[paulg]

On vugraph recently a commentator mentioned that you should only complete a major suit transfer over 2NT when you hold precisely 3-card support, presumably rebidding 3NT with a doubleton.

Does anyone play this method and can explain its advantages?

Thanks

p

[MickyB]

I got asked to play this by one of the Dutch juniors in a pick-up partnership, so I'd imagine it's reasonably common there.

The main upside that has occurred to me so far is that, with a balanced hand, responder can offer to play 3NT after a 5-3 fit has been located. The downside is that if responder was just trying to improve the contract then he has failed, but given some of the trick-based 2N openings that are commonly opened now 3N may stand as good a chance as 3M in a weak 5-2 fit.

[helene_t]

You can agree that responder's second suit after the transfer has been completed is a control-bid, since a second fit is less likely and less important now that a fit has been found.

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Dec 20 2006, 09:06 AM, said:

You can agree that responder's second suit after the transfer has been completed is a control-bid, since  a second fit is less likely and less important now that a fit has been found.

I'm not sure that's an advantage - I find it helps hand evaluation if the unbalanced hand bids out its shape.

However, there's no confusion after responder shows two suits - it is obvious which suit opener is cuebidding for.

[the hog]

cardsharp, on Dec 20 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

On vugraph recently a commentator mentioned that you should only complete a major suit transfer over 2NT when you hold precisely 3-card support, presumably rebidding 3NT with a doubleton.

Does anyone play this method and can explain its advantages?

Thanks

p

This is as silly as it sounds. Responder has the option of bidding 3NT to show a 5 card balanced hand. Let me give you one example - would you rather play 2NT 3NT or 3S after opening 2NT and facing
Jxxxx xxx xxx xx?

I have a strong suspicion I know the answer. I guess this is a reflection on the qualiity of some of the commentators.

[hatchett]

Quote

This is as silly as it sounds. Responder has the option of bidding 3NT to show a 5 card balanced hand. Let me give you one example - would you rather play 2NT 3NT or 3S after opening 2NT and facing
Jxxxx xxx xxx xx?

I have a strong suspicion I know the answer. I guess this is a reflection on the qualiity of some of the commentators.

Hog I think you are a little too dismissive. Quite a few top players play a transfer after a 2NT opening as a game force.
Jxxxx xxx xxx xx is a rarish hand type after 2NT and you lose only when 3S makes and 2NT is off.

[the hog]

"Quite a few top players play a transfer after a 2NT opening as a game force.
Jxxxx xxx xxx xx is a rarish hand type after 2NT and you lose only when 3S makes and 2NT is off. "

Can you name these players? The point is that there is NO reason to play this as a GF, just as there is no reason to play 2 level transfers as GF over a 1NT opening. The hand I quote is hardly rare, in fact the stronger the opening, the weaker the responding hand is likely to be, as you no doubt know.

[marcD]

This is a popular "expert" treatment in Europe. It is supposed to ease slam bidding (especially when opener has a 3 card fit but cannot super accept). I do not play it (i want to be able to transfer to 3M with a very weak hand) but I am clearly in the minority

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Dec 20 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

"Quite a few top players play a transfer after a 2NT opening as a game force.
Jxxxx xxx xxx xx is a rarish hand type after 2NT and you lose only when 3S makes and 2NT is off. "

Can you name these players? The point is that there is NO reason to play this as a GF, just as there is no reason to play 2 level transfers as GF over a 1NT opening. The hand I quote is hardly rare, in fact the stronger the opening, the weaker the responding hand is likely to be, as you no doubt know.

"The stronger the opening the weaker the responding hand is likely to be". This is true, but I would imagine the responding hand only gets weaker by 1/3 as much as the opening hand gets stronger i.e increase the opening hand by three points and you would expect the responding hand to drop by only 1 point.

Whether this affects your point, on the other hand, is open to question.

[Free]

I actually play the other way around:

2NT - 3♦ - ?
3♥ = 2♥, no 5♠
3NT = 2♥, 5♠
Other are cuebids with ♥ support

2NT - 3♥ - ?
3♠ = 2♠, no 5♥
3NT = 2♠, 5♥
Other are cuebids with ♠ support

The biggest disadvantage is that you can't find a side 4-4 fit, but that's never easy if you want some decent slam methods after the transfers...

[SoTired]

Free, on Dec 20 2006, 06:24 AM, said:

I actually play the other way around:

2NT - 3♦ - ?
3♥ = 2♥, no 5♠
3NT = 2♥, 5♠
Other are cuebids with ♥ support

2NT - 3♥ - ?
3♠ = 2♠, no 5♥
3NT = 2♠, 5♥
Other are cuebids with ♠ support

The biggest disadvantage is that you can't find a side 4-4 fit, but that's never easy if you want some decent slam methods after the transfers...

That's the only other method I've seen before. Used in conjunction with some form of Puppet Stayman, it finds a 5-3 major fit by either partner. After opener's 3N, responder's 4D or 4H are transfers.

[1eyedjack]

I usually play a slight variation. Not my favourate responses but ...

2N-3♦-3♠ = 5x♠ + 2x♥
2N-3♦-3N+ = good hand with good support (may be 3)
2N-3♦-3♥ = other (may be 2 or 3 card support, almost certainly not 4)

2N-3♥-3N = 5x♥ + 2x♠
2N-3♥-4♣+ = good hand with good support (may be 3)
2N-3♥-3♠ = other (may be 2 or 3 card support, almost certainly not 4)

[barmar]

marcD, on Dec 20 2006, 06:09 AM, said:

This is a popular "expert" treatment in Europe. It is supposed to ease slam bidding (especially when opener has a 3 card fit but cannot super accept). I do not play it (i want to be able to transfer to 3M with a very weak hand) but I am clearly in the minority

Maybe this treatment is OK in IMP games. If responder has a Yarborough, you may be going down in both 3M and 2NT, and it doesn't matter much whether you're down 1 or 2. But it seems like a bad idea in MP to orient the system towards poor part-scores just for the sake of the occasional slam that's hard to bid after 2NT-3♥-3♠-3NT-4♠.

[SoTired]

I am sure most know about this, but will repeat it: A useful change is reverse how you show a balanced 20-21 and 22-24.

2C rebid 2N shows 20-21 and opening 2N shows 22-24 (or 22-23)
Then respond to the 2C as follows:
2D = waiting
2H/2S/3C/3D = natural and very weak (0-3). If opener has the balanced 20-21 hand, opener can pass and play a good partial.

[Robert]

Hi SoTired

I like the method when it occurs 'and' I have a 2C opening that wants to pass. What happens on the much more common auctions 2C-2H(2S,3C,3D) when opener has a suit ranking lower than the responding bid? You do no want to give up on game/slam bidding.

I also like to play a 2H* relay over the 2D 'waiting' bid showing 25+ balanced(or hearts) and I get to use my complete set of conventions after making a GF 2NT bid.

Don't you lose second negatives? You also cannot 'jump' raise after 2C-2D-2M to show a hand with trump support and no slam ambitions.

If a suit bid shows a long suit and 0-3HCp doesn't that prevent any positive suit bids. Your later suits bids after 2C-2D appear to show 4+HCP and the range is quite a bit bigger than standard methods.

When opener has a two suited hand, a bid of a higher suit by responder might really take up a lot of much needed bidding space.

Regards,
Robert

[mikeh]

I do not like the idea of having to bid 3N over a 3 level transfer, for the reasons set out above by others. In addition, a number of pairs use the transfer to 3♥ as a multi-coloured bid. There is so little room left after we have preempted our auction via 2N, that many sophisticated methods use multi-coloured bids. In my current partnerships we use 3♦ as a transfer to 3♥, based either on ♥s or on some slam-oriented 4441 or a major two-suiter (5 5 or better) with slam values. We allow only one super-accept (3♠) since we need to conserve space to allow clarification of the hand-type. We cannot bid 3N over the transfer because that destroys the necessary bidding space.

There are a number of other possible methods based on the same idea, and most expert pairs have complex methods over 2N (when they play it strong).