Transfers after partner doubles 1NT

[pstansbu]

Partner suggested the use of a type of exit transfer in the case of:

 

(1NT) - X - (pass) - ?

 

If you are very weak and want to pull the double you want the much stronger hand to declare:

• 
   
  
• 2♣ = transfer to ♦ 5+
  
• 2♦ = transfer to ♥ 5+
  
• etc.
  

Clearly you can't redouble so lose the chance of bidding a long club suit, but gain from transferring in other 3 suits.

 

Another player chipped in to say they'd seen Mike Lawrence suggest Stayman and Jacoby style transfers in this position. This was in his book of balancing bids so came as a very small section with no rationale or commentary on why the focus on Majors.

 

Any thoughts on the merits (or otherwise) of these? Majority of opponents play 12-14 NT btw.

[ggwhiz]

 

Another player chipped in to say they'd seen Mike Lawrence suggest Stayman and Jacoby style transfers in this position. This was in his book of balancing bids so came as a very small section with no rationale or commentary on why the focus on Majors.

 

Any thoughts on the merits (or otherwise) of these? Majority of opponents play 12-14 NT btw.

 

I play this but our double of a 12-14 notrump shows (loosely) a 14+-17 balanced hand as opposed to a wide ranging "penalty" double.

 

We add 2♠ = clubs, 2nt = minors and 3♣ = diamonds and so have to go to the 3 level in either minor suit.

 

Just for memory load and to gain experience with it when we started, we play the same thing for a direct overcall of any range 1nt opener and kept it when it seemed to work as well as anything, especially if you have a 2 bid or 2 suited hand against a weak notrump.

[helene_t]

I think this is a terrible idea. you absolutely need to be able to play 2c.

 

Transfers are useful when responder can be strong. you first transfer and then bid no trumps or a new suit. that way you avoid having to jump to show strength.

 

but here advancer can't be strong as he would have left the double with a strong hand. so there is no reason to play transfers

[mycroft]

This is a fairly common assumed agreement in my area. I mostly run into it as a director after 1NT-X-p-2♥; p-2♠-p-indignant 3♥ (the alternative, 1NT-X-p-2♦; AP in the 3-2 fit doesn't usually result in a director call). That should give you a good idea of what I think is the biggest problem with this treatment.

 

I will not play this; I don't run from 1NT-X without a bad hand and a place to play (2NT being an exception: "I don't think we're getting 1NTx enough, pard") so I want to be able to run out into all 4 suits. Also note that as a weak NTer, I'm almost always happy when the opponents rescue me from 1NTx, even if they're right; 1NT is frequently a better preempt than a weak 2, and I'm always happy when the opponents rescue me from my weak 2s as well.

 

Sure there's an advantage to having the strong hand concealed; there's also an advantage to having the strong hand on opening lead. There's also an advantage to being able to play 2♣, possibly doubled, rather than 3♣, more likely doubled.

 

I frequently couch my opinion more colourfully (I think Helene has quoted me effectively).

[WellSpyder]

I would rather have the 1NT opening bidder on lead than his partner.

[barmar]

I would rather have the 1NT opening bidder on lead than his partner.

I've heard people suggest using transfers when the doubler is in the balancing seat, for precisely that reason.

[SteveMoe]

Nope

See

Taming the Weak NT Part 1

Taming the Weak NT Part 2

[pstansbu]

Thanks for all the input, I think I'll talk partner out of this :)

[nullve]

you absolutely need to be able to play 2c.

It doesn't follow that 2♣ has to show clubs.

[helene_t]

It doesn't follow that 2♣ has to show clubs.

Huh? How are you going to reach 2♣ otherwise? Make an insuficient bid, get the director tell you that partner is bared, and then bid 2♣?

 

You are probably thinking of the auction where opponents double our 1NT. There you can play rdbl as a pubbet to 2♣. But the auction we are discussing in this thread is where partner doubles there 1NT.

[nullve]

How are you going to reach 2♣ otherwise?

Via the same sequence,

 

(1N)-X-(P)-2♣; (P)-P,

 

e.g. if 2♣ is something artificial and Overcaller has long clubs.

[barmar]

Via the same sequence,

 

(1N)-X-(P)-2♣; (P)-P,

 

e.g. if 2♣ is something artificial and Overcaller has long clubs.

The question is how to get to 2♣ when Advancer has long clubs. If 2♣ is artificial, Doubler can't pass it.

[nullve]

The question is how to get to 2♣ when Advancer has long clubs. If 2♣ is artificial, Doubler can't pass it.

Ok, I wasn't reading between the lines.

 

Still, it's not obvious to me that if the goal is to be able to play 2♣ as often as possible when it's right, then 2♣ should promise (4+? 5+? 6+?) clubs. Even 2♣ as a scramble with 3+ C (allowing partner to pass with 4+ C) might be better.

[helene_t]

Ok, I wasn't reading between the lines.

 

Still, it's not obvious to me that if the goal is to be able to play 2♣ as often as possible when it's right, then 2♣ should promise (4+? 5+? 6+?) clubs. Even 2♣ as a scramble with 3+ C (allowing partner to pass with 4+ C) might be better.

That is possible. It doesn't make transfers any better, though, to play 2♣ this way, as you lose the option to play 2♦ then.

[mycroft]

The question is how to get to 2♣ when Advancer has long clubs. If 2♣ is artificial, Doubler can't pass it.

xx xx xx AKQJTxx. No?

 

I remember one Penticton, I get called to the table, it's gone 1NT-2♣ (Alert, asked and explained "Cappelletti" (ART, single-suit)) -AP. Indignantly, before the opening lead, I am asked if in Cappelletti, 2♣ doesn't force 2♦ so opener can show her hand? "Yes", I reply, "but you are allowed to make any legal call you wish, even if it violates system. Your lead. I think..." opening lead, "you might find...", dummy starts putting down trump, "there are a lot of clubs on dummy", dummy finishes tabling ♣AQJxxxx. Flight A, you'd think he'd seen that before.

[barmar]

xx xx xx AKQJTxx. No?

What's the chance that doubler will have that hand if advancer's suit is clubs? Would anyone really make a penalty double with that hand in the first place?

[mycroft]

Well, yes, but you did ask how opener could pass an artificial 2♣ call.

 

And yes, I had exactly that against one of the best players in the city (country?) - but he had spades, not clubs. 1NTxx-1 after the fourth-best J lead. We could take 10 of the last 6 tricks.

[barmar]

Well, yes, but you did ask how opener could pass an artificial 2♣ call.

Sorry, I didn't realize that every post has to restate the context we're talking about.

 

The point is that if 2♣ is artificial, there's no way for advancer to make a bid that he knows will get them to 2♣. If it's artificial, it doesn't show clubs, so it would take extremely luck for doubler to have a hand that would choose to pass it.

[mycroft]

True, true. Sorry to be obtuse. I thought I was admitting to that the last time, sorry to confuse.

[helene_t]

Via the same sequence,

 

(1N)-X-(P)-2♣; (P)-P,

 

e.g. if 2♣ is something artificial and Overcaller has long clubs.

Yes but the OP obviously had a penalty double, which is usually a balanced hand, in mind.

[akwoo]

Against a 12-14 1N, you have some reasonable chance of game. At IMPs, I think you should play systems on, as if doubler had opened a 15-17 1N. It's worth a somewhat frequent -180 to get a more rare +420/620.

 

If you don't do this, I think it's best to have all bids natural. For one thing, exit transfers and the like give opponents one more chance to bid and ways to show different ranges, et c.

[mycroft]

My biggest issue with this is that, for the rare +X00/+X20 to be right, especially if you are going to pay off to "bad hands with clubs", it *also* has to significantly beat 1NTx-whatever.

 

As I said, I play "all natural", all NT ranges, all seats - but 2NT says "Partner, I don't think we're getting enough out of 1NTx to make up for our game". But I have to have a reason to pull 1NTx, not a reason to pass. Yes, it's clunky, and sometimes hard to find the *right* game, but as you said, it's rare, and I don't have to sit for -180 (or -2 or -380, either) with a bad hand and diamonds.