[mike777]

I am finally ready to add transfers over one club openings. However, the options feel overwhelming. Any recommendations or links to prior ideas, appreciated.
The basic framework is: 2/1, 5 card majors, strong NT, one club=2+ (clubs or balanced), one diamond=5+ and unbalanced.
Thank you in advance.

[DavidKok]

Here are some relatively simple and well documented suggestions. I think these are not best, but they improve on 'standard' in simple and obvious ways with limited downside. It's therefore comparatively easy to switch over.

• T-Walsh - there was discussion on style in both this thread (despite it explicitly mentioning not using T-Walsh) and your previous unbalanced diamond thread. I've also seen Michael Goetze's T-Walsh be linked frequently, though I think it's not the best starting point.
  
• Unbalanced diamond, transfer rebids after 1♦-1M is straightforward. In the previous threads I mentioned my own preference, which differs from these transfer rebids.

[mw64ahw]

I play 2 very different versions of TW

The first version uses 1♣ - 1♠ as GI/GF with opener then shaping out. 2M are always promised unless long Clubs. This approach established strength early.

I also play a version which plays transfers/relays up the line, with strength usually determined later. It also uses 1C-1S & 1C-1D-1H-1S to show certain types of hand.

I have tested a number of approaches given this is the most frequent bid. I do have a preference for a 3+ unbalanced ♦ given this almost guarantees 2M in the 1♣ opening and reduces overloading in that bid.

Happy to share notes on these.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 03:18, said:

I am finally ready to add transfers over one club openings. However, the options feel overwhelming. Any recommendations or links to prior ideas, appreciated.
The basic framework is: 2/1, 5 card majors, strong NT, one club=2+ (clubs or balanced), one diamond=5+ and unbalanced.
Thank you in advance.

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2025-November-22, 17:32, said:

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

[mw64ahw]

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 17:59, said:

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

It's easier to play one system rather than two.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-November-22, 17:32, said:

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

For me 1♦ is 5(+) unless 4=4=4=1 or 1=4=4=4 (open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣ over 1♠), and never balanced (not 5♦332).

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 17:59, said:

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

I think these are complications that might be slightly better than the alternative but might also be slightly worse. I would not include them in your system. It rarely comes up and likely won't matter when it comes up. Spend your time and effort somewhere else, and if you notice that this is a system gap during play only bring it up after.

[mw64ahw]

2♦ as 4441 10~16?

[mike777]

Thank you so much for all the responses. Very helpful, extremely so.

I am really looking hard at my options for transfers over one club. Of course, whatever we adopt, no doubt, will change as we practice it.

I already notice a few issues with the follow up auctions to one diamond openings in our practice deals. Particularly the transfer rebids by opener when stronger and long D.

Mw64ahw ty for your kind offer to look at your notes. I would love to. One concern is decoding your codes.

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2025-November-23, 05:46, said:

I already notice a few issues with the follow up auctions to one diamond openings in our practice deals. Particularly the transfer rebids by opener when stronger and long D.

On 1♦-1M you can rebid 2♣ and then bid again to show these hands. Alternatively, the jump bids can be allocated to dealing with hands like this. There is a lot of room for customization here, though I've not seen a set of complete notes explaining what goes where. Personally I prefer a Gazzilli approach which uses these sequences differently.

[awm]

I think Mgoetze's structure is a good one (linked above). In general you need to make two decisions about your methods after 1♣:

1. What does accept of the transfer show? I think the better approach is that it shows a weak notrump (with 1NT rebid showing a stronger notrump) but I've also seen people play that it shows exactly three-card support.
2. What does 1♣-Pass-1♠ show? It seems popular to play this as kind of a noise that could be almost any hand without a four-card major, but I believe that the Mgoetze approach (where it shows a specific minor) is better, since it's not unusual for opponents to come in with 2M in fourth chair after this response.

[mw64ahw]

awm, on 2025-November-24, 03:31, said:

I think Mgoetze's structure is a good one (linked above). In general you need to make two decisions about your methods after 1♣:

1. What does accept of the transfer show? I think the better approach is that it shows a weak notrump (with 1NT rebid showing a stronger notrump) but I've also seen people play that it shows exactly three-card support.

Even with 4?, which is what I play so partner can Pass
1♣ - 1R - 2M then shows extras & 3 (unbalanced) or 4

[awm]

mw64ahw, on 2025-November-24, 07:03, said:

Even with 4?, which is what I play so partner can Pass
1♣ - 1R - 2M then shows extras & 3 (unbalanced) or 4

Obviously you can do what you want, but I wouldn't recommend rebidding 1M on four. The issue is that this forces partner to give out some extra information on routine hands, and some sequences also become more awkward because of the four-card support possibility (i.e. partner bids 2-way checkback and 2M shows three so I guess jump to 3M shows four? But now you've lost a whole level, plus given opponents the chance to double checkback for the lead).

[mw64ahw]

I don't think I've encountered an issue yet if both ops have passed. I do end up playing in 1M on occasion with 0+&5. If ops. compete then it's a different story. With x4(50) I can offer the minor or play in NT or show 45xx/55xx The direct raise is 4/3 unbalanced with extras and game orientated hands can enquire further. No need for checkback.

[mikeh]

awm, on 2025-November-25, 03:59, said:

Obviously you can do what you want, but I wouldn't recommend rebidding 1M on four. The issue is that this forces partner to give out some extra information on routine hands, and some sequences also become more awkward because of the four-card support possibility (i.e. partner bids 2-way checkback and 2M shows three so I guess jump to 3M shows four? But now you've lost a whole level, plus given opponents the chance to double checkback for the lead).

Bidding space is a very under-discussed topic, but all good system designers cater to it. Allowing 1C 1R (opener accepts the transfer with 4) seems at first glance to conserve space, but since the 1M acceptance can be 2, 3, or 4 card support, the partnership now needs to waste a round of bidding to clarify the degree of fit. This is a waste of bidding space. In contrast, jumping to 2M with minimum hands with 4 card support preserves the bidding space compared to non transfer schemes while providing often useful information when opener either bids 1M ( the major shown by responder) or bids something else.

Btw, I read the Goetze 1C structure. I like the 1C 1R methods but not the 1S/1N aspects. We play 1S as any of (a) primary diamonds…no major unless game force with longer diamonds, (b) balanced with 5-13 hcp. We play 1C 1N as balanced or semi balanced ( ostensibly 4333/4432/5332 but one can use judgment with say 6 clubs and 6322) over which we play a relay structure. Not recommended for any less than very committed partnerships due to the memory load.

[mw64ahw]

mikeh, on 2025-November-27, 12:00, said:

Bidding space is a very under-discussed topic, but all good system designers cater to it. Allowing 1C 1R (opener accepts the transfer with 4) seems at first glance to conserve space, but since the 1M acceptance can be 2, 3, or 4 card support, the partnership now needs to waste a round of bidding to clarify the degree of fit. This is a waste of bidding space. In contrast, jumping to 2M with minimum hands with 4 card support preserves the bidding space compared to non transfer schemes while providing often useful information when opener either bids 1M ( the major shown by responder) or bids something else.

Btw, I read the Goetze 1C structure. I like the 1C 1R methods but not the 1S/1N aspects. We play 1S as any of (a) primary diamonds…no major unless game force with longer diamonds, (b) balanced with 5-13 hcp. We play 1C 1N as balanced or semi balanced ( ostensibly 4333/4432/5332 but one can use judgment with say 6 clubs and 6322) over which we play a relay structure. Not recommended for any less than very committed partnerships due to the memory load.

The issue I have is 1R can be any strength from 0+ to sub invitational with 5 to GF with 4. I need to be able to distinguish between a simple raise and a raise with extras. Given responder with 0 and 5M opposite a weak NT there is little point in moving higher so I can delay any raise if the ops. are silent. With extras and support I make the immediate raise with responder then able to Pass or enquire further. This way I get to play at a level lower than orherwise.

[mike777]

This is what we are going with for starters with our transfers over one club.
Comments and suggestions welcomed.

1C=2+
RESPONSES

1D=4+H
1H=4+S
1S=6-9 BAL OR DIAMONDS
1N=12-13 BAL, INV.
2C=WEAK RAISE
2D=GF IN CLUBS
2H=REVERSE FLANNERY, 8-11, 5S AND 4H
2S=LIMIT RAISE IN CLUBS
2NT=14-16 BAL, GF
3C=WEAK RAISE IN CLUBS AND SHAPELY
3D, 3H, 3S=SPLINTERS
3NT=17-19 BAL.
4C=LONG HEARTS
4D=LONG SPADES

OPENER REBIDS
ACCEPT TRANSFER=WEAK NT, 2-3 SUPPORT
OTHER SUIT REBIDS, NATURAL 5-4 SHAPE
1NT=17+-19 BAL, ONE NT SYSTEM ON. PUPPET, TRANSFERS, ETC.
2D, 2H, 2S, STRONG REVERSES, NATURAL
2NT=15-17, 6+C, 0-2 CARDS IN YOUR MAJOR.
3C=15-17, 6+C, 3 CARD SUPPORT IN YOUR MAJOR.

NOTES;
RESPONDER DOES NOT HAVE GOOD WAY TO SHOW 10-11 BAL.
WE MAY MISS 4-4 DIAMOND FITS.
XYZ ON

Why these choices for now? We wanted to keep part of our 2/1 system that we are comfortable with.

[DavidKok]

I think this is a solid basis. Some of the choices are not what I'd prefer, but as you mentioned retaining structure from your previous system is valuable and a good idea.
I do think you need to put the 10-11 balanced somewhere. 1♣-2♣ as weak also is an odd choice to me.

Some hands exist that can be stuck and need a smallest lie. I would recommend permitting completing the transfer with some of those, so that the completion becomes the weak NT 2-3 or rare hands that are stuck with similar playing strength.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-28, 01:05, said:

I think this is a solid basis. Some of the choices are not what I'd prefer, but as you mentioned retaining structure from your previous system is valuable and a good idea.
I do think you need to put the 10-11 balanced somewhere. 1♣-2♣ as weak also is an odd choice to me.

Some hands exist that can be stuck and need a smallest lie. I would recommend permitting completing the transfer with some of those, so that the completion becomes the weak NT 2-3 or rare hands that are stuck with similar playing strength.

I'd agree with David on the 1♣-2♣ weak.

Perhaps also think about playing1♣-2♠ as GF/limit raise given you have the 2NT bid available to accept or reject a limit raise.

Also what's the difference between
1♣-2♥ and 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♥. The later may be better especially with 2/3♣ You also have 1♣-1♠-1N/2♣-2♥/2♠ available if you want to start differentiating ranges.

I presume your Weak NT is 11-13 so the balanced 10-11 should only go through 1♠ or be the 1N response. This obviously changes your 2/3N responses.

I don't worry about 4-4 diamond fits as you often want to play in NT anyway.

[mike777]

Ty so much for the feedback

Not sure what to use 1c-2c for, we just always played it as weak. At the moment we don't want to add some sort of deep relay auction for it, however more efficient. Memory overload.



"1♣-2♥ and 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♥. The later may be better especially with 2/3♣ You also have 1♣-1♠-1N/2♣-2♥/2♠ available if you want to start differentiating ranges."


Not sure how best to use these auctions. We do play full XYZ.


As for interference from opponents, excellent suggestions in the expert forum, just way too complicated and memory work, right now.

For now partner prefers to not use transfers over interference and just go the natural, old fashion way for now. However those suggestions are on the to do list, later....