[Codo]

We all know the merrits of Transfer response to a 1 Club opener. It is highly en vogue to play with this toy.

But as discussed in another thread, we may find good defences to use the additional bidding space and time as defender.

So what are your favourite defences against this tool?

(For the sake of argument, lets take a quite basic approach,
opener openes 1 Club, partner passes and responder bids 1♦ for Hearts, 1 ♥ for spades and 1 ♠ for 5+ Diamonds.

I know that there are other methods, but maybe we should limit to just one for the moment.

[Fluffy]

The extra space works like this: Double of 1♦/♥/♠ are penalty, showing decent values and 4 or 5 cards on the suit doubled.

For take out doubles you use the cuebid: (1♣)-pass- (1♥)-1♠ = ♥+♦ take out.

[MarkDean]

If 1♣ is opened on all balanced hands (like 3352), you can play:

doubling the transfer shows the other major and diamonds, completing the transfer yourself shows the other major and clubs.

That is what Fallenius/Welland used to recommend anyways.

[han]

We play double shows the suit doubled, bidding their suit is takeout.

An alternative is double is takeout, bidding their suit is natural.

[shevek]

This could become another political topic. If the community could reach a consensus on a simple, effective way to deal with a transfer responses at the 1-level, it will become easier to convince organisations to allow transfer 1-level openings.

As it is, some rule-makers seem to believe that transfer openings are complicated and tough to defend. In my view, they should either (a) ban all transfer bids at the 1-level or (b) allow all 1-level transfers.
I digress.

We play one method versus any call that shows 4+ cards in a specific suit. Examples include Jacoby transfers and Namyats. For us and most top Australian players,

(1) double is takeout of the shown suit.
Over a 1♥ transfer responses to 1♣, double says you would have doubled after a natural sequence that began 1C - 1S. You are better placed for two reasons. Firstly, your opponents probably won't be able to collect penalties. In the standard 1C - 1S auction, there is real danger when you double with 4-4 reds and opening strength. We all might do it anyway but if partner has a weak hand with few red cards, it could be painful. This -800 is very unlikely to happen after (1♣) no (1♥*) X.
One more advantage is that partner might get an extra option, either a cue of 1♠ or a responsive double if opener bids 1♠ (usually to show 3-card support)

(2) 1NT & 2♣ should be natural
These days the sandwich notrump is best played as natural. While realising there are dangers, the decline in bidding values makes it mandatory. Sometimes opener & responder will have 11 + 4 points, which would have been unlikely in the 1970s.
2♣ should be natural. Perhaps you do that anyway but a decent minority would play it as shapely 2-suiter. This becomes less attractive as people strain to open 1♣ to get these pretty transfer sequences rolling.

(3a) Some play bidding their shown suit as natural
This is our default method vs 4+ suits. Against a 1♥ transfer opening we bid 1♠ as a natural overcall. Good against their possible four small. You probably do the same against Flannery, bidding 2♠ naturally.
We do the same vs transfer responses, though the case is not quite as strong. For instance
♠AQTxx    ♥xxx    ♦AQx    ♣xx
would bid 1♠ after (1♣) no (1♥*).
However, the need is not so great. You might get to double notrumps later. If you had the same hand with six spades, you could try 2♠ at some stage.
We use this method anyway because it is our default method vs 4+ suits. We are too lazy to design specific defences.

(3b) A cue could be a 2-suiter
If you are happy to either pass or bid 2♠ with spades, cueing via 1♠ could be the usual 5-5 reds or perhaps some Raptor hand. Again you take advantage of their method. Versus natural bidding you have to give up one out of natural 2♣, natural 1NT, 5-5 reds. It's all good.

[Gerben42]

If you play 1NT as natural after 1♣ - 1♥, do so here. If not, don't here either.

1♣ p 1♦*

* ♥

I would play that Dbl is a strong hand, 1NT is natural and 1♥ shows the other suits. 2♣ and 2♥ are natural and constructive.

1♣ p 1♥*

* ♠

I would play that Dbl is a strong hand, 1NT is natural and 1♠ shows the other suits. 2♣ and 2♠ are natural and constructive.

1♣ p 1♠*

* ♦

Dbl = Strong hand
1NT = Natural
2♣ = Natural
2♦ = Both majors
2M = Natural

Maybe not the "best" defense possible, but one you can remember.

[Hilver]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

We play double shows the suit doubled, bidding their suit is takeout.

In my partnership we just use this simple defence. No problem so far.

[MFA]

Hilver, on Dec 24 2008, 05:36 AM, said:

han, on Dec 23 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

We play double shows the suit doubled, bidding their suit is takeout.

In my partnership we just use this simple defence. No problem so far.

Me too.
1♣-p-1♥-

X = normal 1♥ overcall
1♠ = T/O double
1NT = natural
2♥ = "weak jump overcall"
2♠ = natural

[FrancesHinden]

Hilver, on Dec 24 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

han, on Dec 23 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

We play double shows the suit doubled, bidding their suit is takeout.

In my partnership we just use this simple defence. No problem so far.

So do we, and against transfer openings as well.

I've seen some substantial gains from being able to show "a 1-level overcall" in the suit doubled.

[FrancesHinden]

shevek, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

This could become another political topic. If the community could reach a consensus on a simple, effective way to deal with a transfer responses at the 1-level, it will become easier to convince organisations to allow transfer 1-level openings.

The bridge playing community hasn't yet reached a consensus on a simple, effective way to deal with a natural 1NT opening.

[Fluffy]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 24 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

The bridge playing community hasn't yet reached a consensus on a simple, effective way to deal with a natural 1NT opening.

what about capp? .

Back to the point, I prefer a double to be a bit more flexible, more like a level 0 overcall, 4 good cards or 5 cards, about 0.5 cards less than a level 1 overcall.

[Codo]

Thanks for the input. Up to now I used the simple approach too, but maybe this does not take enough advantage of the extra bids you have. Maybe I will try Sheveks or Gerbens approach in the future. But I have another idea:

What about using transfers against transfers:

As an example:

1♣ pass 1 ♥ x 4 HEarts + 5 in a minor, or 4/4 with extra strength (own opening)
1 ♠ shows 5+ clubs, no 4 HEarts
1 NT natural,
2 ♣ 5+ Diamonds no 4 Hearts
2 ♦ 5+ HEarts no minor suit
2 ♥ 5 Hearts and 4 card minor
2 ♠ natural
2 NT minors normally 5/5

To put it into words: The first suit bids are Transfers and one suiters (5332 or better), 1 NT and 2 of their major is natural. The cuebid shows 5 in the open major and an undisclosed 4 card minor. Double shows 4 HEarts and 5+ in a minor.

After 1 ♣ pass 1 ♠ this is no longer palyable. But maybe here you can use X as both majors, 2 Heart and 2 Spade ans nat and weak two and 2 Club and 2 Diamond as good hands with HEart resp. Spade.


With the idea not to care too much about HCP strength, but about shape and suit quality.

With your first bid you can show the most likely hands quite accurate. And when your partner know whether you have a second suit or not is quite important for his evaluation and further bidding.

IS this an improvement or plain silly?

[MFA]

Codo, on Dec 24 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

...
IS this an improvement or plain silly?

Huge overkill imo. Also, why should it be wise to introduce unfamiliar types of bids when we don't have to and when they surely would be used very rarely?
And I haven't even mentioned the big risk of forgets...

[andy_h]

han, on Dec 24 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

An alternative is double is takeout, bidding their suit is natural.

That's what I do, with bidding 2 of their suit is the michaels.

[JanM]

I use Shevek's method, with 3B (cue bid is Michaels, though, not the unshown Major and diamonds). I think that's more useful than natural. If I were going to play the cue bid as natural, I'd want to keep 2♣ as Michaels because that's my "normal" agreement and I think it's more important to be able to get into the auction with a 2-suiter that includes the other Major than with a club one-suiter.

In this situation, as in most memorized defense situations, and even to some extent in written defense situations, I like to get the auction to what's "normal" for me and my partner as soon as possible. So perhaps one of the reasons I like to use the cuebid as 2-suited instead of natural is that I normally play (1m)-P-(1M)-2M as natural, so I have a way of bidding the natural hands with their Major (if it isn't good enough to bid at the 2 level probably it isn't good enough to bid ).