[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]

pstansbu, on 2017-January-19, 07:53, said:

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]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-19, 10:45, said:

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]

helene_t, on 2017-January-19, 09:08, said:

you absolutely need to be able to play 2c.

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

[helene_t]

nullve, on 2017-January-21, 05:18, said:

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]

helene_t, on 2017-January-21, 05:59, said:

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]

nullve, on 2017-January-21, 07:07, said:

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]

barmar, on 2017-January-22, 21:56, said:

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]

nullve, on 2017-January-23, 09:22, said:

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]

barmar, on 2017-January-22, 21:56, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2017-January-23, 11:11, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2017-January-23, 15:26, said:

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]

nullve, on 2017-January-21, 07:07, said:

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.