[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

-------------------------------------

Hi all!

Please post in this topic general ideas, methods...

Spoiler

------

I will start this topic with several sub topics, because this matter becomes very actual, especially looking same way of bidding at last world championship - most of top pairs already use them. Will be strange to say that board that I remember finished bad, because usage of transfer advances, while by natural bidding will finish with success, because wrong sided contract(lightner double and ruffing on slam in vul for great lose). Probably this mean need more work to do before to use them effective - need to have both ways - natural and transfer, especially with strong hands. You can read my post about "Evolution of transfers" here in BBO forum for one particular solution for Precision.

Everybody is welcome to give his 2 cents here - new ways wait your development!

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[1eyedjack]

Advancer may be able to tell, from his hand, who should declare the contract, given the choice. On any given hand he may conclude either way, but he will by then be bound by the constraints of the system agreed upon prior to the deal.

So, if placing the declaration is an important consideration, when designing your system you may have to consider who should most frequently declare. At low levels it should probably be overcaller. For low level contracts the transfer method would work better. At high levels it should probably be advancer (who is likely to be stronger and have more tenaces to protect), for which natural responses would work better. But there will still be occasions when it should be the other way around, and there will also be many occasions when it simply does not matter either way.

You therefore have to consider also the other benefits of transfers, that have nothing to do with placing the declaration.

Personally shall stick with transfers.

[mikestar]

In their recent book Bridge Conventions in Depth, the Granovetters argue against playing "sytems on" (transfers) in advancing a direct seat 1NT overcall. Their argument is that it is even more important to put their stong hand on lead than to have our strong hand declare.

This logic argues against transfer advances--but argues in favor of transfer overcalls, and transfer responses in competition.

The lead positions in order from best to worst :

1. Their strong hand leads up to our strong hand.
2. Thier strong hand leads up to our weak hand.
3. Their weak hand leads up to our strong hand.
4. Their weak hand leads up to our weak hand.

#1 and #4 are fairly absolute. Many players will disagree with the Granovetters about the ranking of #2 and #3--and, whatever is correct generically, there will be many more particular hands that go the opposite way than in #1 and #4.

But if one accepts the Granovetters' view as correct, the general method is:

• Opener uses natural bids
  
• Opener's LHO uses transfers
  
• Responder uses transfers
  
• Opener's RHO uses natural bids
  
• Responder should switch to natural bids in X-P-P-Y sequences.

1eyedjack's points about level are also well taken. The strentgh of the opening bid or overcall is also relevant--there is much less reason to put a Moscito opener on lead than to put a SAYC opener on lead.

[mishovnbg]

Method "Equality"

This method is similar to already used by lot of players with possibilty to show any side suit by transfer and is extension of it for any situation. The main advantage of this method is similarity of agreements and it mean same about continuations and more easy to learn and use. Usage of transfers is complex and mistakes can lead to worse results. As a prove I can say about previous world chamionship, where one top pair used transfer advance in cometition, but after dbl from opps partner of advancer accept it with 2 small cards and it lead to wrong game with dbl from advancer with terrible result.

Main agreements - transfers are extended version of take out dbl:

• 1NT/3NT, rebid of suits, major raises and minor raises to 3 and above are all time natural.
  
• 2NT is never natural: good raise of partner's major suit or preemptive/GF raise of partner's minor suit.
  
• Raise/response 2 of minor is transfer for unbid major(note details)
  
• Cheapest transfer for minor is 2 way - bal/missfit or that minor. If no unbid minor remain, then bal/missfit only.
  
• Bids in suits above transfers ar natural and RF(up to partnership for details)
  
• Scope of transfer bids:
  - when dbl/rdbl is available: include dbl/rdbl up to cue bid/raise of p suit (to 2♦ after 1♣-(dbl)-?)
  - when dbl/rdbl is not available(responses to overcall): cue bid up to jump cue bid.
  
• Stopping transfers and return to std bidding when:
  - we already establish fit
  - opps bid 3NT and above
  - opps bid 2 suits (UVU)
  - tranfer or distributional bid (meckwell) was already bidded by us
  - NT natural or nebulous was bidded by opps
  - reopen position

Details:

• If opponent's intervention is dbl or cheapest suit - transfer advances include 2 way raise of partner's suit, else 1 way but raise to 2 of minor is always transfer for unbidded major.
  
• If transfer is in impossible suit (like transfer rebid in opener's suit at 2 level), then transfer show next cheapest possible suit.
  
• If rebid of opener's suit is available only at 3 level, then 2 way rebids, where direct one is competitive and transfer rebid is constructive+.
  
• Special transfer responses(M=major; UM=unbidded major):
  1m-(1M)-?-> 2♣: 4UM; 2♦: 5+UM
  1♣-(1♦)-? -> 2♣: 5+♥; 2♦: 5+♠
  1♦-(2♣)-? -> dbl: take out; 2♦: 5+♥; 2♥: 5+♠
  
• Undiscovered yet - method is under construction and I will add them here.

Continuations like after take out dbl:

• Voluntary accepting of transfer advance all time show 3+ cards support.
  
• Bids above accept are under rules of main system
  
• Pass after opponent's dbl of our transfer advance show stopper+ in passed suit. RDBL from advancer asks partner to pass with 4 good cards.
  
• RDBL after opponent's dbl of our transfer advance denied stopper+ in dbl suit and asks advancer to continue with natural bids for right sided contracts. Probably future bids of rdbl hand need to be transfer advances, but too complicate imho.
  
• Other bids after opponent's dbl of our transfer advance are natural and show no fear of lead in dbl suit.
  
• Undiscovered yet - method is under construction and I will add them here.

Spoiler

------

Note: Examples I will post in other sub posts about transfer advances in competition.

Misho

[mishovnbg]

I like very much this post and quote it here, thanks!

1eyedjack, on Apr 6 2004, 11:42 PM, said:

Personally I think that this concentration on right-siding the contract is out of proportion to other factors.  Yes it can be important, on some (but not all) hands. When it is important it may be possible (but not always certain) that you can tell from your hand who should declare.  And then you may be constrained by system.

Where the declaration is of lesser importance, transfers win out over natural methods because they vastly increase your range of expression.  When declaration is of importance then the transfer accepted will often right-side the contract.

Transfers also gain *on balance* on those occasions when placing the declaration does matter, because there remains an option to refuse the transfer and so to defer the decision as to who should be declarer.  A natural approach does not allow that option.

Placing the declarer tends to assume a higher importance the higher the level of the contract.  If you are defending a 1 level contract it is normally because you are expected to take about 6 tricks in defence.  If you have that potential then you usually have time to develop your defensive tricks without taking an unwarranted risk on lead at trick 1.

If the contract is destined for higher levels (when the decision is likely to be more important), then you can afford to defer the decision about who should declare, by refusing to accept the transfer if you think that partner should declare.

Lastly, I have been playing with 2-step transfers in many situations, and although this has not been with the intent of right-siding the contract (rather to split ranges and avoid getting too high), there may be some scope for using 2-step transfers for this purpose (ie Bid Diamonds to show Spades, then partner can choose who declares by bidding Spades or the intervening Hearts).  Instinctively I think that this would not be workable in response to overcalls, but it is an idea.  It might work if you bid some suits naturally and play 2-step transfers into other suits.  This at least gives you a *choice* on those hands where you have the suit that requires the 2-step transfer.