[Syl20]

Hi,
Surely already are topics about that but I'm not able to find them.

What do you think of responding with transfers after partner opens 1 major?

The scheme I think of is, over 1♠ opening (from Gestem ideas):

1NT = forcing (as usual except GF with all suits controlled by honours if fitted, i.e, balanced)
2♣ = 6♦ weak or 5♦ unbalanced or fitted GF
2♦ = 6♥ weak or 5♥ GF
2♥ = 6♣ weak or 5♣ unbalanced or fitted GF
2♠ = 6-10S with fit
2NT = 11+S with fit and control by honours of ♦ and ♣ or♥
3♣ = 11+S with fit and control by honours of ♣ and maybe ♥
3♦/♥ = 11+S with fit and control of honour of only ♦/♥
3♠ = preempt
3NT = 4♠ + 5X with high shortage (-> 4♣ relay)
4♣/♦/♥ = 4♠ + 5 ♣/♦/♥ and low shortage

Responder accepts the transfer with 2+ cards or
super accepts with jump with 4 cards and minimum value or
super accepts with 2SA with 3+ cards and maximum or
bids naturally if unbalanced and singleton in transfer suit.

After the transfer accepted, responder passes if weak or bids naturally at the 2 level or keeps transferring from 2NT and above (all new bid sets up GF auction):

For instance:
1♠ 2♣
2♦ ?

2♥ = 5♦+4♥
2♠ = 5♦+2♠ (with High honour) looking between 3NT and 4♠
2NT = 5♦+4♣
3♣ = 6♦
3♥ = fit transfer: 5♦ + xxx at ♠ (small fit)
3♠ = transfer to 3NT
3NT = xxx at ♠, 5♦ balanced
4♣/♦/♥ = xxx at ♠, 5♦ and singleton ♣/♦/♥

I see many advantages and not many drawbacks (that I am asking to you ):
- ability to play in responder's long suit when weak
- ability to differentiate trump support
- hides opener's hand since he will probably be declarer
- after bids of 2NT/3♣/♦/♥, responder's bid of a suit he doesn't control by honour means he's singleton or void.

Any comment welcome,

[awm]

This is certainly a reasonable idea (and I've seen people use some variant on it before). In fact Garozzo includes 2♦ showing hearts (weak or strong) over 1♠ in some of his systems.

The main issue with this type of bidding is what happens when opener rejects the transfer. In particular:

(1) Can opener reject the transfer with a shapely minimum (say 5-5 or 6-5 with a void in the suit transferred to)? If so, how do you distinguish this hand from one that rejects the transfer because of extra values? If not, you may end in some rather silly contracts from time to time.

(2) What are the followups in general after opener rejects the transfer? How does responder distinguish a good hand from a bad one, now that the bad hand can no longer pass the accepted transfer?

(3) Perhaps a minor issue: how does responder show a game forcing hand after 1NT and opener's rebid?

These are not "unsolvable" issues by any means, and it's quite possible that you can resolve them in some way and still have a structure that is overall better than more standard methods. But it's not as straightforward as it may appear on the surface.

[hrothgar]

Couple other comments: From my perspective, you can't really comment on transfer responses over 1M openings without first considering the nature of the opening bid.

Case in point: There are a number of light opening systems like Magic Diamond that use transfer response structures over an 1M opening that shows ~ 9-12 HCP. Playing these systems the transfer is largely intended to allow the partnership to drop dead at the two level opposite the light opening bid. This is all fine and dandy. You can have some quite interesting discussions whether this approach is better/worse or just different from a relay based approach.

In contrast, as a number of other folks have noted, there are a number of 2/1 variants that use one (or more) transfers after a 1M opening. 1♠ - 2♥ = Hearts seems particularly popular. Here you have a different opening style and quite different response structures over the transfer.

From my perspective, I've never liked transfer when I anticipate competitive auctions. I suspect (but can't prove) that the benefits of transfers increase as the strength of the 1M opening increases.

[Double !]

hrothgar, on Apr 20 2006, 01:45 PM, said:

From my perspective, I've never liked transfer when I anticipate competitive auctions.

I agree with this. In assessing a method i believe that it is important to look at the effects of simple every day competitve bidding as well as (especially) the effects that pre-emption can have.

Personally, I would regret losing a 2C response which I am interested in using for a different purpose. In addition, one doesn't need the transfer in such a situation to ensure that responder gets another bid. The only advantage (if it is one) is having both a direct single raise and a transfer raise.

Give it a try. One can theorize until the cows come home. What matters is how something works in real life. Go for it.

DHL

[P_Marlowe]

Syl20, on Apr 20 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

I see many advantages and not many drawbacks (that I am asking to you  ):
- ability to play in responder's long suit when weak
- ability to differentiate trump support
- hides opener's hand since he will probably be declarer
- after bids of 2NT/3♣/♦/♥, responder's bid of a suit he doesn't control by honour means he's singleton or void.

Any comment welcome,

Hi,

I will assume a mayor suit opening is not limited
via a strong 1C opener.

Regarding your adv.:
-Playing in repsonders long suit when weak, is
possible, if you play 1NT forcing, ... it maybe
on the 3 level
-Using forcing 1NT you differentiate also easily
the trump support
-your structure makes opener "captain", which
will work ok, as long as you open sound, if you
open light, you will often have a situation, that
opener better describes
-A similar effect can be achieved, if you agree,
that your first cue shows an top honour

(Minor) drawbacks:
Responder has no way to bid inv. hand with a
long suit, i.e. you may often get to high, playing
IMP, this should be ok, but MP may be different

Intervention by an oponents holding 4-4 via a
double is easier, and a lot less riskier

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Syl20]

Thanks all for comments.
I forgot to mention that the one major opener is unlimited.

To Marlowe: with 6 carder weak, suit will be played at the 2 level except with ♣ since responder transfers in his suit).

An additionnal interesting point I didn't insist on is the following (still from Gesthem's ideas):

after 1♠ 2NT (fit either invitationnal 11-12S or GF with control by honours in ♦ and either ♣ or ♥ - and maybe trump).

3♠ shows minimal opening,
4♠ is concluding
3♣ shows interest with less than 3 Aces (or less than 2 Aces and a void)
3♦ shows interest with 3+ Aces or 2 Aces + a void

Therefore, after 1♠ 2NT 3♣, a strong responder without Ace concludes since two Aces are missing.
Thus, all rebids but 4♠ shows at least one ace:
3♦ = Honnor control in ♣ and ♦ (all other bids show Honour control of red suits)
3♠ = Hon reds + 2Aces (all other bids thus show 1 Ace exactly)
3NT = Hon reds + 1 Ace + nice trump suit (2 H or KJxx)
4♣ = Hon reds + 1 Ace, short ♣
4♦/♥ = Hon reds + 1 Ace, 4 nice ♦/♥ (with 5 nice ♦/♥ would begin with a transfer)

After 1♠ 2NT 3♣ 3♦, 3♥ is a relay with scheme as after direct 3♠+.

Now, after 1♠ 2NT 3♦,
3♥ shows one Ace (all other bids show 0 Ace), 3♠ relay
3♠ 0 Ace, Hon control of ♣+♦
3NT to 4♥ = 0 Ace, Hon reds such as after 1♠ 2NT 3♣

One exemple:
Axxxx
Ax
Ax
KQxx

KQJx
xx
Kxxx
Axx

1♠ 2NT
3♦ 3♥
3♠ 3NT
4♣ 4♠
6♠

3♥ confirms ♦ control and shows one Ace (minimum, responder would conclude to 4♠)
Opener therefore knows partner has ♣A with hon control of ♦ (obvioulsy the King) and nice trumps (HHx(x) or KJxx)
4♣ is a relay (hoping to hear 4♥ to show a singleton) which is not the case.
4♦ by responder would show the ♦Q in addition.

Résumé (to understand the fun)
1♠ 2NT
3♦ 3♥
3♠ 4♣ shows:

1) short ♣ with the ♥A
2) ♣K with Ace of ♦ or ♠
3) 4 nice ♣ with ♣A

Funny !