A new TRANSFER style responses to the strong 2C opening

[hylins]

 

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.

 

Indeed, in the transfer response approach, when the response is 3D showing 4+ with 5+ card H, the opener has limit bidding space before going beyond 3NT.

2C 3D

?

However, The opener may be in a better position to make a decision of bidding 3NT or his own suit of 3S/4C/4D

than what the responder can do in the 2D waiting example below.

 

In the 2D waiting approach, when the bidding goes like

2C 2D

3D ?

 

What will the responder bid holding 4-5 hcps, 3415 or 3316?

Should the responder bid 3NT to wrong side the contract before even knowing opener's holding at H and S?

or Should the responder bypass 3NT and bid 4C?

There are always those extreme cases people need to know when using a "system".

 

We all know there is no perfect system as the key constrain is the limited amount of available biddings .

How to come up with a simpler "system" that will cover most of the possible holdings without too much trade-off can be a very good academic research project.

Guess that is one of the reasons why bridge is such a fun game!

[pilowsky]

It is an extremely interesting question.

To me, the key part of the problem is the expression 'wrong-side the contract'.

Jacoby invented transfers - or at least popularised them long before computerised double-dummy analysis became available.

Now, it is possible to ask questions like: Are transfers really necessary? or If so how often? I suspect that the answer would surprise people.

I would really like some suggestions about how to look at this problem. I tried simulating 1NT over a couple of weak 5 card major hands and the advantage of a transfer there, but only present in 2 out of 48 deals.

The sample size was ridiculously small. I was doing it manually.

And then, there is the issue of 'human factors' - and I mean that in the technical sense. Not every partnership is suited to playing at a level that requires very complex transfer systems.

[Zelandakh]

In the 2D waiting approach, when the bidding goes like

2C 2D

3D ?

 

What will the responder bid holding 4-5 hcps, 3415 or 3316?

After 2♣ - 2♦, it is quite common these days to play:-

 

3♦ = (5)6+ diamonds and no 4M (whether it can promise 6 depends on what scheme is being used for both minors)

3♥ = 4 hearts, longer diamonds

3♠ = 4 spades, longer diamonds

[msjennifer]

Sir,

A notable drawback of the transfer system over

openers 2♣ is that one allows an extra bid to opponents namely a DOUBLE to ask for a lead or to show the suit.For example 3♣ doubled asks for a club lead ,or 2♠ doubled to ask for a spade lead in case partner is on lead against a 3nt contract

The PRECISION and SUPER PRECISION systems have a clear advantage over a standard system by keeping the level low.The transfer method takes the bidding too high a level if 2♣ opener has say a ♣suited hand.Of course, its upto everyones liking..Thanks.

[msjennifer]

deleted duplicate.

[DavidKok]

Without commenting on the proposed system as a whole, I wouldn't be particularly worried about lead-directing doubles. Doubling a bid by opponents increases the amount of bidding space, space which comes at a high premium after a strong 2♣ opening. Even with simple agreements on how to use the newly available Pass and XX (such as bidding = as before and promises a guard in their suit, pass = denies a guard, XX = superaccept. Or even pass = extra values, bidding = as before, XX = this is my suit, let's eat the opponents for lunch) I find the double frequently helps me more than it helps opponents.

[aawk]

Trying to let the strong hand playing the contract after a 2♣ means you need a lot agreements.

This means more ways to make mistakes and also bidding space is lost.

So for the first 10 years you play bridge is keep it simple is the best way imo.

 

for example after 2♣ :

 

2♦ = relay no other bid possible or needed

2♥/♠ = 5+ card 5+ HCP (or any agreement you like)

2nt = balanced 5+ HCP (with 5-7 hcp 3nt not possible)

3♣/♦ = 5+ card 5+ HCP (or any agreement you like)

3♥/♠ = solid 6+ card

3nt = balanced 5-7 HCP no aces or kings (on agreement at least 3-3 in majors)

4♣/♦ = slam forcing in ♣/♦ with 7+ card or closed 6 card

[msjennifer]

Without commenting on the proposed system as a whole, I wouldn't be particularly worried about lead-directing doubles. Doubling a bid by opponents increases the amount of bidding space, space which comes at a high premium after a strong 2♣ opening. Even with simple agreements on how to use the newly available Pass and XX (such as bidding = as before and promises a guard in their suit, pass = denies a guard, XX = superaccept. Or even pass = extra values, bidding = as before, XX = this is my suit, let's eat the opponents for lunch) I find the double frequently helps me more than it helps opponents.

Sir,

An expert doubler also keeps in mind that you will have these bids enumerated by you when doubling the transfer bid.He will foresee the danger.

 

 

[msjennifer]

deleted duplicate.

[DavidKok]

Sir,

An expert doubler also keeps in mind that you will have these bids enumerated by you when doubling the transfer bid.He will foresee the danger.

 

You are 100% correct. On some hands doubling will be a good action (despite the increase in bidding space), on others it will be a poor action, and an expert will know the difference. My point is that the former category is infrequent enough that the upside of lead-directing doubles are often overstated, so I would not be particularly worried about them.

[Zelandakh]

You are 100% correct. On some hands doubling will be a good action (despite the increase in bidding space), on others it will be a poor action, and an expert will know the difference. My point is that the former category is infrequent enough that the upside of lead-directing doubles are often overstated, so I would not be particularly worried about them.

More than that, the most common hand type for Opener is big balanced, so instead of 2♣ - 3♦ - (X), it might instead have gone 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♦ - (X), or for a 2♥ transfer to spades, 2♣ - 2♥ - (X) versus 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♥ - (X). This essentially reduces the impact of LDDs even more, particularly on those hands where they are most effective.

[pescetom]

More than that, the most common hand type for Opener is big balanced, so instead of 2♣ - 3♦ - (X), it might instead have gone 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♦ - (X)

What stopped opponent doubling 2♦? :)

[Zelandakh]

What stopped opponent doubling 2♦? :)

I thought of that, which is one reason I also added the spade transfer auction. The assumption was the Doubler was willing to risk it at the 3 level but not the 2 level. If I had only included an auction with 2♦X, it would not only not have illustrated the point being made but also opened up an avenue for criticism of the level being lower.