[JLOL]

The_Hog, on Dec 16 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 17 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 16 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

I find the following rather amusing:

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,
Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Why are you unethical enough to use it even though its not required?

LOL

[mtvesuvius]

JLOL, on Dec 23 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 16 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

ArcLight, on Dec 17 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 16 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

I find the following rather amusing:

1.  Transfer Walsh response structures to a 1♣ opening are very similar to MOSCITO's constructive opening structure. 

2.  The ACBL Conventions Committee refuses to license any defense to the MOSCITO opening structure.

3.  The ACBL Conventions Committee considers transfer Walsh to be innocuous enough that players don't need to submit any kind of suggested defense.

Richard,
Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Why are you unethical enough to use it even though its not required?

LOL

What took you so long?

[jdonn]

han, on Dec 17 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)
3D

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

1C - 1S
??

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

What do you do with 16 or 17 and that shape and auction, reverse? I had the exact same problem with 4414 and 1♣ 1♠, I think I tended to rebid 1NT with up to 16 and reverse with 17. Blech.

[dougbennion]

jdonn, on Dec 25 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

han, on Dec 17 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)
3D

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

1C - 1S
??

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

What do you do with 16 or 17 and that shape and auction, reverse? I had the exact same problem with 4414 and 1♣ 1♠, I think I tended to rebid 1NT with up to 16 and reverse with 17. Blech.

We open 11-14 notrumps, so with 15-17 or so and 4414, we'd reverse with an el primo top-end hand, rebid 1NT with a stiff diamond honor, and otherwise hold our nose and rebid 2♣. Partner will likely hold clubs on that sequence. We play that 1♠ is a major-denial, not that it promises diamonds although it strongly implies them. Responder might be 3334 or even 3325 with no suitable club raise. With game-forcing diamonds he can bid 2♦ directly; possibly with a 4-card major.

[jallerton]

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid. However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

[qwery_hi]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

Edit - they might be against the field, and I don't think this is a priori a gain or a loss


It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid.  However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT

I have played these methods. I think option 1 is right. IMO, there are no losses if responder declares 3NT opposite a 11-14 balanced opener; since responder will probably be a 12+ balanced hand.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

I think you should strive to achieve 4, and should design your methods with that in mind.

[paulg]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid.  However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

5. It tends to mean that the stronger hand is playing the 3NT contract, and this results in more gains than losses.

Actually we don't care and it's never seemed a problem. However we don't play matchpoints and the only time we can only play in 2NT is with the minimum balanced hand playing it.

p

[Viren169]

han, on Dec 17 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

1C - (1D or 1H showing a major)
3D

invitational splinter. The real problem hand is 4414 when partner shows diamonds:

1C - 1S
??

We rebid 1NT with about 11-15 here. Ugly.

Hi,

I currently play the following (although it has never come up yet!)

1♣-1♦
?

3♦= splinter with 6+ clubs and 3 hearts GF
3♥= inv with 4 hearts
3♠= splinter agreeing hearts

And coping with the 4441 hands as follows...

Opening 4441 with 15-17/12-14
a. 4414/4441 with 15-17 open 1N
b. 1444/4144 with 15-17 open 1♦ and rebid NT
c. 4414/4441 with 12-14 open 1♣
d. 1444/4144 with 12-14 open 1♦ and rebid 1♠/2♣

This looks a bit messy... any improvements/suggesstions would be most welsome!

BR
Viren

[Viren169]

dougbennion, on Dec 21 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

I've been using those transfer responses for many months, with good results. They fit well with a weak notrump opener. To take maximal advantage, I stuff all my balanced hands (including 3=3=5=2) into 1C or 1N (I like 11-14), so 1C is 15+ balanced, or natural.

The two main advantages are these. It rightsides (almost) all of your major-suit fits, including those 18-19 HCP hands that are often declared by a weak responder (and for weak-notrumpers those 15-17 openers where responder declares the major and all the strong-notrumpers have rightsided with Stayman). And it gives you the two 'acceptances' 1M and 2M.

We started by using the 1M acceptance to show a 3-raise, and the 2M to show a 4-raise (usually a strong NT, sometimes unbalanced). Since I like to rebid 1NT with a balanced hand even with 3-support, this meant our 1M 'raise' was unbalanced, and that seemed to arise very rarely so we ditched that approach.

Next we decided that 1M would be the unbalanced opener say 4=3=1=5 or 4=4=1=4, and 2M the strong notrump. That doesn't happen much either, and often the unbalanced dummy will play as strongly as the 15-17 balanced, so it wasn't clear if you were gaining much.

I considered denial rebids by opener, so that 1M would deny four, and show two or three. We examined hundreds of auctions, and determined it was nice when opener had a reverse-strength hand, but otherwise didn't seem to add much.

What we decided was best, and it arises frequently, was to use it to narrow the range of our opening bid. We use 1M to show the top range of a 15-17 opener, say 16+ to 17, and 2M to show the bottom range say 15-bad 16. We appropriately include unbalanced hands. With opener describing his range so precisely, responder never has to invite. We have no invitational sequences, we never get to 3M or 2N down 1. Responder simply places the contract. If he makes any other bid, he is slamming. (Except here ... 1♣ 1♦; 1♥ 2♥ ... we permit responder to raise to 2♥ to make it harder for the opps to balance.)

There are a couple of lesser advantages. The 1♠ response (no majors) is mildly preemptive, and will rightside some notrump contracts. And since checkbacks aren't required after 1♣ 1♠; 1N ... responder can settle in a non-forcing 2♣ or 2♦.

A corollary to stuffing your balanced hands into 1♣, is that your 1♦ openers are unbalanced and usually 5+. For weak-notrumpers this has a further advantage. If opener has a 15 HCP hand with say 4=3=4=2, standard weak-notrumpers will open 1♦. Responder with no major and 6 HCP will respond 1N, wrongsiding the contract. Opener must show his strong notrump with 2N, down 1. We avoid that in the auction 1♣ 1♠; 1N Pass.

Hi,

Great summary of the system!

I play strong NT and didnt realise/understand some of the benefits and advantages that the system gives you!

Thanks,
Viren

[Viren169]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid. However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

Hi,

Interesting question!

I think I fit more closely into the option 4 camp... (more by luck than judgement because I dont have enough experience in using this method yet)

I play that responder can get either side of the partnership to play the NT by either showing his/her shape, or by bidding NT.

BR
Viren

[Viren169]

Hi,

What is the best way to defend against these (1C with transfer responses) methods?

BR
Viren

[gnasher]

Viren169, on Jan 4 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

What is the best way to defend against these (1C with transfer responses) methods?

It's common to play double as showing an overcall in the suit they've bid, and bidding the suit they've shown as takeout. eg after (1♣) (1♥):
  double = hearts
  1♠ = takeout.
I'm not keen on this, because there is some overlap between the double and simply overcalling.

Instead, I prefer to use double as a takeout double of responder's suit, and bidding their suit as a two-suited takeout. eg after (1♣) (1♥):
  double = takeout of spades
  1♠ could be either 4 hearts with a longer minor,
    or 4 hearts with diamonds specifically.

Another option is to play double as strong balanced, bidding their suit as takeout, and 1NT as a two-suiter. That has the advantage of making it safer to intervene on strong balanced hands.

[realnumpty]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand.

It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid. However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT.

Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method?

1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses.

2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up".

3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up".

4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

My partner and I have being playing this method for about a year and I would say that statement 1 would be a fair reflection of experience thus far.

We reply to opener's rebid to the transfer exactly as if he had opened 1NT using HEEMAN responses.