[mike777]

jillybean, on May 25 2010, 07:38 AM, said:

1M (X) XX

What is the expert treatment of the XX here?

xx=3 piece, LMT or better in support (xx does not promise support, you have to raise later)

[mohitz]

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

What is the strength of 2M-1?

[655321]

aguahombre, on May 26 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

Not sure how much actual value there is in distinguishing between 3-card and 4-card support with LR + after the double.

Wot? Not commenting on any exact methods, obviously there are many valid agreements after a XX, but this statement seems backwards.

When I have opened the bidding and partner has raised, if LHO has doubled (making it more likely he has shortage in my suit) then the first thing I want to know is whether partner has 4 trumps or only 3 (when a 4-1 trump break might be a concern). i.e. the double makes it more important, not less important, to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support.

[Jlall]

mohitz, on May 26 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

What is the strength of 2M-1?

Constructive raise, less than a LR (7-10ish, not all 7s not all 10s).

[helene_t]

For most, I think, 1♥-(x)-xx denies five spades since 1♠ would be forcing. It does not deny a long minor suit since 2m would not be forcing.

Some very old text books say that xx is the only strength-showing bid so it just shows 10+ points and say nothing else. But that is impractical since if opps preempt it can be difficult to show our hand if we have said nothing about shape in the first round. So nowadays most people play a 1-level shift as forcing. Playing transfers also allows you to bid strong 2-suiters without having to go through the rdbl, and to show a hand with 3-card support and a side suit.

[pooltuna]

mohitz, on May 26 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

Related question: If you play transfers over 1M - (X)

What is the strength of 2M-1?

IMO this needs to be a constructive raise to reduce the effects of opps X and the 2M qbid. Consequently your 2M bid is equivalent to a raise that would go thru a F1NT auction (i.e. uncontested)

[gwnn]

1S-x-2H*

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

I do bid 2H with 4 spades too when I think I am too flat.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on May 26 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

1S-x-2H*

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

It might (I'm not sure) be better to play the transfer as weak or invitational+, and the direct raise as exactly constructive. That gains when we're bidding constructively, but loses a bit by letting advancer double or cue-bid over the weak raise.

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on May 26 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

gwnn, on May 26 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

1S-x-2H*

I play as 3 spades and about 8+

It might (I'm not sure) be better to play the transfer as weak or invitational+, and the direct raise as exactly constructive. That gains when we're bidding constructively, but loses a bit by letting advancer double or cue-bid over the weak raise.

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

[gnasher]

pooltuna, on May 26 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

My responder is showing a hand which is exactly constructive, whereas gwnn's responder is showing "8+". Is that the part that you missed, or were you hoping for a more general exposition of the advantages of making bids whose range is limited?

[Jlall]

Yes 8+ seems terrible since you have to drive to the 3 level to show a 3 card LR. Yes sometimes if it gets competitive you have to do that also after XXing, but more often imo you get to XX and raise to 2 and stop in 2.

Same problem to me with gnasher's idea, an inv hand will have to force to the 3 level. The biggest benefit of XX with a 3 card LR to me is that you can stop in 2.

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on May 26 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

pooltuna, on May 26 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

I seem to have missed what the gains are for a direct constructive raise as opposed to a constructive transfer raise.

My responder is showing a hand which is exactly constructive, whereas gwnn's responder is showing "8+". Is that the part that you missed, or were you hoping for a more general exposition of the advantages of making bids whose range is limited?

I misunderstood gwnn's take on the position and agree that the call should be limited otherwise the opener gets preempted into a swamp.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on May 26 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Yes 8+ seems terrible since you have to drive to the 3 level to show a 3 card LR. Yes sometimes if it gets competitive you have to do that also after XXing, but more often imo you get to XX and raise to 2 and stop in 2.

Same problem to me with gnasher's idea, an inv hand will have to force to the 3 level. The biggest benefit of XX with a 3 card LR to me is that you can stop in 2.

So you play transfers, but with redouble retaining its standard meaning? Does that mean that you can't show a natural 1NT bid?

[aguahombre]

most people couldn't play it in 1NT after a major suit opening anyway, so no big deal. although, 1s is natural after 1hX ---so that one could play in nt.

[awm]

When I play transfers, I prefer after 1M-(X):

2M = 4-7 point raise of the major
2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call
1N through 2M-2 = transfer to the next suit up, 5+ cards in suit transferred to, wide range of hcp
XX = natural, denies support for the major
1♠ (over 1♥) = natural, forcing one round

A "normal" 1M-2M is probably 6-9. So the "width" of our ranges is roughly the same as standard, but by having two raises we both manage to compete on weaker hands and manage to get our 3-card limit raises in at the two-level.

My preference is to use 1M-(X)-transfer-accept-2M as showing decent values with doubleton major and length in the suit transferred to, rather than as a "lead direct" with a single raise. There are several reasons for this, including that I think my hand type is more common (and harder to bid otherwise) and that the purely lead-directional actions seem more likely to run into trouble when the opponents don't pass over the transfer.

[gnasher]

awm, on May 26 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call

So far as I can see you're actually playing this as any 8+ with 3-card support, so the same as what gwnn plays and justin dislikes.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on May 26 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

most people couldn't play it in 1NT after a major suit opening anyway, so no big deal. although, 1s is natural after 1hX ---so that one could play in nt.

In an uncontested auction you still have a way to bid a balanced hand with 5-9 points and not 3-card support. The fact that your way to bid this hand involves a forcing bid doesn't seem especially relevant to me.

[andy_h]

I play 2M-1 as weak or GF raise, with 2M=8-11

[awm]

gnasher, on May 26 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

awm, on May 26 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

2M-1 = usually 8-11 point raise of the major; could be stronger but then will take another call

So far as I can see you're actually playing this as any 8+ with 3-card support, so the same as what gwnn plays and justin dislikes.

Perhaps, but Justin's implication about driving to the three-level doesn't hold here.

The 2M-1 bid normally shows 8-11. If responder has 8-11, he doesn't force to the three-level. Of course, opener might risk the three level if holding some hand that wants game opposite 10-11 but not 8-9, but this is roughly the same problem everyone faces after single raises (except that responder is two points better). It's okay to have a slightly wider range for a raise to the two-level (where opener has room for a try if he wants) than you have for a raise to the three-level.

If responder has a game forcing three-card raise without a five-card suit, he can bid 2M-1 and then take another call. But in this case you are going to game anyway, so it hardly matters that you are "forced to the three-level."

[Phil]

I've played transfers over doubles (starting with xx) in all my partnerships for at least 6-7 years and like them a lot.

1x - dbl - 2x-1 is 7/8 - 10 or so. 3 card raises that are limit or better are handled by a pass followed by a raise which sounds weird but works fine in practice.

Hate the idea of 2x -1 as weak or strong. Most of the time its weak and you give the 4th chair not only one extra bid but a whole round of bidding to split their ranges.

Also don't like this 8+ idea. I've played this.after overcalls and it is unmanageable.