[benlessard]

1S--(X)--??

Assuming

1NT = transfer to clubs
2 clubs = transfer to diamonds
2 diamonds = transfer to hearts
2 hearts = constructive raise or better
2 spades = weakish raise

If you believe that XX as 10+ doesnt come often enough, doest it make sense to lower the requirement to 8+ (and keep forcing passes up to 2S) ?

------------------------------------
What do you think of (not my system)

1H--(X)--??

Re-double = 8 + pts. And creates a forcing Pass up to 2H.
1 spade = spades
1NT = transfer to clubs
2 clubs = transfer to diamonds
2 diamonds = transfer to hearts with a constructive raise
2 hearts = less then constructive raise – minimum hand

[gnasher]

benlessard, on 2013-May-25, 13:16, said:

1S--(X)--??

Assuming

1NT = transfer to clubs
2 clubs = transfer to diamonds
2 diamonds = transfer to hearts
2 hearts = constructive raise or better
2 spades = weakish raise

If you believe that XX as 10+ doesnt come often enough, doest it make sense to lower the requirement to 8+ (and keep forcing passes up to 2S) ?

Why not lower it a bit further, lose the forcing passes, and call it a transfer to notrumps?

Quote

What do you think of (not my system)

1H--(X)--??

Re-double = 8 + pts. And creates a forcing Pass up to
2H.
1 spade = spades
1NT = transfer to clubs
2 clubs =
transfer to diamonds
2 diamonds = transfer to hearts with a constructive
raise
2 hearts = less then constructive raise – minimum hand

Similarly, given that you've accepted that a traditional redouble is waste of a bid, it's better to play:

Redouble = spades
1♠ = notrumps

[wodahs]

I don't like transfers into NT because often there are positional considerations for the 1NT bid. Those transfers best start with XX, and skip 1NT, so 1♠ (X), then

XX = ♣
1NT = normal
2♣ = ♦
2♦ = ♥
2♥ = constructive ♠
2♠ = weak ♠

[aguahombre]

The transfers to NT are fine. If the transfer to NT is a redouble of 1SX, it covers any hand which would have responded some number of NT. The takeout doubler is on lead to lead away from his stuff; opener only bids 1N, however, with the weakest balanced 1S opener. He passes to allow the opponents to blow up with a good balanced opening.

Actually The XX is an either/or call if you want to have the full spectrum after 1MX.

1S (X) XX= either 6+ NT response or single-suited game force hand.

1H (X) 1S= either 6+ NT response without 4 spades, or single-suited game hand (maybe even spades).

This leaves the suit transfers limited to short of game force which helps things if the auction continues to be competitive.

[dake50]

Not that XX = 10pts doesn't come up, BUT that transfers force once.
Thus transferer's rebid can/may show 10+.
XX is now wasted/duplicated by the transfer then 'show stuff' rebid.
The systemic(Xfer scheme) challenge is to find a good meaning for that XX.

[aguahombre]

The availability of the redouble as a substitute for the cheapest natural bid is what makes the transfer schemes workable. The takeout double by the opponent is what makes it all possible.

It is indeed wasteful to squander the opportunities presented by the takeout double by using the redouble to show 10+ and nothing else in particular. We would be allowing a call which takes up no room to disrupt our auction ---whereas including the redouble as part of the transfer scheme is using the double to our benefit.

[PhilKing]

If you make the redouble 8+, forcing passes are out, else you will get into some grim spots (eg responder has a 2434 or 2425 shape, redoubles and 2♦ comes back to him). If you accept that, then it becomes clear to switch to take-out doubles after a redouble.

[benlessard]

My fist opinion was that FP was a bit greedy and unplayable in imps unless you stop playing them at 2H. However i do think that if they are vul and in MP it might work

Quote

Redouble = spades
1♠ = notrumps

This is what I play, however I think that XX showing extras pts and 1S natural might be a superior alternative.

The problem is that 1S doesnt grab 1nt, so XX showing spades is only good for rightsiding in spades (and its simpler) . While 1S nat and XX some extras might give you a nice penalty. With 6-7 pts and no H fit & and no 6 card suit I dont mind passing that much.

It was suggested to me and i like the setup however like most of you I was dubious of the forcing pass.

Quote

If you make the redouble 8+, forcing passes are out, else you will get into some grim spots (eg responder has a 2434 or 2425 shape, redoubles and 2♦ comes back to him)

Just bid 2S, wich is probably the same bid I would have made not playing FP and holding a 8 count 2425.

.

[PhilKing]

benlessard, on 2013-May-28, 15:06, said:

Just bid 2S, wich is probably the same bid I would have made not playing FP and holding a 8 count 2425.

.

Name an 8-count you would XX with (and then I will see if I can flame it ).

[Phil]

wodahs, on 2013-May-25, 21:16, said:

I don't like transfers into NT because often there are positional considerations for the 1NT bid.

FYP

Good idea to have the takeout doubler on lead, with the strong hand leading into the strong hand.