[phil_20686]

Scoring: Imps

---

The auction goes

1N p 2d p
2h p p x
p ?

The NT was a weak nt, 12-14, your double of 2d was undiscussed, so it presumeably would have shown diamonds.

[gnasher]

I pass. If I had to guess, I'd expect both 2♥ and our partscore to go one down. If that's the case, bidding will cost 5 IMPs. Two of those is just as much a disaster as letting them make 2♥x.

[Fluffy]

I hate passing, but anything else seems wrong.

[pooltuna]

your ODR is clearly slanted to D so you D

[Jlall]

LOVE passing, expect to own this contract.

[Fluffy]

I have no strong opinion about want to lead.

The problem with defending with 4333 is that the wrong lead inmediatelly lets the opponents discard a loser because their suits are all breaking nicelly.

I think I would lead a club, because my partner is not anymore likelly to hold 4 spades than he is to hold 4 or 5 clubs. If your partners tend to double always with 4 spades then I guess you might want to lead one here.

[WesleyC]

I'll pass plenty of hands with less defense than this!

[lilboyman]

Interesting double by your partner. From partner's point of view, the opps could have as much as 24 HCP and still partner doubles. I believe that partner must be void in Hearts to justify this action. Do I want to defend 2 Hearts doubled with partner holding 5/4 in the minors and 4 Spades. I think I would rather risk playing in our 8 card minor fit and accordingly would bid 2 NT, pick a minor.

[Raivis]

Partner had a positive hand with heart shortness and take the trapping double.
You should penaltize opponents.

[effervesce]

Automatic pass. I'm very happy to defend 2♥X.

[benlessard]

WTP pass, if you consider this a problem its because your balancing X are clearly too light.

This is one of the sequence why i think transfers over a weak Nt are inferiors.

[gnasher]

benlessard, on Aug 6 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

This is one of the sequence why i think transfers over a weak Nt are inferiors.

Why? If they weren't playing transfers, it would go
  1NT pass 2♥ dbl
After responder signs off in 2♥, partner is in an almost identical position to the one after a transfer - he knows that responder has 5+ hearts and wants to play in 2♥. If anything, acting over the 2♥ signoff is slightly safer, because the opponents may be in a 9-card fit, whereas after a transfer is completed that is less likely.

[WesleyC]

Gnasher: I think its widely agreed that you would rather be able to bid 2M=to play over a weak NT if you could, than get there via a transfer.

The main sequence that matters is:

1NT (P) 2D=transfer (X)=penalty

Where 4th seat is able to double and show values, allowing his partner to later double 2H with lesser values (either for T/O or Pen depending on your agreements). In this sequence the defenders can catch the opening side in 2Hx when either partner holds a trump stack

Compare that to:

1NT (P) 2H(Natural) (X)

The takeout double it is a lot more ambiguous about strength. Holding a strong hand with a heart stack, 4th seat can't pass in fear that partner will not re-open. Also 2nd seat, holding a weak hand with a trump stack (perhaps xxxx KJTx xxx xx) will often pull the t/o double, afraid that partner could have a 12-13 count with short hearts.

Whether this adequately compensates for the loss on transfers in a contructive auction isn't clear. Probably depends on how good your alternative agreements are.

[Hanoi5]

I pass though not liking it. 2♠ or 2NT would be other choices but they all seem wrong.

[gnasher]

WesleyC, on Aug 7 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Gnasher: I think its widely agreed that you would rather be able to bid 2M=to play over a weak NT if you could, than get there via a transfer.

Even if that were true, it's not much of an argument - many things that are widely agreed are also nonsense.

In fact, I was only objecting to Ben's specific suggestion that the sequence in the original post was a bad one for transfer responses to a weak trump. I wasn't really discussing the broader question of whether transfers opposite a weak notrump are a good idea.

However, since you've brought it up:

Quote

The main sequence that matters is:

1NT (P) 2D=transfer (X)=penalty
...

That's one of the sequences that matter. Another is this one:
  1NT pass (2♦)[transfer] pass
  2♥ ?
Holding a takeout double of hearts, do you act? If you pass, partner will probably have too much heart length to take any action. If you double, you may find out that responder was about to bid game; if so, they may now either double you for a large penalty, or they may bid and make a game that was going to go down until you told them how to play it.

After a natural 2♥ signoff, you don't have the same problem. I think that this advantage of transfers more than compensates for the extra bid you give to fourth hand.

[kfay]

phil_20686, on Aug 5 2009, 04:57 AM, said:

Dealer: East Vul: All NV Scoring: Imps

♠ Jxx ♥ KQJx ♦ KJx ♣ xxx

The auction goes

1N p 2d p
2h p  p  x
p  ?

The NT was a weak nt, 12-14, your double of 2d was undiscussed, so it presumeably would have shown diamonds.

Have to say, for someone with so few posts this is a very nice OP with good information.

Anyway the only reason I can see not to pass is if you're worried about losing 3 IMPs to +400 in the other room... which is insane. I've got like 4 tricks in my own hand! I'm not worried about them making this.

The lead is interesting because I don't want to give declarer any free finesses. Diamond has some appeal but for sure I'd just lead a spade.

[MFA]

Pass but I really hate it. Off course if one expects partner to have a solid opening hand, then fine, but I don't - see below.

Double of 2♦ should be a power double, not just diamonds (very important to bid constructively against a weak NT).

So
P+D is a limited, shape-T/O.
D+D is T/O strong
D+P is bal, something like 14+ with 'wrong' shape.

[benlessard]

The difference is that after 2D you can X to show a good take-out or to pass and double 2H to show a light take-out (here its likely that if you bid 2H to play you wont get doubled)

Also there is the possibility to biud 2H to show a michael.

[TMorris]

I always find it interesting that people say playing transfers over a weak NT is not a good idea. A lot of them seem to play a strong NT mind you.

In the UK at club level "everyone" (say 90%) play a weak NT. The only ones who do not play transfers are beginners. If not playing transfers was clearly better you might think that more people would do it. At the higher levels most people play a strong NT so the situation is rather different but when I talk to such people no-one says "you really should stop playing transfers if you want to continue playing a weak NT" and people at that level are, generally, helpful and keen to encourage people like me who are aiming to improve.

Indeed I remember a vugraph some time ago where Liz McGowen clearly disagreed with a comment by another commentator that you shouldn't play transfers with a weak NT.

Do any of the people who say that you shouldn't play transfers over a weak NT actually play the weak NT?

[rhm]

TMorris, on Aug 10 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I always find it interesting that people say playing transfers over a weak NT is not a good idea. A lot of them seem to play a strong NT mind you.

In the UK at club level "everyone" (say 90%) play a weak NT. The only ones who do not play transfers are beginners. If not playing transfers was clearly better you might think that more people would do it. At the higher levels most people play a strong NT so the situation is rather different but when I talk to such people no-one says "you really should stop playing transfers if you want to continue playing a weak NT" and people at that level are, generally, helpful and keen to encourage people like me who are aiming to improve.

Indeed I remember a vugraph some time ago where Liz McGowen clearly disagreed with a comment by another commentator that you shouldn't play transfers with a weak NT.

Do any of the people who say that you shouldn't play transfers over a weak NT actually play the weak NT?

The major advantage of transfers are that you create extra bidding sequences for responder. After all responder can decide whether to pass the transfer or bid on. This advantage applies over any strength no-trump and conserves bidding space when responder is strong (or invitational). But responder needs less and is therefor more likely to be "strong" opposite a strong no-trump.

Try to show a strong major-minor two-suiter below 3NT without transfers or try to show an invitational hand with 5 ♥ without transfers (opener has 4 ♠).

Right-siding the contract is an important, though secondary issue, but of course this gets also more important the stronger your no-trump range is. It is also a good idea for responder to describe his hand if he will be dummy instead of opener, who will likely declare.

One disadvantage of transfers is of course that opponents have slightly more capabilities to interfere. Again this gets more serious the lower your no-trump range is.

So there is a diminishing return for transfers the lower your no trump range gets, but is probably worthwhile even with weak no-trumps.

I do not play transfers when I play mini-notrump.

Rainer Herrmann