BBO Discussion Forums: Transfers over 1M-X-? - BBO Discussion Forums

More and more I hear about players playing "transfers" after an opponent's takeout double of your partner's major opening. Some recent discussion got a bit far afield from the original topic (of drury by PH) and also Gerben's previous discussion covered this idea. Hopefully a dedicated thread to discuss this topic will help pull all of this together.

So after

1♥-X-?
1♠-X-?

a simple system would be to give up the natural 1NT bid and play 1NT through (2M-1) as transfers. The transfer to partner's major is a sound 2M raise, while a direct 2M is weaker. More complicated versions are certainly possible.

Here are some basic questions for discussion:

1. Where do you like to start your transfers? 1NT? XX?
2. How do you handle your "lost" bid? For example, if you give up a business XX, do you now trap pass with many good balanced hands? If you give up a natural 1NT, how do you bid this hand with transfers (or do you just pass)?
3. How do you like to play 1♥-X-1♠?

Here are some more advanced questions:

4. How do you treat transfer followed by a new suit?
5. If you have a transfer to 1NT, what do further bids by responder mean after 1NT?
6. Does opener always, usually, or only sometimes complete the transfer? What do other bids by opener instead mean?

I've been working on some fairly complicated methods along the lines of XX as a transfer to 1NT (but including many other decent but sometimes unbalanced hands) but keeping 1♠ natural (over 1♥-X). I don't want to restrict discussion to just my ideas, so I'll post those a little later.

Please post your favorite methods or thoughts for discussion!

I currently use XX as transfer to the next highest suit. So, 1♥-X-XX is transfer to ♠. I personally feel that the XX is a pretty useless bid. The next opponent invariably bids something and sometimes preempts so I'd like to get some shape information across to partner first and I can keep forcing the bidding later if I have a strong hand. I play 1N as always natural so therefore 1♥-X-1♠ is a transfer to ♣, 2♣ a transfer to ♦. 2M is the weak raise. 2M-1 is the constructive raise. 2N is a natural invite. 3 level bids are invitational or better two-suiters that deny both the suit bid and opener's suit. So, 1♥-X-3♣ shows ♦ and ♠. 1♥-X-3♦ would show ♣ + ♠. We found these two-suited hands problematic in a couple of cases so we adopted this scheme.

Further Bidding after the Transfer
 Bids of new suits are non-forcing.
 Raises of the transfer suit are invite.
 Jump bids of new suits are invite+ but aren't 5-5 or better.
 Jump bids of the transfer suit are GF.

Maybe big holes in this as the frequency is pretty low for testing so blast away.

Here are my answers in the partnerships where I play transfers here:

1. Transfers start at 1NT (shows ♣); XX is values, balanced or 3-suited short opener's suit.
2. The lost bid is the 1NT response. The upper end of this redoubles. Lower end passes. Note that playing 1MX is normally fine with this hand, and there is often a chance to double back in (takeout) later if opponents try to stop at the two-level.
3. 1♥-X-1♠ Natural. It's important to have a way to show spades, and if redouble is not a transfer (prefer to have a way to show good balanced hand w/o fit) then this is the obvious way. It's also a useful psych.

4. Transfer followed by new suit is natural, forcing. I don't redouble on distributional hands, so need a way to show a good hand with a lot of shape. On occasion the second suit can be "just values in the suit" since transfer followed by raising the suit transferred to would be invite only (NF). Transfer followed by opener's suit shows a raise with concentrated values in the suit transferred to.
5. Don't have a transfer to 1NT over 1M-X.
6. Opener doesn't have to accept the transfer. Rejecting is natural and normally shows a distributional hand without a good fit for the suit transferred to. With a hand that would jump over a natural 1NT response (we play strong club, so this would be a good 5-5 or 6-5) opener can jump. In general rejecting the transfer (other than super-accept which shows good hand plus fit) shows either a 5-5 hand (or more shapely) or a good 6+ card original major (in this case could have doubleton in the suit transferred to, otherwise will not).

In general the reasoning for not having a natural 1NT bid is: (1) Most of us can't play 1NT in many unobstructed auctions anyway (people play forcing NT). (2) NT will often play better from partner's side (get the strong opponent hand without a clear suit on lead). (3) Opponents often bid 2x whether responder bids 1NT or not, and it's not clear that having bid 1NT makes us any better positioned on this auction.

One "minor" point...

I always find it surprising that folks are so enamoured using transfers in competition, but rarely seem to employ them without said intervention...

Transfers are nice and all, but they give the opponents multiple bites at the apple. In theory, it should be worse to trot out a transfer in an auction like 1M - (X) than it is to use one in the auction 1M - (P). The last thing we want to do after a takeout double is make it easier for the otherside to sort out their shape, range, etc.

I'm not saying that the benefits of transfers don't outweight the costs, but rather if folks see such benefits from transfer in the auction 1M - (X), it seems strange that transfer based schemes aren't more common after 1M - (P). I know of a few schemes that are in use - 1♠ - (P) - 2♦ = Hearts is probably the best known example...

There are a number of reasons people don't use transfers more without competition:

(1) The double provides a lot of extra space. In particular, it's safer to pass with a wider range of hands because opener is guaranteed another bid, and redouble is available as an additional call. To some degree transfers are an attempt to take advantage of this extra space, by making available ways to show certain hand types that are difficult under standard methods (i.e. weak one-suiters and good vs. bad raises).

(2) The double increases the urgency of showing a fit. Some hands which might pass or bid a forcing notrump planning to raise "later" without competition need to raise immediately to preempt the opponents and help opener judge the level. Personally I think this is important without the double too... but even the most ardent "constructive raise" bidders will raise on weaker hands in competition. So the distinction (via transfer-raise) is important.

(3) The transfer does allow people to double our calls for the lead. When responder has a good hand this can be expensive, since it's hard to get into a strong auction safely otherwise (for example compare 1♠-2♦ showing a good hand with hearts vs. 1♠-2♥ natural; fourth hand can double for diamonds in the first auction but cannot get into the second). After the double, things change a bit in that a strong auction is less likely (doubler has an opening bid usually).

(4) Local regulations in some places restrict the use of transfers in constructive auctions.

Here is another one.

Pass asks opener to redouble and redouble replaces 1NT forcing. So after the redouble, both opener and responder can rebid 1 NT naturally and it can be passed out. Both can also continue to describe their hands.

After the pass is converted to a redouble by opener, 1NT is a single suit runout while a suit bid after the pass and redouble is a runout starting with the lower ranking of 2 suits.

This gives the opps nothing to play with and creates a harder target to hit. You can double 1NT but not for the lead...;-)

Al_U_Card, on Aug 30 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

The maijn problem with this scheme is that it requires rho to pass the takeout double, which rarely happens

awm, on Aug 30 2006, 01:30 PM, said:

I agree 100%

Especially the observation that the double gives far more bidding space to the opening side than does a pass. We get two 'extra' calls: the xx and the pass, and any well-designed system should take this into account: simply put, it is silly to use the same set of responses to an undoubled opening bid as one uses after the double.

As for my preferred structure, I have already described it on the predecessor thread.

hrothgar, there's is obviously some truth in giving opps more opportunities to bid, but the situation

A. 1M (dbl) ??

is a lot more different than

B1. 2♦ (multi)
B2. 3♣ (transfer preempt)
B3. 4♦ (namyats)

In cases B, opener is weak, and opps are in principle strong. In case A opener is unlimited and has shown a 5 card suit, and opps may not be that strong. Point is, there's a lot more urgency in not giving opps chances to bid in preempt sitations like B than in constructive situations like A.

That being said, it should be noted that transfers after 1M (dbl) should only be used with misfitting (or poorly fitting) hands. With fit + side suit you make a fit bid. It would be worse if you were to transfer with various types of support hands.

The objectives of using transfers over 1M-X compared to 1M-Pass were:

1) To allow responder to raise M directly with a bad hand, giving another bid below 2M for a good raise – after 1M-Pass there is less need to get the bad raise in directly so it could go through 1NT forcing (and sometimes the somewhat disguised sequence of 1NT forcing and then 2M would hide the fit and lack-of-strength from the opponents).

2) To get a lead-director in after 1M-X-?, since the partner of the doubler will often play the contract. Especially important is the case where responder has xx or x in M – here the lead of M is usually best made by responder unless opener is AK or better in M (and note that partner of the doubler is usually the other player at the table with length in M, so one wants to play through this length). After 1M-P-? there is less likelihood of fourth seat playing the contract.

3) To be able to play in responder’s long suit at the two level, knowing that doubler has some length in this suit. After the double, it is risky to have sequences where responder has to bid the long suit at the three level in a possible misfit situation. After 1M-Pass this risk is substantially less, and 1NT forcing can be used before showing the long suit.

We play transfers starting with xx through 2 of our suit. In our style, the transfer denies the strength for a xx. Pass followed by anything is 100% forcing.

pclayton, on Aug 31 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

I'm not sure that I like that, especially over 1m x P ?

Now, it seems to me, you have allowed the opps to preempt you out of finding fits at a low level.

For me, the transfers (other than the transfer raise or the transfer to 1N) are unlimited... indeed, that is one major advantage that transfers afford you over standard methods.

Thus in standard, after 1♠ (x) 2♦ is usually played as weak, a decent suit with a weak hand and distinctly non-constructive, let alone forcing. Of course, on e may choose to play it as forcing or as invitational or.... etc... but you cannot play it as BOTH weak and forcing.. it must be one or the other... since, when weak, partner should usually pass it.

Transfers allow you to have your cake and eat it as well.... bid 2♣... opener treats your bid as showing weak two values in your suit and bids accordingly.... if you then make another call, you are showing a better hand... and if the opps jam you, you have either another bid or you can say double, as card showing.


For us, pass followed by double is penalty oriented, with 3+ in the doubled suit and no more than 2 in opener's major or 3 in opener's minor.... and no decent 4 card holding in a major that could have been shown at the one-level... we show our majors at the one level if we have a chance.

mikeh, on Aug 31 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

The opponents preempting us hasn't been a big problem in practice. The only preemptive auction for most pairs after a TOx is (1m) - dbl - (p) - 3M.

I suppose if folks started playing a WJS it might be a bigger problem.

Thank you all for your thoughts so far. Before I describe my methods over 1M-X (1m-X needs more emphasis on the majors so it's a little different), here's a little about my reasoning. I should mention that although I describe a lot of this as "transfers," these aren't as absolute as Jacoby over 1NT and opener can make a different bid to show extra shape.

- I tried to show additional hand types not included in standard, like 2 suiters with only constructive but not invitiational values.

- I tried to arrange that the different hand types that start with a given bid are fairly different in terms of strength and/or shape so that there won't be as much ambiguity if responder acts again in competition.

- XX is used as a transfer to 1NT, which allows the stronger hand to declare opposite a standard 1NT hand. Other equal or stronger hands are included to allow a good opener to pass for business.

- the lack of a penalty-oriented XX is handled through a trap pass showing no fit and typically invitational+ balanced (some other strong unbalanced hands pass too), based on the assumption that the weak 4th hand will be forced to take out the X and give a second bid to responder.

- weak hands with support can make a lead directing "transfer," useful since they will likely not get a second action and 4th hand is likely to declare

- when using transfers, I tried to have the followups by responder distinguish the level support for opener's major. Especially after suit tranfers where responder basically bids twice, I wanted to cater to opener having a 6 card major at least on invitational+ sequences.

Here's what I play over 1♠-X. The ideas are quite similar over 1♥-X and for now I play that 1♠ is a natural response, forcing 1 round (although it may be possible to arrange for this to be NF somehow).

1♠-X-?
   Pass - weak or "trap" (continuations below)
   XX - transfer to 1NT (continuations below)
   1NT - transfer to ♣ (continuations below)
   2♣ - transfer to ♦
   2♦ - transfer to ♥
   2♥ - "good" raise to 2♠, higher bids by opener are game tries
   2♠ - weak/preemptive raise, no lead directing suit
   2NT - Jordan (4 card raise, invitational+ values)
Higher bids are natural and preemptive.

After 1NT - transfer to ♣, assuming opener transfers then:
      Pass - "weak 2 bid" in clubs
      2♦/♥ - natural but NF, showing the second suit of an invitational 2 suiter
      2♠ - lead director in clubs, very weak with 3♠ (why haven't they bid?)
      2NT - balanced invite with 6 clubs
      3♣ - unbalanced invitational single suiter, 1 or fewer ♠
      3♦/3♥ - natural GF, showing the second suit of a very distributional 2 suiter
      3♠/3NT - balanced GF with 6 clubs (choice of declarers for 3NT)
In competition, responders cheapest actions are natural and NF since most hands are limited to invitational values.

After XX - transfer to 1NT, assuming opener bids 1NT then:
      Pass - the standard 1NT hand, constructive values
      2♣ - constructive 2 suiter ♣+(♦ or ♥) ("DONT" style)
      2♦ - constructive 2 suiter ♦+♥ ("DONT" style)
      2♥ - balanced invite with 5 hearts, 2533 typically
      2♠ - invitational hand with 3 card support (NF, continuations are game tries)
      2NT - balanced GF with 5 hearts, 2533 typically
      3♣/♦/♥ - natural singled suited GF, unbalanced
      3♠ - GF hand with 3 card support
In competition, bids of 3-4♠ are natural, new suits are GF and NT bids typically have hearts.

After a trap pass showing invitational+ values and no fit, the opponents will typically takeout the double by bidding at the 2 level passed back to responder. The case of 2♣ is below, others similar.

1♠-X-P-2♣; P-P-?
   Pass - the weak option, not "trap" pass
   X - penalty
   2♦ - GF 2 suiter with primary ♦ (also ♥s)
   2♥ - GF 2 suiter with primary ♥ (also ♦s)
   2♠ - balanced invitation with 2♠, unable to X
   2NT - balanced invitation, wants to declare or short ♠
   3♣/♦/♥ - various GFs, no direction
   3♠ - balanced GF with 2♠ and stopper for 3NT
   3NT - balanced GF, wants to declare or short ♠

I should also mention that as part of the trap pass, should the auction get passed back to opener (ie 1♠-X-P-P; ?), the XX is for business opposite the trap pass and rescue opposite the weak pass. Weak runouts use 1NT to suggest two+ places to play, while new suit bids are to play.

In the trap pass continuations, I'm unsure of how to best use the 3 level cue bid and/or jump bids by responder (over 2♣ there are 3 choices - cue + 2 jumps, while there may be only the cue bid over 2♥). I've been thinking different bids should suggest various things about stoppers, 2 card spade support, and/or 4 card hearts (over 2m), but I haven't worked out all the details yet.

Suggestions are welcome!

mikeh, on Aug 31 2006, 03:36 PM, said:

I know lots of people play 1M-X-2M as a weak raise, and 1M-X-(2M-1) as a constructive raise. Since the transfer to partner`s suit is forcing, it seems natural to include additional strong meanings, besides that of the constructive raise. Does anyone have suggestions for these?

Edit: I meant additional strong meanings with a 3+ fit, possibly as an alternative to Jordan. I agree with Arend (below) about not mixing fit-showing bids.

This post has been edited by Rob F: 2006-September-05, 10:47

Rob F, on Sep 5 2006, 05:50 PM, said:

Yes, here they are: _____

I generally dislike mixing fit-showing bids with not fit-showing bids in competitive auction. Also, I don't see the need - if you have a big hand, you can just start bidding your suits, as any of the transfers is forcing.

Arend

In a similar vein to transfers over 1M-X, I know people also play these over 1♦-X. I've been thinking a little about this and certainly the basic framework of transfers starting with XX seems reasonable, presumably passing with invitational or better balanced hands (the standard "business XX").

My question to those of you who give up your business XX, how do you back into the auction if it gets back to responder with such a hand? It seems normal in the context of these methods that double is a penalty, but what do you do lacking a penalty trump holding? How do you sort out 4-5 card majors in responder's balanced hand?

i don't like business XX. just bid as with no x, except you can bid on weaker hands and pass partner's completion. "we're cool people, we pass with potentially very strong hands" sounds just great, but it is not that super an agreement I think - we can get preempted, we may have problems describing the true nature of our hand, etc etc etc...

After takeout double: transfers starting with redouble, 1NT is included in the transfer, transfers can be made with very strong hands as well. Rarely trap-pass with strong hands.

After negative double: transfers starting with redouble, 1NT is natural, direct raise is very weak, transfer raise is constructive, transfer into opener's suit is 3-card limit raise.

After a weak 2 is doubled: transfers starting with redouble, 2NT is still ogust, transfer into 3M is invitational to 4M.

Oh yes and the business XX or trap pass works best when you have two suits covered and seek help from partner in the fourth to nail'em, I don't understand why opps should play in their 8 card fit, doubled, on the two level, if we have 25 hcp. (I've seen lots of these 1 level penalty doubles on KTxx's and so on work out well in newspapers, but I'm not sure it's the hand we need to look for.)

And that handtype will get very awkward if you trap pass. I don't like it. Just thank the opps they gave you new options.