bid). Now, 4♣ is not a splinter anymore.
  
• It is ugly to splinter with a singleton A (or K), so I can understand that GIB didn't want to do that.
  

 

Rik

[cloa513]

There are two slight problems:

 

• 
   
  
• In this case, opener will not rebid 2♠ (I suppose you meant to transfer to spades), but superaccept with 3♦ (at least that is what Bbradley claims he would bid). Now, 4♣ is not a splinter anymore.
  
• It is ugly to splinter with a singleton A (or K), so I can understand that GIB didn't want to do that.
  

 

Rik

My given hand is still not good enough to superaccept using GIB's standards- not 4cards support with 4432 shape with max