Transfer Openings

[awm]

Recently I was watching the Australian team trials, and noticed that 3 of 6 pairs were playing transfer openings. Most of the systems I've seen which include these openings are based on Moscito, usually a strong club and limited transfer openings which could be canape.

 

However, it seems like you could design a system without a strong artificial opening, by making use of transfer openings. This might solve one of the big problems of the precision club by giving partner some distributional information in the face of competition. It seems like someone must have thought of this before, and I'm wondering if there are any systems out there based on such a principle. Without having given it much thought, I'd suggest some structure like:

 

1♣ = 4+ heart, opening strength plus, unlimited

1♦ = 4+ spade, opening strength plus, unlimited

1♥ = no 4cM, balanced hand or primary clubs, opening strength plus

1♠ = no 4cM, primary diamonds, not balanced, opening strength plus

1NT = some balanced range

2♣+ preemptive, natural or some artificial structure for two suiters

 

One could play the lowest bid as showing a weak hand and the second lowest call as a game forcing relay. Then all other bids would be natural or semi-natural, showing "invitational" but not game force values. Anyways this is just a rough sketch and I was wondering if people have seen similar methods before.

[the hog]

Klinger plays -

1C = 11-14 balanced OR 14-17 any s/suiter, OR 19+ any

1D = 10-18 with H - not 14-17 s/suited

1H = 10-18 with S - not 14-17 s/suited

1S = 10-18 with D - not 14-17 s/suited

1N = 15-17

2C = 10-14 with C or 0-10 with both Majors

 

Over 1D, 1H = gfr and 1S = 8-13 part score relay.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that you're coming at things ass-backwards...

 

When I work on bidding structures, I emphasize things as follows:

 

1. Constructive openings should be strictly limited in strength while still preserving a high frequency. In turn, this requires a light opening style, supported by either a strong club or strong pass structure.

 

2. Constructive openings are "Majors Oriented".

 

3. The response structure over our limited openings needs to be optimized to accomodate out light opening style. One very popular scheme is based on natural and non-forcing 2/1 response, accompanied by relays with strong hands.

 

The transfer opening structure is a natural consequence of the light limited opening style. Transer-based canape openings aren't a good thing in an of themselves. I don't understand why anyone would want to combine these with an unlimited opening style...

 

As to the system you suggest:

 

As I recall, mini-major featured a 1♣ opening that emphasized Hearts and a 1♦ opening the emphasized Spades. Both openigns were unlimited in strength. As I recall, 1M promised 3+ cards in the bid suit and 9-14 HCP. 1NT was 14-16 or some such. I never studied the system much and can't really comment on its merits. However, the Swedes have long been innovative (and good) system designers...

[awm]

Part of the reason for my questions here comes from the success of Fantoni and Nunes on the international scene. I find it interesting that one of the most successful pairs in the world of late plays a system based on dramatically different principles from any of the systems I have seen discussed on this forums, or played in regular competition.

 

It seems that most bridge players are either interested in unusual systems/conventions or not. Those who are not normally play something like bridge world standard, or standard american, or 2/1, or acol if based in britain. Those who are interested in systems seem to be obsessed with relays, light openings, and strong club (or diamond, or pass) methods. Many people seem willing to dismiss the Fantoni-Nunes methods, saying something like "they're just good card players, they just prove that methods don't matter all that much," but I think there's more to it than that.

 

Let me try to give a bit of analysis here. In constructive auctions, we can roughly divide responder's hand into four categories. Here's the "standard american" treatment after a one level opening (all point ranges are rough and may vary based on methods):

 

0-5 points: Pass. This risks playing the wrong partial, especially after a minor suit opening when partner holds 18-19 balanced. You can also easily miss a game when opener holds a two-suited hand and responder has a good fit for the second suit -- this is part of the subject of Ben's recent posts on transfer preempts. On the other hand, at least you get to stop low.

 

6-9 points: After a major suit opening, this is a 1NT bid. The bid nicely limits the hand, and since opener has a chance to bid again (and responder can raise with a good fit without difficulty now that range is limited) you will usually find a good strain and level.

 

10-12 points: A standard american 2/1 call. Things work well when opener has extras, but developments can be somewhat awkward otherwise as opener frequently has to rebid his major as a nondescript catch-all.

 

13+ points: A 2/1 call. However, since a standard 2/1 is not game forcing, sometimes contortions will be necessary in order to convey sufficient strength later in the auction. Again this works better when opener has extras.

 

Switching to 2/1 game force (the other popular "standard" set of methods), the 0-5 point range remains the same. Two-over-one merges the 6-9 and 10-12 ranges, which greatly improves bidding after the 13+ response (opener's rebids are now all natural, and no awkward sequences are needed to force game). Of course, two-over-one has its own issues, usually after the wide-ranging 1nt response which does little to limit either of responder's strength or shape.

 

The strong club solution merges the strong hands into the artificial forcing opening. This gives responder relative safety in passing when holding the 0-5 (or even sometimes 6-7). One can still construct extreme two-suiters where a game can be missed, but the problem is much less common. There are still issues in distinguishing between the remaining three categories. Precision systems based upon two-over-one major responses, or game forcing relays, tend to merge together the 6-9 and 10-12 ranges. Systems based on "standard" two-over-one responses or on invitational-plus relays merge the 10-12 and 13+ ranges. In either case the merged range tends to present difficulties whereas the distinguished range tends to be easy to describe.

 

In competitive auctions, natural openings are the big winner. This means that opening the strong club is usually a loser in competition. I think most people who have played those methods agree with this statement (with exception for opponents who bid at the one level and then pass through the rest of the auction, which is usually more of a help than a hindrance). Of course, precision systems often take advantage of the limited openers to open a major more often. Usually opening a major (especially playing 5-card majors, but to a lesser degree with 4-card majors) is a big win in competition. There are many examples in Robson-Segal (and elsewhere) to show that degree of fit is more important than total points in deciding the level to compete.

 

Anyways, let's look at the Fantoni-Nunes solution, where one-level openings are natural and forcing, showing 14+ (unlimited).

 

0-5 points: Can't pass anymore. But at least opener has some extra strength. This means there's not a risk of missing a game after a strong two-suited opening. You do have to play a bunch of hands at the two level instead of the one level, which can certainly be a loss. It's not too hard to distinguish these hands from the 6-9 hands, because the 0-5 will frequently pass a nonforcing second bid, or distinguish themselves after opener's forcing 2♣ rebid.

 

6-9 points: Will have pretty much the same auction as in standard. The first response normally limits the hand, the second bid will often show the values.

 

10+ points: All of these are game forcing opposite the sound opening. Saves the awkwardness which standard experiences on the 13+ hands, and which 2/1 experiences on 10-12.

 

In competition, the natural suit bids will work great. The main questions about Fantoni-Nunes methods would seem to be the two-level openings (normally 10-13 and 5+ cards) which seem like something of a double-edged sword, as well as the weak notrump opening (admittedly a lot of people like it, but it seems to be better at nonvulnerable).

 

Anyways, once we have accepted that there is some advantage to one-level bids which are natural and forcing, it seems clear that most of this advantage comes from having a forcing bid which immediately shows a suit. It doesn't really matter which one level bid shows hearts, since responder can't pass anyway. This is why the suggestion of transfer openings. They give responder the space to immediately limit his range, while still allowing the auction to end at the level of one of a major! In principle we can also give the openings a wider range, since there's more space to distinguish responder's strength. Obviously there are some disadvantages to playing canape-style openings in competition, but if it was really so awful how come so many good players are combining canape with strong club instead of five-card majors? Also the canape openings are somewhat "less bad" when they are forcing since the longer second suit will always be revealed (at least in the absence of competition).

 

Again I make no claims that this is the "best system" but it seems to include some of the advantages of Fantoni-Nunes approach, while perhaps avoiding the potential weakness of the weak notrump and two level bids. A lot of people seem quick to divide systems into "strong club" versus "bridge world standard" (see the organization of these forums for example) without acknowledging that other approaches exist and may be more effective, and I think this idea deserves some consideration.

[helene_t]

I do have sympathy for unlimited transfer openings. From a theoretical point of view, showing shape rather than points should have some advantages:

- You don't have to count points with unballanced hands before knowing if you have a fit

- Partner can often bid to the LOTT-safe level immediately

- LHO does not know if the board belongs to us (calls for undiciplined overcalls) or to them (calls for diciplined overcalls)

 

One problem that I see is that if 1♣ shows 9-37 HCPs, 4-13 hearts, it becomes rather vulnerable to preemption.

[Chamaco]

Again I make no claims that this is the "best system" but it seems to include some of the advantages of Fantoni-Nunes approach, while perhaps avoiding the potential weakness of the weak notrump and two level bids.

Some people seem to regard both the weak NT AND the semiconstructive (or solid preemptive, according to point of view :ph34r: ) Fantunes 2- bids, more as a plus rather than as a minus :-)

[david_c]

Have you tried Farhad relay? ;)

 

This is going to sound a bit silly, but I think the bad thing about forcing opening bids is that you're not allowed to pass them. You see, designing a bidding system is all about assigning meanings to calls, and the main problem in life is that you don't have very many calls available which you can assign meanings to. If you remove "pass" from responder's options, that means you have less space overall. When you find later in the auction that it's difficult to sort out both opener's and responder's ranges, that's a direct consequence of giving up the pass.

[Chamaco]

If you remove "pass" from responder's options, that means you have less space overall. When you find later in the auction that it's difficult to sort out both opener's and responder's ranges, that's a direct consequence of giving up the pass.

 

If things were that clear, then big club systems would be dead (responder to 1club HAS to bid regardless, he is after all "giving up the pass" :P ).

 

Just as in big club systems there is a negative step response (1D), and other positive and/or semipositive responses, the same can be implemented in an unlimited opening system: it's just a matter of limiting responder instead of opener, and having a suitable relay scheme.

 

As far as "sorting out both responder and opener's range": this is not strictly necessary, as long as one hand(*either* opener *or* responder) is pretty well-defined, the other hand can often make the right decision

 

Fantoni-Nunes use such a system, and they seem to fare no worse than others, to put it mildly ;)

[david_c]

If you remove "pass" from responder's options, that means you have less space overall. When you find later in the auction that it's difficult to sort out both opener's and responder's ranges, that's a direct consequence of giving up the pass.

 

If things were that clear, then big club systems would be dead (responder to 1club HAS to bid regardless, he is after all "giving up the pass" ;) ).

Having one forcing opening bid is inevitable; having four on the other hand ... :P

 

Still, I'm not putting too much faith in my own theoretical arguments :) I will reluctantly have to admit that F-N can play bridge.

[Chamaco]

Having one forcing opening bid is inevitable; having four on the other hand ...   ;)

The idea of having all 1-level bids as forcing is to anticipate opponent competition.

 

Being able to bid your longer suit first is a big advantage, especially for unbalanced hands.

 

Of course, in a system like, say, 2/1, you run the risk of responder passing.

 

But, quite a few time, in 2/1 or Standard American, you would wish to be able a forcing NATURAL bid at the 1 level, rather than having to open a strong 2C: a typical case is strong 2 suiters.

 

 

Using all 1-level bid forcing is not so bad as it seems: most experts nowadays, even playing 2/1 would respond to a better minor opening with 1M holding a virtual yarborough and a 5cM.

 

Or, many players respond a forcing NT with almost nothing to pard's 1M opener.

 

If the right gadgets (Gazzilli-like in 1M opening sequences, and some sort of multireverse relay after 1m openers) can be agreed for opener to gather more info on responder's hand, then the auction is not as cumbersome as it may seem.

 

Of course F-N 1-bids guarantee a sound opener (14+).

 

 

The price Fantunes pay is to give up weak 2 with less than 7/8 hcp, but that makes the weak 2 rather sound, and suitable to double opponent's competition.

On the other hand they gain 2C as weak bid.

[hrothgar]

Having one forcing opening bid is inevitable; having four on the other hand ...  ;)

The idea of having all 1-level bids as forcing is to anticipate opponent competition.

 

Being able to bid your longer suit first is a big advantage, especially for unbalanced hands.

 

Of course, in a system like, say, 2/1, you run the risk of responder passing.

 

But, quite a few time, in 2/1 or Standard American, you would wish to be able a forcing NATURAL bid at the 1 level, rather than having to open a strong 2C: a typical case is strong 2 suiters.

 

 

Using all 1-level bid forcing is not so bad as it seems: most experts nowadays, even playing 2/1 would respond to a better minor opening with 1M holding a virtual yarborough and a 5cM.

 

Or, many players respond a forcing NT with almost nothing to pard's 1M opener.

 

If the right gadgets (Gazzilli-like in 1M opening sequences, and some sort of multireverse relay after 1m openers) can be agreed for opener to gather more info on responder's hand, then the auction is not as cumbersome as it may seem.

 

Of course F-N 1-bids guarantee a sound opener (14+).

 

 

The price Fantunes pay is to give up weak 2 with less than 7/8 hcp, but that makes the weak 2 rather sound, and suitable to double opponent's competition.

On the other hand they gain 2C as weak bid.

For what its worth...

 

I don't have any real experience with F-N's system. With this said and done, I did play a fair amount of EHAA. For anyone who is interested, EHAA is based on

 

VERY sound 1 level openings (13+ HCP)

10-12 HCP 1NT opening

Weak 2s showing intermediate hands with ~ 8-12 HCP

 

EHAA certainly isn't nearly as sophisticated as what F+N play. With this said, and done, it does share some very real similarities.

 

I eventually gave up on EHAA because I couldn't stomach the weak 2 bids. From my perspective, players are forced to open at too high a level with hands that need to be described constructively rather than preemptively...

[Chamaco]

For anyone who is interested, EHAA is based on

 

VERY sound 1 level openings (13+ HCP)

10-12 HCP 1NT opening

Weak 2s showing intermediate hands with ~ 8-12 HCP

 

............

 

I eventually gave up on EHAA because I couldn't stomach the weak 2 bids.  From my perspective, players are forced to open at too high a level with hands that need to be described constructively rather than preemptively...

 

As much as I like 10-12 NT, I think this is the problem in the scheme you outline, Richard.

 

12-14 balanced hands (including any 5332) should be opened 1NT: these are the hands too weak for a forcing 1 opening and too strong for a 2-level opener.

 

If you lump into 1NT 12-14 all 4333/4432/5332 hands,

then 2-level openers are 1 suiter (6+ cards) or 2 suiters (at least 54), which do not envision game if responder has less than opening strength, or equivalent in shape.

 

If you have a 2-suiter of 12-13 hcp which can make game opposite less than an opening bid, just open at the 1-level, forcing.

[hrothgar]

For anyone who is interested, EHAA is based on

 

VERY sound 1 level openings (13+ HCP)

10-12 HCP 1NT opening

Weak 2s showing intermediate hands with ~ 8-12 HCP

 

............

 

I eventually gave up on EHAA because I couldn't stomach the weak 2 bids.  From my perspective, players are forced to open at too high a level with hands that need to be described constructively rather than preemptively...

 

As much as I like 10-12 NT, I think this is the problem in the scheme you outline, Richard.

 

12-14 balanced hands (including any 5332) should be opened 1NT: these are the hands too weak for a forcing 1 opening and too strong for a 2-level opener.

 

If you lump into 1NT 12-14 all 4333/4432/5332 hands,

then 2-level openers are 1 suiter (6+ cards) or 2 suiters (at least 54), which do not envision game if responder has less than opening strength, or equivalent in shape.

 

If you have a 2-suiter of 12-13 hcp which can make game opposite less than an opening bid, just open at the 1-level, forcing.

Please review what I originally wrote

 

Weak 2 bids show 8-12 HCP points.

1 NT shows 10-12 HCP (and often includes 5332 hands)

 

Switching 1NT to a 12-14 HCP range will decrease the definition of the 2 level openings.

[Chamaco]

Please review what I originally wrote

 

Weak 2 bids show 8-12 HCP points.

1 NT shows 10-12 HCP (and often includes 5332 hands)

 

Switching 1NT to a 12-14 HCP range will decrease the definition of the 2 level openings.

Why does switching to a 12-14 NT decrease 2-level definition ?

 

Please correct me or specify better if I am missing something, Richard:

it seems to me it simply mean that you do NOT open balanced hands with less than 12 hcp: you may widen a bit the range of 1NT to include good 11 count, and simply pass with weaker balanced hands.

 

F-N system does NOT embrace a destructive approach, so Ekren 2s, Frelling 2s etc.etc., with 4432 and a hand weaker than a 1NT opener are not contemplated, you just pass with those hands.

 

In such a system, usually constructive bidding does not suffer too much when pard opns at the 2-level, so it seems to me an improvement to the EHAA structure you outlined.

[pbleighton]

"Weak 2 bids show 8-12 HCP points.

1 NT shows 10-12 HCP (and often includes 5332 hands)

 

Switching 1NT to a 12-14 HCP range will decrease the definition of the 2 level openings."

 

Only if you open 5332s at the two level. My understanding is that F-N do not.

 

Another thing to consider, Richard, is that F-N's 2 bids are 10-13 minus, with 9 counts opened exceptionally, and strong 13 counts opened at the one level. This is a somewhat narrower range, with a 2 point higher minimum (I'm assuming your interpretation of 8 was EHAA style - all/virtually all 8 counts).

 

This allows F-N to use GF relays and (I believe) new suits are GF as well, greatly improving constructive bidding relative to EHAA, where a new suit is an escape, to play.

 

You have a good point on 2 bids, but you are really not comparing apples to apples.

 

Peter

[Chamaco]

"Weak 2 bids show 8-12 HCP points.

1 NT shows 10-12 HCP (and often includes 5332 hands)

 

Switching 1NT to a 12-14 HCP range will decrease the definition of the 2 level openings."

 

Only if you open 5332s at the two level. My understanding is that F-N do not.

That was my point.

Note that FN will often open 1NT also with any 5422 with a scattered 12-14 count.

 

One can decide to loosen up a bit the requirements for the 2 level openers according to style and priorities (e.g. opening lighter but more often, with 8-9 count, you pay ur price inn cosntructive bidding, you win when you preempt more often), but my understanding is that 12-14 1NT opener fits better with the scheme EXACTLY because it helps defining better 2-level openers.

 

I like the idea that the unbalanced 2-level opener in 1st/2nd seat should guarantee 8.5-6.5 losers, independently of hcp.

[Flame]

I agree with david, i dont think passing the opening is very important, im not saying transfers openings are bad, for example it really nice when the opener show his hand and not becoming a declarer in moscito like system, but the price of not being able to pass is nothing you can ignore. FN are great but bocci doubin arent far behind, and you can see they changed their 1c from 100% forcing to not 100% forcing , they now only responde with 3 hcp i think. Personnaly i never liked the forcing openings, and when i thought of system i always tried to avoid them.