[mgoetze]

I've been reading the WJ2005 notes (thanks for the translation, Dan!), and they recommend the following treatment:

After 1♦-1♠-2♣,

• 2♥ is a puppet to 2♠, either as a signoff, or GF.
  
• 2♠ is constructive with 5+ Spades.
  
• Higher bids are invitational.

I think this is a great way for responder to clear up his strength after opener has limited himself, and is indeed even more useful in 2/1 or "Standard" (but I guess we're only allowed to talk about the Yellow Card variant of that here?) than in Polish Club (where you have to worry that opener might have a canapé).

Has anyone tried this? Does anyone think it would be a bad idea?

[Al_U_Card]

Not bad per se. Standard gives you more or less similar options with perhaps a bit less accuracy as well as somewhat less memory drain......depends on how you want to (or need to) use your gray matter....

[inquiry]

If one plays reverse flannery by responder, maybe even dual reverse flannery by responder where 1m-2H is weak variety, and 1m-2S is the invitational variety, then this 2H transfer bid as weak or strong and direct 2S rebid as invite, and all other bids as invite, makes a lot of sense.

I have adopted a funny thing, nmf by opener, so that 1D-1S-2C is 100% forcing. I have several "outs" for responder. 2D rebid by him doesn't promise anything, opener is going to show his hand. But 2D is never bid with a good hand. 2S is "if you have a normal 2NT jump rebid, please pass 2S". This has worked out really well, because the most common meaning to this 2C rebid is big balanced hand that plans on bidding 2NT. And responders 2NT bid is "rubenshol" showing clubs, while a club raise shows diamonds. Note the club raise showing diamonds is stronger than bidding 2D so promises some values. With no values and diamonds, bid 2D then 3D if necessary. Jumps voer 2C to 3D through 3S are all transfers, yes transfers to NT promises 5 spades as does a direct jump to 3NT, but the direct jump promises a heart stopper. All the jumps have game frocing value. The 2H bid, if not wanting to get out in 2NT or 3m is stronger than the jumps.

Anyway, because of the unusual nature of my 2C rebid, I can not use this structure.... When I don't play the nmf (and may not be real suit), then this scheme makes a whole bunch of sense to me.

[glen]

The WJ2005 book describes this as Gawrys's Gadget, not Transfer, and the book says it was developed by Gawrys but invented somewhere in North America (no reference was given). It seems very close to my older (2001) gadget: ETM Gadget - click here for document
This was inspired by some conventional approaches used in England in the 90s.

I think "Gawrys's Gadget" is quite a good idea.

[Gerben42]

Excellent idea whoever came up with it

[awm]

While there are definitely some advantages to this, it's not as clear-cut as people seem to think. In particular:

(1) Opener is not that limited in standard methods. The 2♣ rebid is something like a good 11 to a bad 18. There do exist hands where opener wants to raise a "spade signoff" or reject a "spade signoff" (say a minimum 0-2-6-5).

(2) Using the 2♥ transfer lets the opponents cheaply show their most likely suit (hearts) in a weak auction. This helps them find a 3♥ compete when otherwise they may find it hard to get into the auction after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♠ (which is, after all, not necessarily a fit auction).

(3) There is a general dichotomy between showing and asking. In standard methods 2♥ is 4th suit game force (asking opener to describe further). In these methods 2♥ basically forces 2♠, after which responder (with a game forcing hand) describes further. Obviously there will be some wins for each style (occasionally with 4th suit force, opener rebids 3m and responder can't slam try in clubs below the four level; occasionally with this method responder will have a hand with no clear direction where he'll need to make up a bid after 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠, whereas after traditional fourth suit force opener's rebid would make the proper strain clear).

(4) The constructive (presumably NF) 2♠ bid is certainly nice, although the "5+ spades" definition seems dubious -- when is opener supposed to remove this? Should he leave it in with 1-3-5-4 for example (if responder has five spades, 2NT is probably a better partial; if responder has six spades, 2♠ is probably the best spot)?