A new TRANSFER style responses to the strong 2C opening

[hylins]

For the responses to the strong 2C opening, lots of people use natural responses which often results in the weaker hand (the responder) being the declarer.

To fix this problem, people use 2D as a waiting bid. However, it wastes a bidding without revealing any information about the responder’s holding.

 

To solve the above two problems, I like to introduce a new TRANSFER style responses to the strong 2C opening. The responses are described as below.

 

2D 0-3 or bad 4 Hcps, Negative

2H 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Spade

2S 4+ Hcps, GF, balanced hand

2N 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Club

3C 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Diamond

3D 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Heart

 

If the 2C opener agrees the responder’s suit as the trump, he can use the next step bidding to ask the strength and the length of the responder’s suit just like the 6-step Trump asking bid (TAB) in the Precision system. If the opener likes his own suit as the trump, he can do suit Support asking (SAB) by bidding the suit. After the trump related TAB or SAB, the 2C opener can start the Control asking bid (CAB), Cue-bid, RKC, ....

 

With the positive responses (2H and up) requiring only 4+ Hcps, the wide range of the responder’s holding can be a problem. However, this problem can be easily solved by reserving the first step response to TAB or SAB for the 10+ holding,

which is slam going. The other response biddings just follow.

In case of the 10+ holding, the 2C opener just repeats the TAB or SAB again at the lowest available bid.

 

Using this new transfer asking approach, the 2C opener will

(1) have control of searching for what are needed in responder’s holding.

(2) have more bidding space to explore responder’s holding.

(3) be able to keep the weaker responder from being the declarer ~90% of the time.

 

 

Example #1: (2S is TAB, 3C is Re-TAB)

 

2C 2H (4+, 5+ Spades)

2S 2NT (10+, 1st step)

3C 3NT (10+, 6 Spades with 1 of AKQ, 4th step)

...

 

 

Example #2: (2S is TAB)

 

2C 2H (4+, 5+ Spades)

2S 3H (4+, 5 Spades with 2 of AKQ, 4th step)

...

 

 

Example #3: (2N is 22-24 balanced)

 

2C 2S (4+, Balanced)

2N 3C (the responder becomes captain, searching for 4-4 fit), or ?NT (depends on the strength)

...

 

 

Example #4: (3H is SAB)

 

2C 2S (4+, Balanced)

3H ?? (depends on what the responder has)

...

[johnu]

For the responses to the strong 2C opening, lots of people use natural responses which often results in the weaker hand (the responder) being the declarer.

To fix this problem, people use 2D as a waiting bid.

While natural responses may wrong side the contract, by far the biggest reason for using 2♦ as a waiting bid is so opener has maximum room to describe their hand.

[nullve]

The 2♣ opening is for all practical purposes not just limited but has, for each unbalanced shape, a quite narrow range. Let me illustrate this by using the Dealer script

 

shape(north,1534) and hcp(north)>21
produce 100
action frequency (hcp(north),22,33)

at

 

http://dealergib1.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php

 

to generate 100 hands where the 2♣ Opener (sitting North) has 1534 shape and at least 22 hcp (hands with 11-21 hcp can open 1♥ instead). Here's the result of one (hopefully fairly typical) run:

 

Frequency :
  22	      56
  23	      24
  24	      11
  25	       6
  26	       2
  27	       1
  28	       0
  29	       0
  30	       0
  31	       0
  32	       0
  33	       0
Generated 4931460 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1599464059
Time needed    5.339 sec

So, suppose Responder is able to find out (via relays, say) that partner (who has already opened 2♣) has 1534 shape. Then he can quite safely assume that Opener's range is something like 22-25 even though it's strictly 22-33 (with A-AKQJx-AKQ-AKQJ being the best hand possible).

 

Something similar is true for all other shapes. So why waste precious bidding space on describing Responder's range?

 

Now compare your positive response structure with a typical rebid structure over 2♣-2♦(waiting),

 

2♥ = "5+ H, unBAL" / 25+ BAL

...2♠ = waiting

......2N = 25+ BAL

......3♣+ = "5+ H, unBAL"

2♠ = "5+ S, unBAL"

...2N = waiting

2N = 22-24 BAL

3♣ = "5+ C, unBAL"

3♦+ = "5+ D, unBAL".

 

As you can see, contracts tend to be played by the strong hand here is well.

 

If what I said is correct, then Opener's range is (for all practical purposes) more narrowly defined here than Responder's range is in your structure.

 

There is more room available here for describing Opener's unbalanced shape than there is for describing Responder's unbalanced shape in your structure.

 

Since 2♣-2♠; 2N = 22-24 BAL (and not just a relay asking about Responder's shape only) in your structure, you don't have more room available to describe balanced shapes, either.

[FelicityR]

For the responses to the strong 2C opening, lots of people use natural responses which often results in the weaker hand (the responder) being the declarer.

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

I personally find the 2♦ waiting bid a real dog's dinner of a bid in response to a 2♣ opener, although as johnu rightly says it does provide extra space for opener to describe their hand. However, it'll be interesting to know the percentage of hands where responder actually has a positive response to a 2♣ bid?

 

Yes, I would always want the stronger hand to be declarer, but with many 2♣ hands it's not so much what opener has but what small amounts that responder has after a 2♦ negative or waiting response that will make the difference between finding the right game or slam.

 

Whilst I have played Precision myself, and like the idea of trump-asking, suit-asking and control bids after a positive response by responder, there's far more opportunity to use these bids after a 1♣ Precision opener.

 

However, I have always believed there is plenty of improvement needed in the structure of responses after a 2♣ opener. So what you are proposing is a welcome addition but as nullve has kindly indicated with his hand generator, defining opener's hand is more important than concentrating specifically on responder's hand. I have always believed that, for the most part (although there are exceptions to this rule) that the stronger hand should primarily be in control of the 2♣ auction.

[nullve]

I have always believed that, for the most part (although there are exceptions to this rule) that the stronger hand should primarily be in control of the 2♣ auction.

Well, we would want the stronger and less known hand to become declarer. So that's one argument for transfer positives (and against a near-mandatory 2♦ response :().

[Vampyr]

Well, we would want the stronger and less known hand to become declarer. So that's one argument for transfer positives (and against a near-mandatory 2♦ response :().

 

We play Kokish, so we have negative instead of positive suit responses (negative meaning to play opposite opener’s balanced 20-22-, the most likely case). We also have transfers after the 2♠ enquiry. Of course, the disadvantage of Kokishk is that who will play which strains is already set at the beginning of the auction.

[Zelandakh]

You can get a lot of the perks of both methods by combining ideas, for example:

 

2♣

==

2♦ = positive or (semi-)balanced semi-positive

2♥ = double negative

2♠ = 5+ spades, semi-positive

2NT = 5+ clubs, semi-positive

3♣ = 5+ diamonds, semi-positive

3♦ = 5+ hearts, semi-positive

 

or

 

2♣

==

2♦ = semi-positive or (semi-)balanced positive

2♥ = double negative

2♠ = 5+ spades, positive

2NT = 5+ clubs, positive

3♣ = 5+ diamonds, positive

3♦ = 5+ hearts, positive

 

I have played a few different transfer methods. My experience with them makes it clear that including a transfer for balanced hands rather than relaying with these is sub-optimal. So you can immediately improve your (OP) structure by switching the 2♥ and 2♠ responses, and even more so by rotating the 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ responses so that 2♦ is bal SP+, 2♥ DN and 2♠ nat SP+. In any case, you should be aware that the idea is not new, it is just usually implemented in a better structure.

[hylins]

While natural responses may wrong side the contract, by far the biggest reason for using 2♦ as a waiting bid is so opener has maximum room to describe their hand.

For a strong 2C opening, most likely, the final contract will be decided by the opener especially when he holds unbalanced hand.

He knows exactly what are needed from his partner, not the other way around.

 

This transfer style responses can reveal the responder's hand at the first response bidding

while having the maximum bidding space for the 2C opener to explore further.

[hylins]

You can get a lot of the perks of both methods by combining ideas, for example:

 

2♣

==

2♦ = positive or (semi-)balanced semi-positive

2♥ = double negative

2♠ = 5+ spades, semi-positive

2NT = 5+ clubs, semi-positive

3♣ = 5+ diamonds, semi-positive

3♦ = 5+ hearts, semi-positive

 

or

 

2♣

==

2♦ = semi-positive or (semi-)balanced positive

2♥ = double negative

2♠ = 5+ spades, positive

2NT = 5+ clubs, positive

3♣ = 5+ diamonds, positive

3♦ = 5+ hearts, positive

 

I have played a few different transfer methods. My experience with them makes it clear that including a transfer for balanced hands rather than relaying with these is sub-optimal. So you can immediately improve your (OP) structure by switching the 2♥ and 2♠ responses, and even more so by rotating the 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ responses so that 2♦ is bal SP+, 2♥ DN and 2♠ nat SP+. In any case, you should be aware that the idea is not new, it is just usually implemented in a better structure.

The major disadvantage of playing 2H as double negative is when the opener bid 3H with his 5+ card H suit.

Is this 3H bid forcing?

 

if yes, the responder will have to bid something higher and may be the declarer when the final contract is in H or the suit he bids.

if not, the responder will have to play 3H even when he is short in H.

[nige1]

For the responses to the strong 2C opening, lots of people use natural responses which often results in the weaker hand (the responder) being the declarer.

To fix this problem, people use 2D as a waiting bid. However, it wastes a bidding without revealing any information about the responder's holding.

To solve the above two problems, I like to introduce a new TRANSFER style responses to the strong 2C opening. The responses are described as below.

 

2D 0-3 or bad 4 Hcps, Negative

2H 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Spade

2S 4+ Hcps, GF, balanced hand

2N 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Club

3C 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Diamond

3D 4+ Hcps, GF, 5+ card Heart

 

If the 2C opener agrees the responder's suit as the trump, he can use the next step bidding to ask the strength and the length of the responder's suit just like the 6-step Trump asking bid (TAB) in the Precision system. If the opener likes his own suit as the trump, he can do suit Support asking (SAB) by bidding the suit. After the trump related TAB or SAB, the 2C opener can start the Control asking bid (CAB), Cue-bid, RKC, ....

 

With the positive responses (2H and up) requiring only 4+ Hcps, the wide range of the responder's holding can be a problem. However, this problem can be easily solved by reserving the first step response to TAB or SAB for the 10+ holding, which is slam going. The other response biddings just follow. In case of the 10+ holding, the 2C opener just repeats the TAB or SAB again at the lowest available bid.

When partner opens 2♣, then transfers seem a good idea. IMO, however, ...

• 2N reply = TRF to ♣s wrong-sides too many contracts. IMO it should show a strong balanced hand with tenaces.
• 2♥/2♠/3♣/3♦ = TRF is OK but should show 6+ card suits, quite likely to become trumps, because, often opener will have a strong suit that he would like to show at a low level. Hence ...
• 2♦ = Catchall should be a frequent bid. If the 2♣ opener can bid notrump first, then Muppet will right-side most major contracts.

[hylins]

The 2♣ opening is for all practical purposes not just limited but has, for each unbalanced shape, a quite narrow range. Let me illustrate this by using the Dealer script

 

shape(north,1534) and hcp(north)>21
produce 100
action frequency (hcp(north),22,33)

at

 

http://dealergib1.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php

 

to generate 100 hands where the 2♣ Opener (sitting North) has 1534 shape and at least 22 hcp (hands with 11-21 hcp can open 1♥ instead). Here's the result of one (hopefully fairly typical) run:

 

Frequency :
  22	      56
  23	      24
  24	      11
  25	       6
  26	       2
  27	       1
  28	       0
  29	       0
  30	       0
  31	       0
  32	       0
  33	       0
Generated 4931460 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1599464059
Time needed    5.339 sec

So, suppose Responder is able to find out (via relays, say) that partner (who has already opened 2♣) has 1534 shape. Then he can quite safely assume that Opener's range is something like 22-25 even though it's strictly 22-33 (with A-AKQJx-AKQ-AKQJ being the best hand possible).

 

Something similar is true for all other shapes. So why waste precious bidding space on describing Responder's range?

 

Now compare your positive response structure with a typical rebid structure over 2♣-2♦(waiting),

 

2♥ = "5+ H, unBAL" / 25+ BAL

...2♠ = waiting

......2N = 25+ BAL

......3♣+ = "5+ H, unBAL"

2♠ = "5+ S, unBAL"

...2N = waiting

2N = 22-24 BAL

3♣ = "5+ C, unBAL"

3♦+ = "5+ D, unBAL".

 

As you can see, contracts tend to be played by the strong hand here is well.

 

If what I said is correct, then Opener's range is (for all practical purposes) more narrowly defined here than Responder's range is in your structure.

 

There is more room available here for describing Opener's unbalanced shape than there is for describing Responder's unbalanced shape in your structure.

 

Since 2♣-2♠; 2N = 22-24 BAL (and not just a relay asking about Responder's shape only) in your structure, you don't have more room available to describe balanced shapes, either.

 

"Since 2♣-2♠; 2N = 22-24 BAL (and not just a relay asking about Responder's shape only) in your structure, you don't have more room available to describe balanced shapes, either."

 

In the case of 2C-2S-2N, both the responder and the opener show balanced hand. It is up to the responder to decide what level the contract will be and if 4-4 fit is to be explored for the Game or slam. It is just like the 1NT opener's partner is the captain for the final contract.

[Zelandakh]

The major disadvantage of playing 2H as double negative is when the opener bid 3H with his 5+ card H suit.

Is this 3H bid forcing?

In the UK it is not too common to include Acol 2s within a strong(est) 2♣ opening so this is simply not a question. Those pairs that do do this will often play 2♥ as a ParadoX response, meaning that Opener should pass with an Acol 2 in hearts and only bid 3♥ with a GF hand. If you do this and also want to include Acol 2 spade openings then you either need to go the whole hog on ParadoX or, more commonly, include weak hands with enough heart support to play game opposite an Acol 2 in hearts in the relay. Of course, if you are including these hands your structure seems to commit to game opposite an Acol 2 in spades with 4+hcp and 5+ hearts. I think I would prefer to force that hand to respond 1NT to a 1♠ opening than work out all of the various disadvantages that follow on from this part of your 2♣ structure.

[cleveritis]

I like 2H as exactly medium strength - 4-7...

2D is either weak 0-4 or 9+

2N is a 6 or 7 card suit and out... Q9xxxxx

 

The advantage is that the limit of the hand is known quickly... Generally a 2c opener is balanced or NOT super interested in partners KQxxx - (at least not right away)

 

The 2H bid says right away that slam will likely depend on source of tricks or fit - and NOT opposite 23-4 although can raise 2N to 4N with max

Assume 2D negative until otherwise informed. 2c 2D 2N non forcing... 2D and then encouraging moves are pretty close to slam drives..

[pilowsky]

Is it possible to know from the simulations how valuable it is for either hand to be playing?

I know that an enormous amount of energy is consumed with this problem and that it is generally given as axiomatic.

The problem that I have with 2♣ is that it is so easy to interfere with - I almost always throw in a bid even if I have 0-5 HCP at any vulnerability. - same goes against Precision players.

If people are playing Benji 2's, (or Benjaminised Acol - I think - I've never tried it) the situation can be even more precarious because openers HCP may be quite low for 2♣.

I do know that the frequency with which 2♣ hands arises is rather small, so for my money, I would rather keep 2♦ forced relay. That way I can clarify my hand as strong balanced, strong in a major, ♣'s or to the shock of one partner, bid 5♦ making.

[hylins]

The 2♣ opening is for all practical purposes not just limited but has, for each unbalanced shape, a quite narrow range. Let me illustrate this by using the Dealer script

 

shape(north,1534) and hcp(north)>21
produce 100
action frequency (hcp(north),22,33)

at

 

http://dealergib1.bridgebase.com/tools/dealer/dealer.php

 

to generate 100 hands where the 2♣ Opener (sitting North) has 1534 shape and at least 22 hcp (hands with 11-21 hcp can open 1♥ instead). Here's the result of one (hopefully fairly typical) run:

 

Frequency :
  22	      56
  23	      24
  24	      11
  25	       6
  26	       2
  27	       1
  28	       0
  29	       0
  30	       0
  31	       0
  32	       0
  33	       0
Generated 4931460 hands
Produced 100 hands
Initial random seed 1599464059
Time needed    5.339 sec

So, suppose Responder is able to find out (via relays, say) that partner (who has already opened 2♣) has 1534 shape. Then he can quite safely assume that Opener's range is something like 22-25 even though it's strictly 22-33 (with A-AKQJx-AKQ-AKQJ being the best hand possible).

 

Something similar is true for all other shapes. So why waste precious bidding space on describing Responder's range?

 

Now compare your positive response structure with a typical rebid structure over 2♣-2♦(waiting),

 

2♥ = "5+ H, unBAL" / 25+ BAL

...2♠ = waiting

......2N = 25+ BAL

......3♣+ = "5+ H, unBAL"

2♠ = "5+ S, unBAL"

...2N = waiting

2N = 22-24 BAL

3♣ = "5+ C, unBAL"

3♦+ = "5+ D, unBAL".

 

As you can see, contracts tend to be played by the strong hand here is well.

 

If what I said is correct, then Opener's range is (for all practical purposes) more narrowly defined here than Responder's range is in your structure.

 

There is more room available here for describing Opener's unbalanced shape than there is for describing Responder's unbalanced shape in your structure.

 

Since 2♣-2♠; 2N = 22-24 BAL (and not just a relay asking about Responder's shape only) in your structure, you don't have more room available to describe balanced shapes, either.

 

In the new TRANSFER response approach, if you like the responder's suit, you will bid his suit and be the declarer.

If you like your suit better than responder's suit, you will bid your suit and be the declarer too.

 

In the 2D waiting approach, you will be the declarer when you bid your suit.

However, if responder does not like your suit and bids his own suit and you happen to support his suit,

then the responder will be the declarer. That is the difference!!

[nullve]

Is it possible to know from the simulations how valuable it is for either hand to be playing?

Strong hand declares:

hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7
produce 1000
action average tricks(north, hearts)

One run:

10.255
Generated 3740085 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1599551247
Time needed   24.116 sec

Weak hand declares:

hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7
produce 1000
action average tricks(south, hearts)

One run:

10.269
Generated 3762687 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1599551345
Time needed   22.677 sec

 

:unsure:

[nullve]

In the new TRANSFER response approach, if you like the responder's suit, you will bid his suit and be the declarer.

If you like your suit better than responder's suit, you will bid your suit and be the declarer too.

 

In the 2D waiting approach, you will be the declarer when you bid your suit.

However, if responder does not like your suit and bid his own suit and you happen to support his suit,

then the responder will be the declarer. That is the difference!!

But he might be able to show the suit without actually bidding it.

 

For example, instead of

 

2♣-2♦; 3♣-3M = 5+ M (standard)

 

one could play

 

2♣-2♦; 3♣-3M = 5+ OM.

[pilowsky]

Strong hand declares:

hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7
produce 1000
action average tricks(north, hearts)

One run:

10.255
Generated 3740085 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1599551247
Time needed   24.116 sec

Weak hand declares:

hcp(north)>21 and hcp(south)<4 and hearts(north)+hearts(south)>7
produce 1000
action average tricks(south, hearts)

One run:

10.269
Generated 3762687 hands
Produced 1000 hands
Initial random seed 1599551345
Time needed   22.677 sec

 

:unsure:

 

So what you are.saying is

[Kungsgeten]

I've seen several response structures using transfers over a strong 2C opening. I think it is a good idea, if you can remember it.

 

The version I like the most is where the transfers start right away. Here it is common for 2D to be two-way though: either hearts or a "waiting bid" that doesn't want to bid anything else. Example:

 

2C--

2D = 4+ hearts or waiting (not suitable for other bid)

2H = 4+ spades

2S = Minor suit Stayman (weak or slam interest)

2NT = 5-5 majors

3C = 5+C and 4D.

3D = 5+D and 4C.

3M = 5-5 minors and short major.

 

This could be combined with 2C including a "weaker" balanced range (like 20-21 or perhaps even 18-19). Now it would be possible to sign-off in 2M or 3m when responder is very weak.

 

If you prefer the style where 2D is negative I quite like the Carrot Club responses (originally over a strong 1C opening):

 

2C--

2D = Negative, all others positive.

2H = No 5+M, no 6+m, not 5-5 minors.

2S = 5+H.

2NT = 5+S.

3m = 6+m (you could switch these if don't want the risk of responder declaring diamonds).

3M = 5-5 minors, short major.

[Huibertus]

After 2♣ has been opened most frequently the partnership will play openers suit in the opening hand regardless of the response style. The exception being hands too strong for a 1 level opening without a long suit (5431 patterns) that could end up in a 5-3 fit in responders suit, in this case the response style could make a difference. And the other exception being opener having a strong balanced hand and the partnership plays responders suit. In that case yes, transfers may prevent being wrong sided. But the drawback is the unknown suit ends up being dummy and it is always an advantage to have the known hand (pattern/strength) in dummy. That evens out.

 

What is IMHO opinion far more important is to protect constructive bidding by not having an opening that is strong in all cases. If for instance 2♣ is weak in ♦ or strong, opponents cannot preempt after 2♣ as preempting over preempts is bad tactics. So rather then focussing on transfers, protect your partnerships bidding by scrapping the unilaterely strong 2♣ opening. The same comment obviously applies to a strong 1♣ opening that should be protected by adding a weak or mini NT hand into it.

[johnu]

For a strong 2C opening, most likely, the final contract will be decided by the opener especially when he holds unbalanced hand.

He knows exactly what are needed from his partner, not the other way around.

 

This transfer style responses can reveal the responder's hand at the first response bidding

while having the maximum bidding space for the 2C opener to explore further.

The 2♣ bidder frequently has a very good long suit if unbalanced and that suit is more likely to be a good trump suit than the possibly lousy 5 card suit in your transfer system.

 

You only have maximum bidding space if opener has good support for responder's suit. If opener has no good fit, transfers are no better than natural except when responder has hearts, in which case transfers are much worse than natural.

[nige1]

We play Kokish, so we have negative instead of positive suit responses (negative meaning to play opposite opener's balanced 20-22-, the most likely case). We also have transfers after the 2♠ enquiry. Of course, the disadvantage of Kokishk is that who will play which strains is already set at the beginning of the auction.

 

I like a version of Kokish, something like this, redefining the strength of the 2N opener ...

• 2N opener = BAL 22-23.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N = BAL 24+ HCP.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ = PUP to 2♠.: NAT 5+ ♥ or ART BAL 20-21.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ = Normal "Puppet" completion.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2N = ♠ usually weak.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣/3♦/3♥ = NAT weak.

If your 1N opener = BAL 14-16 HCP. then you can subtract a point from those notrump ranges.

[mycroft]

I used to play, years ago, reverse transfers:

• 2♦ waiting, GF
  
• 2♥ immediate double negative
  
• 2♠ *heart* positive
  
• 2NT *spade* positive

Came up once or twice in 15000 hands, not sure if it ever did anything.

 

I agree with most that the balanced hands don't need a special; if it's balanced opposite balanced, Kokish works very well; if it's balanced opposite unbalanced, opener gets to "untransfer" into their suit, and a balanced positive should just be working out 6 or 7, and fit or not, at that point.

 

Definitely not "positive"-ing on any GF is critical. Positives should be unusual enough that your average *unbalanced* 2♣ opener will care more often than not. Anything less than that should sit back and find out which hand opener has and how well they help. I still remember one game where we got to 7♣ after 2♣-3♣. We were the only ones at the 7 level (7NT would have actually been safer, avoiding the potential first round ruff, but we weren't sure of the 13th top), and we got asked several times how we got there. And after effectively "I showed a club positive, and she keycarded" they asked "how did you know you weren't off a trump trick?" "club positive? Had to be AQxxx at least, probably 6th or jack to not bid 2♦? Doesn't everybody do that?" Guess not.

 

Having said all of that, if the chance of playing the weak hand's suit from the weak hand in 2♣ auctions is even 100th on your list of problems, either you get much better cards than I do, or you open much less disciplined 2♣ than I do, or your system and card play is much tighter than mine will ever get.

[miamijd]

The problem with these sorts of systems is that they solve a problem that doesn't exist with some hands and cause more problems than they solve with others.

 

The 2C opener will almost always have one of two sorts of hands:

 

1. The big, balanced hand

2. A big one-suiter

 

With #1, there is little need for responder to show his suit right away unless he has a very good hand. Indeed, you generally want responder to bid 2D with almost all hands. That way, using Kokish relays, you can describe within one HCP all hands up to 27 HCP, AND you have your system over 2NT available. If responder starts making other bids with tepid hands, your bidding will suffer.

 

If opener has #1, then it's fine for responder not to bid 2D with either an impossibly weak hand (double negative) or else a hand that is likely to produce slam over a 22-23 HCP balanced hand. Otherwise, it's best if he bids 2D.

 

With #2, you will almost always want to play in opener's suit, not responder's suit. If responder starts making these transfer bids, opener is going to have to show his suit on the 3 level, which robs you of vital bidding space.

 

The only time your system can really gain is if opener has a semi-balanced sort of hand with secondary support for responder's suit. These sorts of hands are far less common than #1 or #2.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[hylins]

 

What is IMHO opinion far more important is to protect constructive bidding by not having an opening that is strong in all cases. If for instance 2♣ is weak in ♦ or strong, opponents cannot preempt after 2♣ as preempting over preempts is bad tactics. So rather then focussing on transfers, protect your partnerships bidding by scrapping the unilaterely strong 2♣ opening. The same comment obviously applies to a strong 1♣ opening that should be protected by adding a weak or mini NT hand into it.

 

Your suggestion of not having an opening that is strong in all cases is strategically correct, as the opps have a difficult time to come in.

The approach of adding a weak or mini NT hand into the strong 1C bid has actually been done by the Polish Club's 1C bid

which is either 12-17 with certain type of holding or any 18+ hands.

 

The problem with using the same approach at the higher level 2C bid is that you may have to play 3-level contract too frequently than you normally would.

Of course, one can argue that opps may be robbed with their contract.