[Badmonster]

I cannot find a really thorough run down of this convention. Do they replace texas transfers? Are they only for slam going auctions? What's the deal with SA Transfers?

[luke warm]

i don't know anyone who plays them, but i can't think of a good reason not to... others can add what they know, but it's just substituting 4c and 4d as xfers to hearts and spades, respectively... the theory is (i think), it allows responder to bid 4h or 4s directly if he has some holding that profits by being led to rather than thru... say your partner opens 1nt and you have a K,J or A,Q in some side suit... you might prefer to be declarer in that case

[Badmonster]

Thank you! And so, they take the place of texas transfers and the auction need not be slam going?

[hrothgar]

The Scanian NT structure uses 4♣ and 4♦ as transfers to Hearts and Spades (respectively). The primary goal is to (hopefully) right side the contract.

Assume the auction 1N - 4♣

If the 1NT opener rebids 4♥, he shows positional stoppers. If the NT opener does't have positional stopper, he can bid the intermediate suit (4♦) and re-transfer. Klinger's book on power system also describes the same transfer scheme. Unfortunately, he doesn't describe follow-up bidding.

[awm]

There are several different ways to play south african transfers. The basic idea is 4♣ transfers to hearts and 4♦ to spades. The main question is what opener's "preaccept" of bidding the suit below the trump suit means. Some people use this to show a "good hand for slam" which allows you to use 4♣/♦ as a mild slam try; an alternate use is to ask responder to declare the hand (i.e. opener has no tenaces)... or you could simply forbid opener from making this bid. Some reasons to play South African rather than Texas:

(1) You let responder declare 4M when appropriate.
(2) You can issue a mild slam try and then play 4M; especially useful if you're not playing jacoby transfers (for example a lot of weak notrumpers don't use them).
(3) It eliminates 4♣ gerber from your system.

In any case a south african transfer is not normally a slam try, although it could be a mild one (planning to bid on if partner bids below the trumps) or a set-suit try (planning to bid rkc or exclusion at next turn).

[Badmonster]

Thank you all very much. The picture is getting clearer.

[goodwintr]

The original motivation for S.A.Texas was practical: players used to forget when the bidding went 1NT-4H (Texas for spades), and leave partner to play in some non-fit in hearts. S.A.Texas eliminated that problem, as you always had to stop and think what it meant when partner responded four of a minor.

Nowadays nobody would ever forget a convention, of course, so you have the explanations above.

TLG

[luke warm]

Badmonster, on Jan 19 2006, 07:05 PM, said:

Thank you! And so, they take the place of texas transfers and the auction need not be slam going?

as adam said, nothing prevents s.a. from being a slam try, depending on responder's next bid (and the meaning your p'ship assigns the bids)... there are a lot of possibilities...

i've not read klinger's method, it sounds interesting... 4d over 4c and 4h over 4d should mean *something*, i think...

[FrancesHinden]

South African Texas is quite common in England - certainly more common than Texas transfers, which are virtually unknown. The usual way of playing them, in combination with transfers, is that

- transfer to your major and raise to game = no slam interest at all
- transfer to your major and single raise = invitational, 6 card suit
- bid game directly = desire to be declarer*
- SAT = at least a mild slam try

Over 4C/4D opener bids the intermediate suit with a suitable hand for slam, and is allowed to go past 4 of the major with a particularly good hand. Responder can re-transfer, but often doesn't as it may not be obvious who should be declarer.

*typically this is a distributional hand that wants to keep its hand type concealed from the defence.

The same scheme is often played after a 2NT opener.

[zasanya]

The main reason for playing texas at 4 level or SA texas is that opponents find it difficult to disturb your nt .So it should be used only on those hands where there is a possibility that opponents may compete.
This should logically mean unbalanced hands, with no slam ambition are suitable for texas at 4 level or SA texas.

[luis]

I've been playing SA transfers for a long time so let's drop a few words.

As in Texas the idea of SA transfers is to provide 4 level transfers to the majors so you can multiplex the meaning of both 4M and 4NT after a transfer.
4♣ is a transfer to 4 hearts.
4♦ is a transfer to 4 spades.

A 2 level transfer followed by 4NT is cuantitative with 5 of the major.
A 2 level transfer followed by 4 of the major is a mild slam invitation
A 4 level transfer followed by 4NT is RKCB in the major
A 4 level transfer and then pass is the only signoff in 4 of the major.

The advantages over Texas are:
- You no longer have confusion about the meaning of 4♥ in competitive auctions. you keep 4♣ and 4♦ as "always SA transfers" with 4♥ and 4♠ as "always to play"
- Responder can choose from what side the hand should be played, when he has some kings to protect he can bid 4♥ or 4♠ to receive the lead, and transfer in the other cases.
- You no longer play Gerber which is good for you and your bridge health.

Luis

[Badmonster]

Again - thank you all for your thoughts.

Is it reasonable to reserve the intervening bid for a super accept?

[luis]

Badmonster, on Jan 20 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

Again - thank you all for your thoughts.

Is it reasonable to reserve the intervening bid for a super accept?

I don't think so because responder will be forced to play the hand from his side when he was just signing off in 4 of a major which is the most common scenario.

Luis

[whereagles]

luis, on Jan 20 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

- You no longer play Gerber which is good for you and your bridge health.

This is by far the most valuable benefit of the convention.

[FrancesHinden]

luis, on Jan 20 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

Badmonster, on Jan 20 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

Again - thank you all for your thoughts.

Is it reasonable to reserve the intervening bid for a super accept?

I don't think so because responder will be forced to play the hand from his side when he was just signing off in 4 of a major which is the most common scenario.

Luis

It depends on why you are playing SAT. I play them as showing at least a mild slam try, in which case it is useful to have the intervening bid as a super accept.

If you use them as your sign-off in 4M tool, then as Luis says you might want to play them differently.

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 20 2006, 08:04 AM, said:

South African Texas is quite common in England - certainly more common than Texas transfers, which are virtually unknown. The usual way of playing them, in combination with transfers, is that

- transfer to your major and raise to game = no slam interest at all
- transfer to your major and single raise = invitational, 6 card suit
- bid game directly = desire to be declarer*
- SAT = at least a mild slam try

Didn't know that - I always thought the point of (SA) Texas was to preempt the opps while still having opener play it. I guess this is reasonable though - a natural 4M bid is much more preemptive than a 4m transfer against a well prepared pair, so forcing responder to choose between transferring declaration and preempting isn't much of a loss.