Why would you want to play no transfers?
Posted 2012-October-12, 15:10
Why would you not play transfers? Mainly if partner doesn't know how to use them yet. What the bids mean the second round, which are forcing, which are invitational, how to offer choice of games, how to make slam tries, etc.
Posted 2012-October-12, 15:16
Would there be any reason to specifically choose not to play trasnfers as a partnership, despite both partners knowing how to play them?
Posted 2012-October-12, 15:37
The main advantages of not playing transfers are:
- get to play in 2d
- in theory, harder for opps to defend against direct signoffs in partial battles (after xfer, 4th hand can differentiate between direct & delayed action, gaining lots of calls), but in practice I rarely see opps really take advantage of this even when playing weak NT when it's their hand more often.
One might choose/invent some fancy, complicated, non-std, non-SAYC scheme that includes a lot more artificiality, as some posters have described in other threads, to achieve goals of describing certain hand types better and/or concealing opener's shape more often, but that's not really something for the novice/beginner forum. Plus most of these fancy systems include transfers of some sort (sometimes only promising 4 of the major though, not always 5+), so you aren't really getting away from transfers.
Posted 2012-October-12, 16:27
In all fields of endeavour emotion is the arch-enemy of judgement.
Posted 2012-October-12, 16:51
If you are playing in a field in which you and your partner are serious underdogs, you might want to use some anti-field methods.
EDIT: As above -- posts crossed.
Posted 2012-October-12, 17:13
Transfers help when there is a lead advantage (Jacoby/Texas), a bidding accuracy advantage (Jacoby/Texas, transfers over their takeout double or our overcall), or to induce momentary ambiguity while telling partner something important about your hand (Transfer McCabe over Weak-2 - Double auctions).
Posted 2012-October-12, 17:52
It wouldn't take a Simulation effort or much brainwork to figure out that Stayman and transfers will allow us to get to a correct strain and level more often than not using them.
Posted 2012-October-12, 20:46
A number of very strong players play Gladiator style responses to 1NT. Not saying they are better or worse, but they do have some advantages eg
2H = 5+ H invit, pass = min, no support. So you are now playing 2H rather than 2NT
They also add some other responses. eg 1NT 2D 2H 3C/D = to play
Posted 2012-October-14, 00:52
(1) They create a lot more sequences for game and slam hands, because you can transfer and then bid again.
(2) They allow opener (usually the stronger hand) to declare a lot of contracts.
Disadvantages of transfers (ignoring "forget" possibilities):
(1) They make it easier for opponents to get in the bidding (mostly because the person in 4th seat gets two chances).
(2) They allow for lead directing doubles on some auctions that would otherwise be unavailable (double the transfer bid).
(3) They take away your 2♦ bid (which you could otherwise use as "to play" or as a stronger stayman bid).
In general it is probably better to play transfers. However, the advantage is significantly less if you play a weaker notrump opening (like 12-14 or even less). This is because you are less likely to be in the game/slam range (advantage 1 is less), opener is less likely to have the much stronger hand (advantage 2 is less), and it's more likely that opponents will be in the bidding (disadvantage 1 is more severe). Even so, more than half the pairs I see playing weak notrump are playing transfers too.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
Posted 2012-October-14, 06:09
in america the people playing weak no trump are doing so because they've thought about its tactical consequences. in uk most of the people playing weak no trump are doing so because that's what they learned and they've no idea what the tactical considerations are.
Posted 2012-October-14, 06:50
Posted 2012-October-14, 06:53
Posted 2012-October-14, 13:31
So few? I know of one regularish pair who play something other than Stayman (and they might, for all I know, play transfers) and one occasional pair who play Stayman and weak takeouts (I am half of this pair; but I think we play strong NT).
Posted 2012-October-14, 20:52
Posted 2012-October-16, 09:07
Posted 2012-October-16, 20:36
I'm guessing the people that don't know transfers are the ones that aren't inspired to learn it, the ones that play for fun.
Posted 2012-October-17, 06:56
Of course there may be other reasons but I don't see them much in practice.