[Gerben42]

Scoring: IMP

---

Silent opps.

Partner: 1NT(12 - 14)
You: 2♥ (transfer)
Partner: 2♠
You: Pass

Sounds normal, right?

Question: What ♦ card do you want in exchange ♦T with to not pass 2♠?

a) vuln. at IMPs
not vuln. at IMPs
c) at MP

Edit: If you bid something you have the following options:
2NT: Invitational, exactly 5♠
3♦: GF, 5+♠ 4+♦

This post has been edited by Gerben42: 2006-January-09, 04:52

[P_Marlowe]

The answer to your question will
also depend on the meaning of 3D,
i.e. does it force to game?

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

See edit of my post. If you happen to know how <add your favorite non-transfer system here> solves this problem, you're happy to post this also.

"The problem" is that if you know partner has a fit, you want to invite. But you don't know so you pass. Making 5, next

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Jan 9 2006, 06:43 AM, said:

See edit of my post. If you happen to know how <add your favorite non-transfer system here> solves this problem, you're happy to post this also.

Hi,

maybe I will look up Roth's structure, he suggest
a structure in which 3D is nonforcing, but it is a
complicated struture, hence nothing for me.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: To answer your question, a Queen, I need my
11 HCP.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bearmum]

Gerben42, on Jan 9 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: ???? Scoring: IMP

♠ KQT75 ♥ 974 ♦ AT85 ♣ 4

Silent opps.

Partner: 1NT(12 - 14)
You: 2♥ (transfer)
Partner: 2♠
You: Pass

Sounds normal, right?

Question: What ♦ card do you want in exchange ♦T with to not pass 2♠?

a) vuln. at IMPs
not vuln. at IMPs
c) at MP

Edit: If you bid something you have the following options:
2NT: Invitational, exactly 5♠
3♦: GF, 5+♠ 4+♦

IMO in all cases:

Assuming that 3♦ is GAME force I would need KING AND QUEEN of ♦ in place of the ten (and that wasn't an option)

If I have K♦ in place of the T I will bid 2NT showing INVITATIONAL values with 5 ♠

[awm]

Well hopefully partner will super-accept with a max and four spades; otherwise this problem becomes even more difficult. Anyways:

IMPs I will invite if the diamonds are ♦AJT5 or ♦AQ85. This may lead to a 24 (or even 23) hcp game, but the spade ten is a huge card in this hand. The spades can play for four tricks opposite doubleton jack (or even two small sometimes!) and five tricks opposite doubleton ace.

MPs, I think I'd want ♦AQT5 at a minimum.

Give me the ♦K instead of the ten and I will game force at any form of scoring. ♦AQJ5 is also enough. Again the spade ten makes a big difference -- change it to the deuce and I'd want the diamond king to even invite.

[mikeh]

I have never liked transfers in response to weak 1NT openers: I prefer variants of 2-way stayman (I have a particularly good one).

In my methods, I would bid a pedestrian 2♠: partner is allowed (supposed) to raise to 3 with a maximum (good 13-14) and 4 cards support: note: 'good 13 and 14' counts are not mere arithmetical exercises: Aces and Kings are upgraded, Queens and Jacks downgraded, shape counts, combined hcp, especially in long(er) suits are upgraded etc. Some 13 counts invite, some 14 counts, even with 4♠, pass. Axxx KQx xx Axxx definitely raises 2♠; Jxxx KQJ Qxx KQx definitely passes 2♠.

We rely upon the LOTT to give us some modest protection should responder hold a horrible hand.

I would be happy to expand on why I think transfers are flawed opposite a weak hand, but that is a topic for another thread. I would also be happy to explain my 2♦ artificial gf sequences

[MickyB]

With the Q♦, I'll bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2NT at MPs; With the J♦, I'll invite vul at IMPs otherwise pass.

Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on transfers opposite a weak NT.

[Kalvan14]

I also think that transfers are flawed when playing a weak NT; a 2-tiers Stayman works probably better. OTOH, I see that the majority of weak NTers play transfers, so they may have a point.
In the specific auction, I'd need the Q♦ at least to bid a GF 3♦.
I trust the invitational 2NT does not automatically end up into P or 3N or 4M: IMHO, opener should indicate where his holdings are.

[mikeh]

MickyB, on Jan 9 2006, 07:35 PM, said:

With the Q♦, I'll bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2NT at MPs; With the J♦, I'll invite vul at IMPs otherwise pass.

Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on transfers opposite a weak NT.

You asked for it

Let's start with a confession: I am primarily an imp player and my methods reflect that.

In imps, we all know that accurate bidding of games and slams is more important that finding the right partscore.

When one plays a strong notrump, then on the vast majority of game hands, opener's hand will be the stronger. On most slam hands, opener's hand will be as big as or bigger than responder. On those where responder's hand is stronger, the combined assets are such that placement of the opening lead and/or concealment of information re declarer's hand is unlikely to be critical to the success or failure of the contract.

It is usually useful to have the stronger hand as declarer: this minimizes the chances of a lead through, say, AQ or Kxx on the opening lead.

It is usually easier for the weaker hand to describe its values than for the stronger one to do so: the weaker one has less to show, and can thus make better use of the available bidding space.

In strong notrump auctions, one can combine these two principles through use of transfers. Transfer auctions do two things: they place opener as declarer most of the time (the exceptions are when responder shows and the partnership plays in a second suit: a rare occurence) and they usually entail responder describing his or her hand to opener. It is true that in many sequences, opener has to make a descriptive bid or two as well, but, as a generality, transfers entail responder describing his hand.

But in weak notrump auction, the odds are that in game (and overwhelmingly so in slam) auctions, responder has the stronger hand.

So we end up, after a transfer auction, with the stronger hand, in game or slam, as dummy too often.

We also have the problem that the stronger hand is doing the describing, which requires a significant use/consumption of bidding space and, hence, is inefficient.

Finally, on the weak hands, transfers give the opps two chances to bid: after the transfer and after the transfer is completed.

This is of course equally true in strong 1NT sequences, but as a matter of frequency, 4th chair will be less able/willing to risk bidding with a strong nt behind him: where opener's high cards can do the maximum damage. In a weak notrump, 4th chair is slightly more likely to risk a delayed balance. I would not stress this too much, since as a weak notrumper, one of the major benefits to the method is penalizing the opps

The main issues are the right-siding and the use of bidding space. I used to play a relay method (2♣ in response to 1♦/♥/♠ and 1♦ over 1♣) which was based on fibonacci series tinkered to maximize the odds of relayer being on play. We found that auctions in which dummy gave a detailed description and could then answer a question about 'what does declarer have' with "he wants to play this contract opposite what I have shown: I have no idea beyond that' made the defence very tough.

We cannot quite do that over weak nt (I have a method for doing it over strong), but an appropriate 2-way stayman method goes a long way.

Here is a taste: 2♦ is gf.

2♥ (by opener) denies ♥
2♠ denies ♠, shows ♥
2N shows 5+♣
3♣ shows 5+♦
3♦ shows 4=4 majors

over 2♥, 2♠ by responder asks

2N denies ♠, 3♣ asks exact shape
3♣ shows 4♦ and 4♠
3♦ shows 4♣ and 4♠
3♥ is 4=3=3=3
3N is 5♠

This scheme allows responder to set trump comfortably and get opener describing whether and why he likes/dislikes his hand, and right-sides most (not all) suit contracts.

[MickyB]

Interesting. My opinion is that transfers are nearly as effective over a weak NT as a strong one.

- It is usually better for the unbalanced hand to describe so the balanced hand can evaluate his honours (much easier for an unbalanced hand to show a club shortage than for a balanced hand to show no wastage opposite a club shortage)

- It is often worth having the lead up to the balanced hand, even if it is a bit weaker, as it tends to have split honours

- Weak takeouts are useful opposite a 1st seat 1NT opening, as they only give 4th seat one chance to bid; but opposite a 2nd seat 1NT opening, transfers are superior competitively, because after P-1N-P-2♦, P-2♥ the auction is still live.

[Gerben42]

Mike, very nice scheme but can you tell us how you handle the NF hands after 2♣. I think most of us can think of a relay scheme for a GF 2♦ response (or download one).

If you like simple I think that 2-way Stayman is not a good idea. It is not good to have 2♣ ask: do you have a 4-card major? and 2♦ ask: do you have a 4-card major?

So here's my take on this. A simple scheme after a weak NT.

2♣ = "Garbage" Stayman
2♦ = Asks for a 2-card major. At least game interest if a fit is found.
2♥♠; 3♣3♦: To play
3♥♠: Invite, 6-card suit
2NT: Both minors or slam try in one minor.

After 2♦ opener bids a 2-card major if he has one, 2NT with 3+3+ and a minimum, describe on the 3-level with 3+3+ and a maximum.

This works extremely well for the hand type that started the thread.

[luke warm]

mine (actually truscott/rosenkrantz) is sorta like mike's, except without the fear of wrongsiding... rosenkrantz said that it rarely happens, and even when it does it's often wrong-wrongsided.. anyway, 2d is game force stayman with

2h=hearts
2s=spades, denies hearts
2nt=any 4333
3c=5 clubs
3d=4/4 minors
3h=2353
3s=3253
3nt=3352

after 2h or 2s, if a 5cM is held, 3h/s/nt are the same as when they show diamonds, after the relay

[awm]

I'm not a big fan of methods where responder relays out opener's shape opposite a notrump opening. There are two main reasons for this:

(1) Like Mikeh said, it's nice when as little as possible has been revealed about declarer's hand. But when 1NT is opened, at least one contract will already be played out of opener's hand... and not only this, but 3NT is perhaps the most common contracts. A method where opener describes will inevitably lead to a fair number of 3NTs being played with opener's exact distribution known to the defense.

(2) Finding slams often depends on having the two hands fit well together. If you have 2+ cards in every suit, it will often be difficult to make a slam without a huge preponderance of values. The key to finding good slams is often holdings like xxx or Axx opposite a singleton (this maximizes the value of ruffs and turns the opponents K/Q/J in the suit into waste paper). Relaying out the balanced hand makes this very hard to evaluate, since the key feature in opener's hand will be not the number of cards in each suit but the honor holding. Allowing the hand with singleton to describe fixes this problem. This is also important in finding the right game: when opener has KQJx opposite a singleton the right contract will often be 3NT even if there is a 4-4 major fit to be had; when opener has xxxx opposite singleton, 3NT is often unplayable and it can be better to prefer a 4-3 major fit or a 5-minor contract.

[luke warm]

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's... responder only relays far enough to set the contract, if game force.. however, if slam going it's far easier to use a relay system with the strong hand asking.. at least that's my opinion

playing mikeh's or truscott's, the full dist is known before or at 3nt, then controls, then denial cue bids

[Blofeld]

luke warm, on Jan 10 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's...

?

Adam didn't mention being worried about the relative strengths of the hands at all.

[Gerben42]

I still haven't heard how those playing 1NT - 2♦ as GF handle continuations after 1NT - 2♣, which seems to cover weak and invitational hands, which was my main question

I've seen several schemes for this, all seemed quite messy.

[luke warm]

ok gerben, this is the one i use... i'm sure there are many more, better (maybe much better) schemes

1nt : 2c=invitational puppet or garbage
2h/s=5

1nt : 2c
2d=no 5cM, then

• pass=to play (garbage)
  
• 2h=<4h, may have 4s
  
• 2s=<4s, guarantees 4h
  
• 2nt=4/4 majors, invitational, opener may sign off with 3M
  
• 3c=5s,4h invitational
  
• 3d=4s, 5h invitational
  
• 3h=(xx)45
  
• 3s=(xx)54
  
• 3nt=5+/5+ minors

1nt : 2nt=relay to 3c, preemptive hand
3c p/c

1nt : 2h/s to play

1nt : 3c/d/h/s=6 cd invitational

the important thing to remember is, all are invitational.. so opener needs to bid something other than minimum if s/he would accept, like

1nt : 2c
2d : 2h
3s=if responder has 4 spades i accept the invite in that suit, if not bid 3nt

this allows opener to show a sign off hand

1nt : 2c
2d : 2h
2s with 4 or 2nt w/out

[luke warm]

Blofeld, on Jan 11 2006, 07:32 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 10 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

the system i showed is best played with a weak no trump, so while adam's fears are somewhat justified, the weak hand will be opener's...

?

Adam didn't mention being worried about the relative strengths of the hands at all.

no, but wrongsiding a contract (which is the complaint i hear the most about gf 2d relays) is more of a real threat with a strong nt than a weak nt