BBO Discussion Forums: weak NT and transfers - BBO Discussion Forums

Following on from the post about where bad players get their ideas and transfers over the weak NT. According to Jacobs, Fantunes play 12-14 NT which may includes 1444 and 5242 distributions. The system is to play transfers. But do they transfer all hands with a 5 card major or are they selective as to suit quality? Clearly Txxxx Kxx Kx QJx may be better off in 1N in the first case but spades will be a somewhat easier contract in the second. Perhaps the database guys can find some examples.

4441 shapes are very low frequency compared with the other shapes that open 1NT, and the deals where partner has a singleton spade will be partly offset by the ones where he has 4-card support and a singleton somewhere else. Hence I wouldn't change the way I bid on partscore deals.

The only thing worse than playing transfers over weak NT is *not* playing transfers over Weak NT.

gnasher, on 2014-July-13, 14:15, said:

14 hcp 4-4-4-1 hands are opened as 1 Club or 1D . So the frequency of 4-4-4-1 hand is diminished even more.
In his excellent boook 'Fantunes revealed' Bill Jacobus explains 1NT-2D-2H as showing less than 4 cards of Hearts . Similarly 1NT-2H-2S according to the book shows less than 4 spades.
Does it mean playing Fantunes one shows what normally would be super accept even with 12 HCP?

zasanya, on 2014-July-14, 09:53, said:

Many people break the transfer with 4 card support not only with a maximum, it's not just them. We break on anything except a 4333 minimum.

The OP will be aware of the book, he does actually play Fantunes in his main partnership (from that book I believe).

Many moons ago, my partner and I played weak NT (13-15). But we also played 2♦ to cover the 4441 hand. Point count was 12-15. 5422 hands were bid naturally. Of course we used 4 suited transfers and 2NT was invitational. Never got into trouble.

gnasher, on 2014-July-13, 14:15, said:

thanks for this thought. And as Zasanya says, you can reduce the 1444 frequency in the opening NT even further by not including the 14 counts and also (as we do) not opening 1444 12 counts. After that, transfer and when its wrong suck it up! As far as breaking transfers goes, it seems to me far more useful to decide on LTT principles rather than point count.

jddons, on 2014-July-15, 03:04, said:

Yes but in the F-N system, all other unbalanced 9-counts are opened in 1/2 seat. When you pass in first seat, partner knows you are 0-11 balanced or 4441, or 0-8 other unbalanced shapes, and that gives him a lot of freedom to preempt. Passing a 4441 12-count might lead to partner preempting in your singleton.

TylerE, on 2014-July-13, 18:21, said:

I suspect you have never played a good non-transfer method. I appreciate that when players far more successful than I play transfers, there is likely to be good reason, but I can assure you that it is possible to play very sound bridge using methods other than transfers over weak 1N opening bids. Ignorance can lead to nice-sounding aphorisms, but not all aphorisms are apt.

Put another way, I'll put myself and a regular non-transferring partnership up against you and any regular partner you choose, and I would give long odds you wouldn't outbid us on weak notrump hands.

mikeh, on 2014-July-15, 09:22, said:

This reminds me of the Burgay challege match, but without the $100000 prize.

PhilKing, on 2014-July-15, 09:33, said:

Hey, no way am I risking real money on any wager

With my luck, I'd find that Tyler's regular partner was Zia or someone like that

Besides, I tend to indulge in hyperbole from time to time: it is one of my favourite recreations.

But, more seriously, there are real theoretical arguments for why transfers may not be the optimal response structure to weak one notrump openings, and while the comparisons are not exactly the same, one might wish to consider why it is that few experts use the same defence to a weak 1N as they do to a strong 1N.

The priorities for both sides are different after a weak 1N than after a strong 1N, so one ought not to blindly accept that a structure that is seen to be optimal over one range would therefore be optimal over the other.

I agree, btw, that transfers are a good method over weak 1N opening bids, and are better than any other simple structure I have seen. Where I differ from Tyler, and (it seems) others on this thread is on the notion that transfers are better than any other possible alternative, and I am convinced they are not. I have previously posted my preferred structure, that incorporates, as its central element, the use of 2♦ as an artificial game force response, with artificial responses, that allow low-level suit establishment and right-sides the majority of high-level contracts, which is non-trivial when the opening hand is likely to be significantly weaker than responder on slam hands (not to mention often concealing the nature and some key features of the declarering hand on occasion).

helene_t, on 2014-July-15, 03:10, said:

.whereas opening 1NT implying tolerance for all four suits is even more likely to persuade partner to compete to this level in his long suit.

Yeah that's a good point

I play variable, 12-14 white or 4th chair. Over weak, I play 2 way Stayman with Texas Xfer and also transfers at the 3 level with interference. I love this system.

I have played it differently with different partners. Certainly the transfer is not as important to "hide" the strong hand with a 12-14 nt. What is important is to use leb, when overcalled and dont runouts when doubled.

When not using transfers you can use 2!C as non forcing staymen and 2D as forcing staymen.

It's a swings and roundabouts situation, weak takeouts make it more awkward for the opposition to compete, but wrongside 2M much of the time.

Also I don't know how MikeH's structure accommodates some sorts of invite like the hands where you would transfer then bid 2N playing standard stuff.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-16, 02:21, said:

Transfers are of course ideal opposite limited balanced hands for constructive purposes.
The main reason is not right-siding, for this you want a big differential between the strength of the two hands, but the fact that you have no need for stop sequences (signoffs) since responder will decide whether to continue or stop and he is the person aware whether this is a partial, game or slam or an invite deal.

So transfer sequences have always an upside in constructive sequences opposite a balanced limited hand.
But the lower the strength of the opening bid goes, the more obstructive considerations gain in relative importance.

2-way stayman will on average not do quite as well as transfers, in constructive sequences, but the difference is small.
For example where you transfer and bid 2NT, with 5 spades you bid 2♣ followed by 2♠ (invitational in my opinion and in fact a slight advantage since you might stop in 2♠).
If you want to invite with hearts you are at a slight disadvantage. You have to decide whether to follow up 2♣ with 3♥ or 2NT if opener does not have four hearts.
Responder will have to use judgement.
If opener accepts over 2NT he can bid 3♥ with 3 hearts (not a signoff) anda suitable hand to cater to this situation.
It is not the end of the world

Rainer Herrmann

Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-16, 02:21, said:

the fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean that the method doesn't cater to this hand-type

mikeh, on 2014-July-16, 07:39, said:

I thought it was clear I was asking how you dealt with it, it's a common enough hand type that you have to be able to. Also if the answer as RHM says is that you bid 2♣-2♦-2♠, how do you deal with 54M and a 5 count ?

rhm said:

and 13 opposite 5 isn't a big differential ? I was talking about the auction 1N-2M end.

1N 2♣ caters to most invitational hand types and to scrambling majors.

if opener has a major, which is a significant possibility, then the auctions are straightforward and I won't elaborate

So assume 2♦ response

Now 2♥ is pass or correct, weakness seeking a resting place. On occasion we play a 4=3 rather than a 5=3, but in practice this doesn't usually represent a loss, and is in any event something that many transfer players have to deal with as well. I don't see this as a flaw, simply an area where all weak notrumpers have risk.

2♠ is a 5 card suit with invitational values. Opener can pass on minimum hands, thus playing the 5-3 at the 2 level when transfer bidders have to choose between 2N and 3♠. This is a gain for my preferred method over transfer bids, tho not a huge factor.

Opener has lots of other options available here, including the rare re-invite or game try at the 3 level.

2N is the tricky one and one where transfer bidders gain an edge. 2N is invitational to 3N, but may hold a 5 card heart suit. Opener is supposed to bid 3♥ 'on the way' to 3N if possessed of a 3 card heart fit.

We sometimes play 2N when the transfer players play 3♥. I don't know, in theory, which is better. While usually the 5-3 fit is safer and often plays for an extra trick, it is a level higher and it is not uncommon to make 8 tricks in both denominations. I'd concede this as a slight flaw.

I think, on the whole, that the flaw in the 5 card heart response structure is offset by the gain in the 5 card spade response structure.

Meanwhile, I am quite comfortable that for slam bidding the 2♦ structure, with artificial responses, is far better than any relatively straightforward transfer based methods, and for game bidding I don't think there is anything to choose between the methods. To the extent that anyone experiences different results in the game area, I would expect those to be random, and mainly influenced by which side is on play....and most of the time, on game hands opposite a weak notrump, responder's hand will be as strong as and often stronger than opener's. Thus, to the very small extent that this plays a role, and I think it to be extremely small, my preferred method rates to show a tiny edge.