[Zloty]

Hello,

Is it a transfer for 4 spades? In which case and how many points?
Thans for your replies..
Kind regards.

Zloty

[Walddk]

Yes, 1NT - 4♥ is called Texas and shows 6+ spades and enough for game. I don't want to add hcp, could be anything. The more spades, the weaker it might be.

Some distinguish (slam try or not) between:

1NT - 4♥
4♠

and

1NT - 2♥
2♠ - 4♠

You can control the first auction and let it be sign off or very strong (will bid again). In my second example you may play it as a mild slam try with no shortage. It's all a matter of agreement.

Roland

[Elianna]

Also, many people distinguish using Texas and Jacoby transfers for quantitative and keycard auctions:

1NT-2♥-2♠-4NT = quantitative (inviting to 6♠ or 6NT)

1NT-4♥-4♠-4NT = keycard.

[Double !]

Elianna, on Oct 10 2005, 04:35 PM, said:

Also, many people distinguish using Texas and Jacoby transfers for quantitative and keycard auctions:

1NT-2♥-2♠-4NT = quantitative (inviting to 6♠ or 6NT)

1NT-4♥-4♠-4NT = keycard.

yes

[Free]

You also have south african transfers, where 4M bids are natural and 4m bids are transfers. So it depends on partnership agreements. I prefer it as transfer to ♠, like the people above describe.

[FrancesHinden]

If you are playing with people from other countries, be aware that this is virtually unknown in the UK, where absolutely everybody* plays that 1NT - 4H shows a desire to play in 4H.

What is often, though by no means generally, played here is 1NT-4C a slam try in hearts and 1NT-4D a slam try in spades. Opener 'breaks' with a suitable hand. Of course, this is only played by people who fully understand the merits of 4C being Gerber in response to 1NT.

*I know some clever dick will say they don't. But they are in a tiny minority.

[kenberg]

Jlall, on Oct 10 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 10 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

*I know some clever dick will say they don't.

I lived in the UK for 3 years and I don't play this!

Clever dicks of the world, arise!

[joker_gib]

In France and in Belgium (at least for the french speaking region), the word "Texas" is used for every transfer bid !

4♥ and 4♠ are generally to play. 4♣ and 4♦ are used with respectively minor and major 2-suiters limited to game. (or major 2-suiter in both cases, indicating shortness)

Alain

[Walddk]

The treatment Frances is referring to is probably due to the fact that weak NT (12-14) is very common in the UK. Accordingly, it has a lot of merit if responder can decide who is going to declare.

Opposite the weak NT responder is usually at least as strong as opener, and by using 4♥ and 4♠ as natural, responder has the option of protecting the tenaces he may have. If he has none, he can let opener declare by bidding 2♥ followed by 4♠.

Finally, as Frances also pointed out, responder can show a slam invitational hand by venturing South African Texas where 1NT - 4♣ and 1NT - 4♦ are strong hands with hearts and spades respectively.

The additional advantage is that opener will always bid over 4♣ and 4♦ (can't be natural, sign off), whereas there is a danger that 4♥ could be passed if opener forgets that they play Texas.

Roland

[cherdano]

Where is Henri (ritong) when we need him? He thinks that this treatment is useful opposite a strong opener, too. He claims good opponents defend worse when the distributional hand, with unknown hcps and unknown shortness/distribution, becomes the closed hand.

Arend

[Walddk]

I don't disagree. The merit of always letting the strong hand be declarer is overrated. I know that Fred Gitelman said something along those lines some time ago in the Forums (can't find the post where he expressed that view).

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

There is also the advantage of getting to the final contract quickly on weak hand, particularly if you have hearts and they might have spades. If you respond 4H to play, the next hand has only one chance to act. If you respond 4C or 4D as a transfer, he has two chances.

(This is also of course a downside of using 2-level transfers, and why some people prefer to play 2M as natural opposite a (very) weak NT. Idon't, but that's yet another debate.)

Mind you, I agree with Roland that the best reason for using 4H to play is to fit in with the excellent general rule that "game is always to play". A highly recommended method, particularly in competitive auctions.

[Walddk]

ArcLight has asked me to explain why it's often overrated that the strong hand becomes declarer after a transfer sequence. I can do it no better than Fred, so here is a copy of what he sent me:

In my opinion this is a secondary consideration (or even a tertiary consideration playing weak notrumps). The main advantage of Jacoby (versus 2-way Stayman for example) is that this convention allows the responder to control the level of the auction thereby allowing him to describe several hand types while keeping the bidding conveniently low.

Obviously it is also the case that there are some deals where the defense is easier if the weak and distributional hand appears as the dummy (instead of the strong and balanced hand).

Let me add that re-transfers after opener breaks is of little use now that the strong hand has revealed a lot about his hand. He may just as well table his cards after this. Example:

1N - 2♦
2♠ - 4♥

Some play that 2♠ on this auction shows a maximum NT with 4-card heart support and a small doubleton in spades. It could very well be a good idea now to let the unknown hand (responder) declare rather than re-transferring with 3♦ first.

Roland

[ArcLight]

> In my opinion this is a secondary consideration (or even a tertiary consideration playing weak notrumps). The main advantage of Jacoby (versus 2-way Stayman for example) is that this convention allows the responder to control the level of the auction thereby allowing him to describe several hand types while keeping the bidding conveniently low.


Mike Lawrence says something similar in his Conventions CD.

However, I think Fred and Mike are speaking generally, when you have multiple hand types to show. In his bididng books (the Uncontested Auction and 2/1 Workbook and 2/1 CD) and Mike emphasizies trying to right side contracts.
Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

[Walddk]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

Indeed, and that's exactly why it's a good idea to let responder decide if playing weak NT. He can see if he has tenaces to protect, and if he has, it's a good idea to let 4♥ and 4♠ be natural.

If he has not, he can transfer at the 2-level and raise to game next. The same might apply opposite a strong notrump, so maybe it's worth considering that one lets 4MA be natural and use 4♣/♦ as transfers.

As usual, a matter of agreement.

Roland

[fred]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 02:38 PM, said:

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

For sure, but only when:

1) The Ace is offside
2) The defenders lead that suit
3) The defenders can't cross in another suit to lead that suit
4) Declarer has a way to get rid of his losers in that suit
5) Declarer can keep the dangerous hand off lead

Furthermore, there are times in which having Kx in the dummy is a good thing. Supposed declarer has Jx and the whole hand depends on the Ace being onside. You would rather have the Kx in the dummy because the opening leader will frequently lead from the Queen (thereby allowing you to make an impossible contract).

Overall (and especially from a double dummy point of view) it is no doubt best to have the strong hand as declarer. The point I am trying to make is that, in the real world, this is not as important as some authors would have you believe.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[joker_gib]

ArcLight, on Oct 11 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Protecting Kx in a side suit can easily mean the difference to making or going down.

I saw that last saturday when in a team match partner put me in a 6NT contract after stayman.

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 6NT

RHO doubled for the ♠ lead and I was quickly down 1 cause the king was in partner hand !

In the other room, They play weak NT and after a system mistake (the opps told us), NT's were bid by responder.

Result 6NT= and -17 imps !!

Alain

[ArcLight]

Fred and Roland,

I should have phrased my post better. I fully agree with your points.
Especially opposite a weak NT, where responder may have more strength than opener.

What I meant (and what Mike Lawrence writes) is that its generally important to have a stopper like Kx not being exposed (strength of hands may not be that important) when bidding an NT contract. It's more of a luxury in a suit contract, though can be important in slam bidding. His writing was geared towards people who bid so as to end a sequence in NT with no stopper, exposing pards stopper.

Kx opposite Jx is a good example of when this doesn't work. And I can certainly see the opening lead being away from the Q, allowing the K to make on the next round, or the J making if East plays the 10.