[jillybean]

I am adding 4 way transfer over 1N

1N 2♠ 3♣ and 1N 2N 3♦

1N 2♠ 2N is a super accept of ♣ promising 3 to the A,K or Q or 4 small
1N 2N 3♣ is the ♦ super accept

After super accept 3m is to play, any other suit is a cue bid or kickback, exclusion etc.

Balanced, invitational hands must go via 2♣. After 1N:2♣:2x the 2N rebid must be alerted, may/may not have a 4cM, not the 2♣ bid.

What have we forgotten, are there other tricks or pitfalls to this treatment?

[brian_m]

 jillybean, on 2011-December-07, 10:22, said:

I am adding 4 way transfer over 1N

1N 2♠ 3♣ and 1N 2N 3♦

1N 2♠ 2N is a super accept of ♣ promising 3 to the A,K or Q or 4 small
1N 2N 3♣ is the ♦ super accept

After super accept 3m is to play, any other suit is a cue bid or kickback, exclusion etc.

Balanced, invitational hands must go via 2♣. After 1N:2♣:2x the 2N rebid must be alerted, may/may not have a 4cM, not the 2♣ bid.

What have we forgotten, are there other tricks or pitfalls to this treatment?

There's a very slight advantage, and (IMO) no downside, to playing WEAK pre-accepts, where you switch your suggested meaning for the intermediate bid and the bbid of the suit directly.

Why is this an advantage? Just because it makes it that little bit harder for opponents to come in.

Take the sequence where opener denies the support 1NT-2S-2NT-3C - now responder could have a stronger hand and not want to go on because of the lack of club support.

Look at the other sequence 1NT-2S-3C - now responder will pass with a weak hand but only one opponent gets the chance to balance once responder is known to be weak.

If there's a downside to playing them this way round, no doubt someone will point it out to me, but I can't see one.

[mikeh]

 brian_m, on 2011-December-07, 10:38, said:

There's a very slight advantage, and (IMO) no downside, to playing WEAK pre-accepts, where you switch your suggested meaning for the intermediate bid and the bbid of the suit directly.

Why is this an advantage? Just because it makes it that little bit harder for opponents to come in.

Take the sequence where opener denies the support 1NT-2S-2NT-3C - now responder could have a stronger hand and not want to go on because of the lack of club support.

Look at the other sequence 1NT-2S-3C - now responder will pass with a weak hand but only one opponent gets the chance to balance once responder is known to be weak.

If there's a downside to playing them this way round, no doubt someone will point it out to me, but I can't see one.

There is an even better reason for using the in-between bid as weaker than 'accepting' the transfer.

Anyone using 4 way transfers, and indeed many others, have to go through 2♣ with a hand that is invitational to 3N, whether responder has a major or not. This means that opener will have to describe his major holdings, at least to some degree, even on hands on which responder has zero interest in a major. This in turn makes the opening lead more informed and the subsequent defensive counting of declarer's shape that much easier.

I'm on lead with say Q108x Q108x in the majors...the auction has gone 1N 2♣ 2♠ 2N.....I lead a heart and rate to do better on average than if I led a spade.

How does this impact how we play 4 suit transfers?

Make your 2♠ bid either a transfer to clubs or an invitation to 3N, with NO 4 card major. Opener bids 2N with all hands on which he would reject the invite, and 3♣ with all hands on which he would raise an invitational 2N to game.

The plus side of this treatment is concealment of opener's major holdings and this can be huge. Remember that, by definition, we are often going to be in a close game....because we had an invitational sequence. It is precisely on these hands that this method works best, because the wrong lead can give the contract either immediately or by losing a defensive tempo, and the lack of disclosure of opener's hand can help even later in the play.

The downside is that opener's call doesn't relate to his club holding. There will be a few hands on which opener likes clubs but wouldn't accept a balanced game invitation, and that could result in the very occasional missed game, when responder would be able to count tricks if aware of the club liking. The same notion applies when opener bids 3♣ and responder has to decide whether to try to play in clubs or notrump.....not knowing how the hands fit.

Finally....when responder has a bad hand, wanting to play in 3♣, we do get the contract wrong-sided when opener has a max but right sided when opener has a minimum. This seems to me to be neutral....opener will more often have a minimum, but right-siding is probably irrelevant most of the time, and probably less relevant opposite a max than a min, so I think this is a wash.

The negatives seem to be far less significant, due to frequency issues, than do the positives.

There is no reason in principle that one has to use the same treatment of acceptances in both minors, but it makes sense to do so on the grounds of ease of memory.

[broze]

 brian_m, on 2011-December-07, 10:38, said:

If there's a downside to playing them this way round, no doubt someone will point it out to me, but I can't see one.

Yes, this is how my partnership plays it as well. Some might argue that the disadvantage is that when responder is very weak and wishes to sign off, often he will have to declare and the NT opener will be on the table. Imo the disadvantages of this are outweighed by the advantages.

The only other difference between the OP's style and my own is that I will super-accept with an honour doubleton. Often we'll be looking for a "cheap" way to NT and the honour is more likely to help than having 3 small.

[hrothgar]

 jillybean, on 2011-December-07, 10:22, said:

I am adding 4 way transfer over 1N

1N 2♠ 3♣ and 1N 2N 3♦

1N 2♠ 2N is a super accept of ♣ promising 3 to the A,K or Q or 4 small
1N 2N 3♣ is the ♦ super accept

Hi Kathryn

My impression is that using the superaccept to show Kx (or better) rather than Kxx is more advantageous

[broze]

Hi mikeh,

That is a very interesting treatment.

I guess its effectiveness comes down to whether you are more likely to go down in game because of help given to the opponents from the auction or more likely to miss game by not discovering that your partner can fill your broken minor.

The fact that information will only be given to the opps in an auction where responder has both no 4c Major and only invitational values makes it a close call imo.

EDIT: Although as you say, opener is more likely to have club honours when he has a maximum NT.

[Cascade]

The other advantage cited is that with a weak hand with both minors (5/5) we can transfer to diamonds and if partner doesn't super accept with 3♦ we can pass 3♣ to play. You may need to change what constitutes a superaccept when you are 3=2 in the minors.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I prefer the following structure from Notrump Bidding the Scanian Way

1N - 3♦+ = various splinters
1N - 3♣ = to play in clubs
1N - 2N = asks for a weak doubleton (use this bid with minor oriented hands that would bid 3N after a super accept)
1N - 2S = range ask

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2011-December-07, 10:22, said:

I am adding 4 way transfer over 1N

1N 2♠ 3♣ and 1N 2N 3♦

1N 2♠ 2N is a super accept of ♣ promising 3 to the A,K or Q or 4 small
1N 2N 3♣ is the ♦ super accept

After super accept 3m is to play, any other suit is a cue bid or kickback, exclusion etc.

Balanced, invitational hands must go via 2♣. After 1N:2♣:2x the 2N rebid must be alerted, may/may not have a 4cM, not the 2♣ bid.

What have we forgotten, are there other tricks or pitfalls to this treatment?

I have never played 4 way transfers but I think they are very popular on bbo.


It appears you give up playing minor suit stayman, showing 4441 slam trys, 55 weak with both minors, slam trys with both minors one longer than other, perhaps I am missing something here?

[Cascade]

 mike777, on 2011-December-07, 18:46, said:

I have never played 4 way transfers but I think they are very popular on bbo.


It appears you give up playing minor suit stayman, showing 4441 slam trys, 55 weak with both minors, slam trys with both minors one longer than other, perhaps I am missing something here?

You cram all of those into 2♠ and 2NT?

Some of those hands could be shown after a minor suit transfer. And then there is all of the three-level for most of the others.

[mike777]

2s=mss or either weak with long d, weak with both minors 5-5 or slam try with both minors 4-4 or prob more

2nt=relay to 3c sign off in clubs or 4441 slam try.

three level bids show other hands.

--


Of course everyone has their fav treatments, no claim one is better than other but it seems this style of 4 suit tfr gives up a bit.

[BunnyGo]

To suggest a further modification to mikeh's suggestion. I like playing that 2S is one of:

1) invite to 3N
2) weak diamonds
3) both minors weak or strong

and 2N is a club transfer.

Now over 2S opener can bid 2N to not accept, or bid his preferred minor with a hand that would accept 3N. Responder then clarifies which hand they have by passing or bidding accordingly (3M is a splinter with both minors strong).

[Vampyr]

 Cascade, on 2011-December-07, 12:48, said:

The other advantage cited is that with a weak hand with both minors (5/5) we can transfer to diamonds and if partner doesn't super accept with 3♦ we can pass 3♣ to play. You may need to change what constitutes a superaccept when you are 3=2 in the minors.

I have had this auction come up a few times, and I was very glad to have it available.

[mich-b]

Another small point:
1NT - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT
will be ambiguous about holding 4♠, which is a disadvantage (what should opener do with min and 4♠?)

One way to resolve it , is to agree that 2NT here denies 4♠, and you bid 2♠ with 4♠ invitational. The advantage of this is that you can stop as low as 2♠ on 4-4 or 4-3 fit when opener is minimum. However , if you do this , you have to give up on using the sequence 2♣->2♠ as unbalanced invite to 4♠. Your choice.

[Vampyr]

 mich-b, on 2011-December-08, 02:39, said:

One way to resolve it , is to agree that 2NT here (after 1NT-2♣-2♥) denies 4♠, and you bid 2♠ with 4♠ invitational.

I believe that this is standard when playing 4-suit transfers.

[piratepete]

 mich-b, on 2011-December-08, 02:39, said:

Another small point:
1NT - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT
will be ambiguous about holding 4♠, which is a disadvantage (what should opener do with min and 4♠?)

One way to resolve it , is to agree that 2NT here denies 4♠, and you bid 2♠ with 4♠ invitational. The advantage of this is that you can stop as low as 2♠ on 4-4 or 4-3 fit when opener is minimum. However , if you do this , you have to give up on using the sequence 2♣->2♠ as unbalanced invite to 4♠. Your choice.

You're not giving up anything. Hands with exactly 4♠ find their 4-4 fit by 2♣-2♠ or 2♣-2♥-2♠, hands with at least 5♠ and not 4♥ transfer, and hands with 5-5 can bid 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠.

The only wrinkle is the 5-4 and 6-4: probably best to play Quest transfers for those (1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦/♥: inv+, 45/54 majors), but I guess Smolen works too.

[mich-b]

 piratepete, on 2011-December-08, 05:46, said:

You're not giving up anything. Hands with exactly 4♠ find their 4-4 fit by 2♣-2♠ or 2♣-2♥-2♠, hands with at least 5♠ and not 4♥ transfer, and hands with 5-5 can bid 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠.

The only wrinkle is the 5-4 and 6-4: probably best to play Quest transfers for those (1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦/♥: inv+, 45/54 majors), but I guess Smolen works too.

As pointed in another thread by Justin and others, 2♣ then 2♠, might be efficiently used for hands that want to invite 4♠ opposite some fit but not 3NT , perhaps 5-5 with 7 hcp, or a nice concentrated 5134 etc... Transferring is not effective with that hand type because when opener bids 2♠ if you pass you may miss a good 4♠ and if you bid 2nt you might end up there or pd might raise to 3NT which is bad.
You can't combine this approach with resolving the ambiguity of responder having 4♠ when he rebids 2NT.

[kgr]

I play:
2♠: transfer ♣ or limit with long ♦
Opener: 2NT positive for ♣ / 3♣ negative for ♣
3♣: weak or GF with ♦
This keeps 1NT-2NT natural.

[Flem72]

 jillybean, on 2011-December-07, 10:22, said:

What have we forgotten, are there other tricks or pitfalls to this treatment?

If you use the suit rather than the in-between as the super (I too will accept with Hx or xxx) then you can always transfer to D and pass the response with weak 5-5 minors.

Also:

1N-trans/super-?:

3N = 6-3-2-2 slam try;
3M or om = specifically stiff, slam try.

1N-trans/accept trans-?:

3N = 6-3-2-2 slam try, max 15HCP;
4N = same, 16-17 HCP.

1N-trans/whatever-4m = RKCB

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Siegmund]

My personal preference is for a different 2S/2N structure, similar in spirit to mikeh's.

When I do play 4-way transfers...

1) I super-accept with a high honor, and only with a high honor. The point of this is for responder to find out whether the suit peels for 3NT when he has HHxxxx and nothing else. (That is, for all practical purposes, the only invitational-to-3NT minor hand; if you have lots of outside entries you just start with 3NT; if you are missing two honors and are worried about outside entries, you have to insist on the suit contract.)

2) "All invites through 2C" is evil. What a way to guarantee double-dummy defense, telling everyone both your exact strength and opener's major-suit lengths. DO NOT INVITE on balanced hands. Pass with 8 and bid 3NT with 9. You really won't miss it once you are used to it. Find a sensible use for 2C-then-2NT later (a 6-8 point hand that was interested in 4M but not interested in 3NT? Transfer to a minor with a 4-5 or 4-6 hand? 4-1-4-4 hands that missed a major fit and demands opener bid his better minor? Whatever your system needs. It needs at least one of these things more than it needs a balanced invite.)

I have no strong feelings on whether to swap the steps on opener's rebid. There are cases both ways (not wrongsiding the weak hands, vs. shoehorning the 5-5 minors hand into 2NT) and someone once suggested doing it one way over 2S and the other way over 2NT.