[karlson]

Looking at many people's notes on transfer responses to 1c it seemed that there was no clear consensus on how to play 1s and higher bids. It looks like the most common way is to put a lot of hands into the 1s response, which can basically be either

-6-10 balanced
-weak with 5-4 in the minors
-weak with just diamonds
-gf with diamonds, maybe with major
-inv with diamonds, maybe with major

A little overloaded, whether over the 1n response, or when 4th hand interferes. On the other hand the 1n response is specifically 6-10 grabbit, so is probably underused. I thought one might play the 1n as the weak with both minors hand, and then one can play normal 2-way checkback over 1c-1s-1n.

Maybe if one does this, the weak with diamonds hands should also be thrown in to 1n, I don't think this will lead to serious competitive problems, as opener is unlikely to want to compete with short diamonds opposite the 5-4 hand. Then bidding 1s and then bidding again in competition shows inv+ 100%.

Thoughts?

[1eyedjack]

I know of one expert pair who play 1S as showing club support, and 1N, 2C and 2D as all showing diamonds. Just mention it because it is not in the list.

[jdonn]

I strongly recommend what Justin and I did, which overloads 1♠ but makes the other bids quite good.

1♠: Balanced or diamonds, less than game force.
1NT: Weak (single) or game forcing club raise.
2♣: Game forcing with diamonds.
2♦: Invitational with clubs.

You can play good stuff over 1NT and 2♣ that is artificial but not terribly complicated. The only real problem at all is opener's rebid when medium strength with 4414 specifically after 1♠. Any shape with five clubs can rebid clubs if you have the understanding that weak with diamonds should bid 2♦ over that.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, in Gnomenclayture, we use:

1♣ - ?

1♠ ART Either:
..5-9 Balanced
..3-8 With 5+♦
..GF With 5+♦, may have 4cM
1N 10-12 Bal, no 4cM
2♣ 4+♣, Limit+
2♦ Intermediate Jump Shift, 9-12, 6+♦
2♥ Reverse Flannery, 5+♠, 4+♥, 5-9
2♠ Mixed raise in clubs
2N Balanced GF, no 4cM
3X Preemptive
3N Club preempt with outside A/K
4♣ Club preempt without an outside A/K

Over 1♣ - 1♠ - ?

1N 11-13 Bal, then
..2♣/♦ Natural, NF
..2♥/♠ Natural, GF (shows 5+♦)
..2N GF (shows 5♦332, or rarely 6♦322)
..3♣/♦ Natural, GF
..3♥/♠/4♣ Self splinters
..3NT To play (shows also 5♦332, but no slam interest)
2♣ Natural with clubs, min, then similar to above (with 2♦ being NF)
2♦/♥/♠ Natural reverse
2N 17-19 Bal (we play 1N opening as 14-16 and it does suck to have to 2N with 17)
3♣ 16-18 Good clubs
3♦/♥/♠ Self splinter
3N To Play (semi-gambling, often short diamonds)

So to answer your question, we do have 3 hand types, but we do not have the invitational hands in there. The invitational with diamonds hand has to either bid 2♦ directly with a single-suiter, show a 4-card major, bid 1N over 1♣ if semi-balanced, or with (13)=5=4 bid 2♣ (that is the only ugly one).

[karlson]

We currently play 2d as invitational with clubs, 2h as inv balanced, and 2s as gf with clubs. While I'm not super-attached to these, I was trying to keep as much constant as possible, just for ease of transition and memory load purposes.

[mikeh]

My preference:

1♠: 5-7 balanced or 11-12 balanced or any hand with diamonds as the primary suit (note that we would suppress a long diamond suit to show a 4 card major with less than gf values, so any hand that shows diamonds either lacks a major or is strong enough to reverse or check back for a major.

1N 8-10.

This works quite well.

Opener will often rebid 1N over 1♠ (including with 4414s of appropriate strength, and now 2-way new minor comes into play if need be. This also allows 2N to be a natural gf balanced hand response, which is quite useful.

This is probably not as good as josh's suggestion... I like the idea of 2♣ as a transfer, but I am a transferophile from way back, but it is probably easier to implement... since I think josh's method invites/requires significant discussion about later developments.

[JLOL]

mikeh, on Jan 23 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

This is probably not as good as josh's suggestion... I like the idea of 2♣ as a transfer, but I am a transferophile from way back, but it is probably easier to implement... since I think josh's method invites/requires significant discussion about later developments.

Yeah we did play some pretty ridiculous stuff over it, but if I were trying to make it less complex and easier to remember I think it could be done with that basic structure (but less effectively).

I know Meike/Marion play 1C p 1N as a GF relay if you are into relays, but obviously that would be pretty complicated too.

[jdonn]

Yes over 1NT and over 2♣ you could easily play the first step by opener shows a minimum (or a balanced minimum if you prefer) and anything else by either player is natural, with opener's other bids showing extras. The only extra discussion really needed beyond that is to make sure responder can still show a minimum with clubs or a gf over whatever opener does.

[awm]

How about a method designed to permit a split-range 1nt rebid? I was thinking something like:

1♠ = either too weak for game opposite 18/19 balanced or inv+ opposite 12/14 balanced (or whatever your balanced ranges are), no 4M
.... 1nt = balanced either range, or 4414 or whatever

1nt = less than invite opposite 12/14 balanced but gamegoing opposite 18/19.

2m = natural "constructive" (i.e. same 7-10 or so range as 1nt)

[jallerton]

I haven't got much experience of playing artificial responses to 1♣. However, it does seem dangerous to play any system that requires the same response to 1♣ on a 3325 shape as, say, a 3352 shape.

If 4th hand makes the hardly unexepcted overcall of 2 of a major, the opening side has a problem.

From Opener's point of view, Responder could have 2 or 5 clubs; from Responder's point of view, Opener could have 2 or 5 clubs

From Opener's point of view, Responder could have 2 or 5 diamonds; from Responder's point of view, Opener could have 2 or 4 diamonds (maybe even 5 if you open 1♣ on 5332s with 5 diamonds).

I may be unduly influenced by my natural upbringing, but I can't see much wrong with:

1♠ = 4+ diamonds
1NT = natural NF with 4 or 5 clubs, no game interest opposite the minimum balanced range.
2♣= forcing with clubs, game interest opposite the minimum balanced range.

or

1♠ = 4+ clubs
1NT = natural NF with 4 or 5 diamonds, no game interest opposite the minimum balanced range.
2♣= forcing with diamonds, game interest opposite the minimum balanced range.

I agree that 4414 hands of intermediate range are a problem when Responder shows diamonds (unless playing weak NT openings) but these hands are infrequent and the partnership can agree on the best distorted rebid to make on such hands.

[gnasher]

Currently I play:
1♠ no major, less than invitational; or diamonds, game-forcing
1NT = clubs, invitational+ (then 2C = weak notrump, 2D = clubs, minimum, others = FG)
2♣ = diamonds, invitational
2♦ = weak jump shift in a major; or balanced slam try opposite a weak notrump
2♥ = balanced, invitational+, no slam interest opposite a weak notrump
2♠ = minors , 5-8
2NT = clubs, weak
3♣ = minors, 9-11

I think it's important to take the invitational hands out of 1♠, so that if an enemy overcall causes you to miss a minor-suit fit it's on a hand where you were going to be outbid anyway.

Obviously, the multi 2♦ is a bit vulnerable to intervention.

[FrancesHinden]

jallerton, on Jan 24 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

I may be unduly influenced by my natural upbringing

I'm glad you didn't have an unnatural upbringing