[mohitz]

I have seen some top pairs play a 2S response to a 1NT opening as either an invite or clubs.

How does it work? Does this mean we can't super accept clubs any more?

[jdonn]

Opener bids 2NT with a min and 3♣ with a max. He can't super accept specifically for clubs any more but at least he has shown min or max in general.

[gwnn]

It's a nice gadget. Allows for a little overbidding, now you can play 3NT with 8+15 if the 1NT opener has ♣KJx a little bit of overbidding has never killed anyone.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

Opener bids 2NT with a min and 3♣ with a max. He can't super accept specifically for clubs any more but at least he has shown min or max in general.

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max

[helene_t]

pooltuna, on Jul 19 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

Opener bids 2NT with a min and 3♣ with a max. He can't super accept specifically for clubs any more but at least he has shown min or max in general.

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max

huh? If responder has 8 points without club length, he would be stuck when opener bids 3♣.

So it's better to play 2NT as showing minimum, then responder can pass 2NT.

[gwnn]

also you can play
1NT-2♠
...-3♦

as some sort of minor suit ask or something, if you haev a balanced 17 count and want to explore slams in a 4-4 fit.

[hanp]

You can also play 2S as clubs or invite, so that you can still show your single suited slam tries with diamond shortness.

In general I prefer showing bids instead of asking bids, especially when partner has a balanced hand.

[pooltuna]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Jul 19 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

Opener bids 2NT with a min and 3♣ with a max. He can't super accept specifically for clubs any more but at least he has shown min or max in general.

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max

huh? If responder has 8 points without club length, he would be stuck when opener bids 3♣.

So it's better to play 2NT as showing minimum, then responder can pass 2NT.

right I had my thinking crossed thinking 2♠ promised ♣

[NickRW]

In one partnership I play it as an a] invite not that interested in the majors, or b] 6+ diamonds slammy, or c] GF exactly 3 cards in one major, single or void in the other with at least 5=4 in the minors, or d] slammy 2=2=5=4, or e] slammy at least 6=4 minors, or f] first move with some quantative slam invites. Replies are 2N = min, 3C = non min, denies diamonds as good as Qxx, 3D = non min, happy with diamonds as trumps. Works well enough - but you have to see the whole NT response structure to appreciate it - which I ain't writing here coz it is way too long - but I will say 2N is a club transfer.

Nick

[MickyB]

I like this - feels like an improvement on "standard" 4-suit transfers, at least if 4th seat doesn't decide to bid something at the three-level.

[nigel_k]

IMO this is a definite improvement as you lose very little and it's bad having to bid Stayman with no major if you want to invite.

Apart from giving info to the opponents, using the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♥-2NT with or without spades mean opener cannot correct to 3♠ with a minimum. Or if you bid 2♠ over 2♥ to cater to that then you cannot use that bid for another purpose.

Actually if you play 4 suit transfers the 'standard' way you are probably better off never inviting in NT without a major and just guessing to pass or bid 3NT.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on Jul 19 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

IMO this is a definite improvement as you lose very little

You lose the ability to bid cooperatively with a one-suited invitation in clubs. You also lose the chance for a responder with a one-suited slam try to hear immediately about opener's suitability for clubs. I think that together those constitute a significant loss.

Edit: I'm not actually saying that four-suit transfers are better than this. In fact, I think almost anything is better than having to bid Stayman when I don't have any interest in partner's majors.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-July-19, 15:02

[aguahombre]

My observation is that only the top players seem to be able to handle all the refinements --including 2S --to 4-suit xfer style without either screwing it up or breaking tempo enough to generate UI issues.

4-suit xfers need the above mentioned reffinements in order to cover the various hand strengths and patterns; and in the hands of us great unwashed, it is just too accident prone.

I would not be surprised if, after more of the same, many frequent tourney players revert back to 2-suit xfers, MSS, Walsh Relays, and such (and also lose Creeping Stayman).

In the meantime, I am still waiting for a hand where going thru Stayman with an invite becomes a problem. It actually gains in one infrequent situation, without losing in others: the time when Opener has a max and a 5-cd major, and can show it enroute to accepting the invite. I am sure that there are others, with different agreements, who have found Stayman without a major to be a problem.

[NickRW]

Keri style 2C plus 2D/2H as transfers does not lose the ability to invite one suited with clubs, nor do you have to Stayman either with a non major suited invite- indeed there is no Stayman as such - well not until later rounds anyway.

It has other downsides though - IMO just about worth it over a strong NT given that you're prepared to learn some quite different sequences - but its a close decision.

Nick

[JLOGIC]

I like this a lot more at MP than imps, no doubt because I am one of those who likes to pass or bid 3N with the bal invite no 4 card major hand type.

Giving up on our club invite sucks, as does not knowing how partner likes his hand for slam purposes.

Think about an auction like

1N 2S
3C 3S
3N

Responder has not shown slam interest yet, just short spades, maybe looking for the right game. So even if opener has a good hand for clubs, he has to bid 3N with spades stopped reasonable well. Now responder has to guess whether to bid on or not. Knowing whether partner had a good hand for clubs or not would make this a lot easier.

At MP I invite a lot more, and not giving away info is vital at that form of scoring so I think this is a good agreement.

Ofc I play this with almost all my partners and play imps with almost all of them haha, we can call that the Meckwell effect.

[kgr]

I play that
1NT-2S
Is either:
- transfer ♣
- invite with ♦ .
=> opener supposes that it is for ♣ and superaccepts for ♣ with 2NT
 
and
1NT-3C
Is weak or strong with ♦

[jdonn]

Btw the last time this was bid against me I doubled it for the lead with QJ9xx, which not only got me the lead but convinced him to hook into my Qx missing 4 cards in another suit which was the only way to go down. Therefore I have conclusive proof that this convention is a loser, QED.

[nigel_k]

gnasher, on Jul 20 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 19 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

IMO this is a definite improvement as you lose very little

You lose the ability to bid cooperatively with a one-suited invitation in clubs. You also lose the chance for a responder with a one-suited slam try to hear immediately about opener's suitability for clubs. I think that together those constitute a significant loss.

Edit: I'm not actually saying that four-suit transfers are better than this. In fact, I think almost anything is better than having to bid Stayman when I don't have any interest in partner's majors.

Ok maybe I don't understand how people are using 4 suit transfers, but my understanding was that opener initially bids either 2NT or 3♣ based on their suitability for 3NT opposite a club invite. That is surely quite different from suitability for a club slam. Just knowing whether opener is minimum or maximum instead is not as good but is still useful information and the other stuff can be more easily shown later.

[JLOGIC]

nigel_k, on Jul 19 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 20 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 19 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

IMO this is a definite improvement as you lose very little

You lose the ability to bid cooperatively with a one-suited invitation in clubs. You also lose the chance for a responder with a one-suited slam try to hear immediately about opener's suitability for clubs. I think that together those constitute a significant loss.

Edit: I'm not actually saying that four-suit transfers are better than this. In fact, I think almost anything is better than having to bid Stayman when I don't have any interest in partner's majors.

Ok maybe I don't understand how people are using 4 suit transfers, but my understanding was that opener initially bids either 2NT or 3♣ based on their suitability for 3NT opposite a club invite. That is surely quite different from suitability for a club slam. Just knowing whether opener is minimum or maximum instead is not as good but is still useful information and the other stuff can be more easily shown later.

There is a strong correlation between a hand that a 1N opener has that would accept a club invite having an at least above average hand for a club slam?

[nigel_k]

JLOGIC, on Jul 20 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

There is a strong correlation between a hand that a 1N opener has that would accept a club invite having an at least above average hand for a club slam?

Maybe there is. I was thinking of hands with something like Hx(x) in clubs and slow but solid stoppers in the other suits. This would be quite good if the invite is for 3NT but not for slam. I'd tend to think that if responder makes a slam try after transferring then opener needs to re-evaluate.