[H_KARLUK]

This is not a recommend. For sure I respect SAYC and 2/1 and SEF original structures. Under SAYC or 2/1 or SEF could it be possible :

1♣>1♦
1NT(12-14 hcp)>2♣ xfer >♦, 2♦ xfer ♥, 2♥ xfer ♠, 2♠ xfer ♣

1♣/♦ > 1♥/♠
1 NT(12-14 hcp) : 2♣ xfer >♦, 2♦ xfer ♥, 2♥ xfer ♠, 2♠ xfer ♣

Is it also possible after 1♣/♦ > 1♥/♠ and 2NT(18-19 hcp) ?

I thought th idea, discussed with teammates long years ago. I just would like to see system makers and expert views if by coincidence attends forums here. (Maybe most of them are here but for now as I live in Turkiye it's not easy to follow every published article about top levels in each country--sorry for that). For your information i am not a system maker. I am recognised as an experienced player. Frankly speaking i classify myself as still an amateur who enjoys the game like new started.

Happy new year ♥

Thanks
Hamdi

[TylerE]

I don't really get the point of it, seems inferior to plain NMF to me. Not only are you giving up more bids, you're giving up the distinction of e.g. going through NMF vs rebidding the major. Transfers work best when the hand transferring has a good idea where the hand is headed, which is much fuzzier on these kind of sequences than over, say, a strong NT opening.

[Fluffy]

I have heard of this treatment before, it is not as easy as Karluk says, because some bids have implicit strenght and other do not. And on some transfers opener must accept the transfer no matter what, while in others he is suposed to show something.

Personally I think there is not so much difference between one or another, and the best is to play what you feel comfortable with.

[kgr]

I play 2♣ is kind of crowhurst,
2♦, 2♥ transfer ♥,♠
2♠, 2NT transfer ♣, ♦

[awm]

I've played this sort of transfer method over 1NT rebids before. The biggest problem was that partner kept forgetting it, especially in natural looking auctions like 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♠! (transfer to club).

The main advantage is that the method allows responder (who fairly often has unbalanced shape) to describe the hand, which is usually better than the balanced hand patterning out.

With sufficient discussion (and a partnership with good memories!) I think such a method can work; however it's not enough to just agree "transfers" as it will be ambiguous which sequences show extras and which do not, when opener should auto-accept the transfer and when not, and so forth. It also doesn't quite make sense to just "play your notrump systems" here because more is known about both hands due to the bidding up until this point.

On the other hand, I am quite happy with two-way checkback, which in contrast works quite well with a minimum of discussion (okay, we don't get maximum use out of all sequences without a lot of discussion, but we are well ahead of the field by just agreeing that 2♦ is artificial GF and 2♣ puppets to 2♦ and any follow-up bid is invite). My general approach is to have a motivation (or a "problem") before I start tinkering with methods and for the moment I'm quite happy with these particular auctions.

[Fluffy]

awm, on Dec 30 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

(okay, we don't get maximum use out of all sequences without a lot of discussion, but we are well ahead of the field by just agreeing that 2♦ is artificial GF and 2♣ puppets to 2♦ and any follow-up bid is invite). My general approach is to have a motivation (or a "problem") before I start tinkering with methods and for the moment I'm quite happy with these particular auctions.

Before we went into Pekin for the Olympics, I remember sitting with Dad and Lantaron (the 3 of use would switch pairs in between with same system), and debating for hours to get a complex use of 2 way checkback, because we play transfer walsh, and we often have more info (3 card support) than others do. So we took more than half of the time we trained to develop a better XYZ with loads of nuances.

I am not sure of what Dad and Lantaron played, but I happened to use XYZ 0 times with Lantaron, and 1 with Dad for the whole event.

[FrancesHinden]

In one partnership I play transfers after 1m - 1Y - 1NT, though not quite in the way described: 2C is a puppet to 2D which is either a sign-off in 2D or various other hands.

The biggest problem with this (or alternatively the biggest advantage) is that, to take full advantage of all the additional potential sequences, you need to play different methods depending on responder's first bid. So, for example, we play

1C - 1S - 1NT - 2S = 5 spades, 4 clubs, choice of partscore, but
1C- 1H - 1NT - 2S = game forcing with 4-4 in the majors, but
1C - 1D - 1NT - 2S = long clubs, either a sign-off in 3C or invitational opposite Kxx or better.

and
1C - 1S - 1NT - 2H = xfer to spades showing 5+
1C - 1H - 1NT - 2H = weak with 4 spades and 5 hearts
1C - 1D - 1NT - 2H = transfer to spades showing exactly 4
and so forth

As others have said, this means you need a lot of discussion to get all the possible inferences out of this.

If you just agree to play 'transfers' without discussion, I don't think you are any better off than playing 2-way checkback, which definitely needs less discussion.