[rbforster]

In competitive situations, I've seen more people playing transfers, especially after our opening bid is doubled. For example, I play transfers after 1M-(X). Do people play something similar after 1m-(X)? It seems there are slightly different issues... you're still looking for majors, you're not forced to the 2 level as often, 1m promises many fewer cards (3+ vs 5+), etc.

For example, maybe play transfers:

1♦-(X):

XX 4+♥
1♥ 4+♠
1♠ normal 1NT bid (or stronger balanced)
1N 5+ clubs
2♣ good ♦ raise
2♦ competitive ♦ raise

If you give up the business XX (as above), do you pass with those hands and hope to double them later (for penalty), or do you just bid it as a constructive hand?

[aguahombre]

Your posted style would work. We like ignoring the double over a minor with most hands....redouble=11+, no good bid (usually 5 clubs by inference after 1D), starting cooperative auction --2NT=lr+ in the minor. thus, both 2m raise and 3m raise are descriptive weak calls.

The big difference, as you stated, is the length suggested by the opening major suit bid vs the minor suit bid. Plus, the reduction of need to explore for a fit in both majors.

Cappeletti, and its extensions are great for the majors. Your recommendations would work well after 1m...but we happen to choose the pretty-much natural responses at this time.

[awm]

I play more or less what you described in some partnerships, although I prefer a natural 1NT bid and 1♠-->♣. The reason is that siding issues are often important for notrump contracts (and a notrump contract is fairly likely when responder has a good hand with clubs), as well as not wanting to give opponents an easy spade lead direct when the plan is just to play 1NT.

Normally I don't go head-hunting at the one-level; I haven't found this to be a frequent source of good boards. So I'd just bid my hand constructively, taking advantage of the extra space kindly offered by the opponents.

The situation is somewhat over 1M-X, where opponents often end at the two-level and doubling them can be more profitable. In this auction I like a natural redouble, transfers starting from 1NT, and pass with 0-9 balanced with no fit.

[karlson]

awm, on Feb 13 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

I play more or less what you described in some partnerships, although I prefer a natural 1NT bid and 1♠-->♣. The reason is that siding issues are often important for notrump contracts (and a notrump contract is fairly likely when responder has a good hand with clubs), as well as not wanting to give opponents an easy spade lead direct when the plan is just to play 1NT.

Normally I don't go head-hunting at the one-level; I haven't found this to be a frequent source of good boards. So I'd just bid my hand constructively, taking advantage of the extra space kindly offered by the opponents.

The situation is somewhat over 1M-X, where opponents often end at the two-level and doubling them can be more profitable. In this auction I like a natural redouble, transfers starting from 1NT, and pass with 0-9 balanced with no fit.

You don't think putting doubler on lead is the most important right-siding issue?

Agree with the rest of your post.

[awm]

karlson, on Feb 13 2010, 11:08 PM, said:

You don't think putting doubler on lead is the most important right-siding issue?

Not necessarily. I think:

(1) If one of the two hands is balanced and one is not, and we end in 3NT, it is important to have the balanced hand declare. This is especially so when the shortness is in a major. Getting opener to declare 3NT when responder has an unbalanced invite-plus with clubs is more important than getting opener to declare when responder has a random balanced hand with no 4-card major.

(2) It's useful to have a choice of who declares based on the actual holdings. This style lets responder declare by bidding notrump directly (natural) or make opener declare by showing a minor suit first or by passing and then doubling for takeout.

(3) A lot of the gain from having the doubler on lead is forcing him to guess which major is right. But if you use 1♠-transfer-to-notrump, then advancer can double to get a spade lead, and if he doesn't double partner should usually lead hearts.

(4) When responder has no 4-card major and a less than invitational hand, it's valuable to put pressure on the opponents early where possible. This is because the opponents often (but not always) can compete effectively in a major. Using 1♠ to transfer to 1NT (or just passing 1♦X) makes the opponents lives relatively easy. The non-forcing 1NT creates a more difficult situation for 4th hand, where he has to bid right away or risk 1NT passing out.

[gnasher]

I play what was suggested in the original post. You can split the raises into three, though:
2♣ = weak diamond raise or invitational+ diamond raise
2♦ = constructive diamond raise
Implicit in this is a willingness for an invitational hand to bid again even if fourth hand bids to a high level.

[gnasher]

Adam makes some good points. I don't agree with this one, though:

Quote

(1) If one of the two hands is balanced and one is not, and we end in 3NT, it is important to have the balanced hand declare. This is especially so when the shortness is in a major.

If we are 2-4 in spades and 3-1 in hearts, advancer knows that a heart lead is right, but the doubler may not. In that situation it seems a very good idea to put the doubler on lead.

Furthermore, if the doubler is on lead and manages to lead opener's singleton, the right card to lead may depend on the rank of opener's card - it may be necessary to lead high to pin a middle singleton, or to lead a low one to knock out the bare ace of king. If opener's singleton is in dummy it makes it easier for the doubler to play the right card at trick one.

[FrancesHinden]

I play what awm suggested.
It works well getting opener to declare the suit contracts.
I haven't played these methods enough to have a strong feel for the relative merits of 1NT showing clubs and 1S showing clubs.

[helene_t]

Rob F, on Feb 14 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

If you give up the business XX (as above), do you pass with those hands and hope to double them later (for penalty), or do you just bid it as a constructive hand?

You can't double them for penalties if you don't play business XX. This is because a pass followed by a double at low level (under 2 of opener's suit) is t/o. Of course you will sometimes be able to pass opener's t/o double, or he will be able to pass yours, or a penalty double situation will occur later anyway, for example if they bid notrumps.

I think business rdbl's are infrequent after 1m opening and actually also after a 1♥ opening. So it's no great loss.

I think your structure is fine. Maybe Adam's is better. I dunno.

[rbforster]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2010, 06:55 AM, said:

I think your structure is fine. Maybe Adam's is better. I dunno.

This has been my experience so far... seems fine, but not much conviction that it's better/worst than something else. Let me throw out a few issues for discussion:

1. natural major bids vs transfers to majors
It seems that the main benefit of the transfer approach is that opener can accept at the one level, with tolerance but no enthusiasm, allowing you to stay low. This is weighted against the artificial doubles and free second round of bidding afforded to the competitors. Does this mean maybe we should just play natural but non-forcing major responses after a double? That seems like the best of both worlds... and opener can just pass. I suppose that would require you to XX (or pass forcing, or bid NT/jump, etc) with any strong hand with 4-5 in one/both majors that wants to make a forcing bid, and this could be awkward in competition if 4th hand preempts..

2. Strong passes
When you have a normal XX hand (9/10+ balanced or semibalanced), what about passing with this? Advancer is essentially forced to bid (3 opening hands at the table so far, so he won't have a penalty pass), so why not pass and back into the auction later (X=penalty, new suit/NT invitational)? This might cost you a little in terms of cooperative penalty doubling (since opener isn't sure you have values), but the extra bid could be useful for more common, weaker hands.

3. 1♠ as a transfer
Whether you treat this as an explicit transfer to clubs, or a transfer to NT, either way you're almost certainly denying a major. As such, this is a preemptive bid that may shut out advancer from making a cheap 1♥ call or an ambiguous X. While it's not as preemptive as bidding 1N or 2♣, the transfer does gain you the opportunity to bid on weak long club hands (without overstating your values) as well as to separate different strength levels. On balance, I feel like the 1♠ transfer bid is pretty good.

4. What about both minors?
This might be more relevant against "Italian" doubles (frequently off-shape, with say both majors but length in the opened minor), but what about having a bid that shows both minors, say 1♠ or 2♣ showing both minors 4/4+ instead of just showing clubs? This is probably both more frequent (requires fewer clubs than the 5/6(?) clubs you need to want to play 2♣, and caters to more frequent diamond length after 1♦-X), and more descriptive in terms of allowing opener to compete.

5. Do you really need an invite in partner's minor?
The competitive raise, 1m-(X)-2m, is certainly valuable, both as a blocking measure and by encouraging partner to compete further with a good fit. I'm less clear about the invitational raise, which will be both less common and may be a worse contract than NT. The transfer raise (2♣->2♦) does allow you to stop lower when opener rejects, however, which does seem worthwhile.

Please feel free to discuss/critique these various ideas. Here's an alternative structure along these lines:

1♦-(X):

P weak with no good bid, or any normal XX hand with no 5cM
XX hearts
1♥ spades
1♠ suggested transfer to NT, balanced not wanting to declare, or invite in a minor(s)
......1N-2m natural invitational in that minor
......1N-2N/3N natural, wanting partner to declare NT (and not wanting to try to penalize)
1N natural, wanting to declare (and too weak to pass!)
2♣ both minors, competitive
2♦ competitive

Alternatively, you could play natural and NF majors, and move the above 1♠ hands into XX:

XX balanced not wanting to declare, or invitational with minor(s) or 5cM
1M natural, NF

That would have the advantage that opener would be able to pass the XX pretty freely, essentially forcing advancer to make a preference bid when he'd be happier passing (since the XX=hearts is essentially forcing).