[johnu]

hylins, on 2020-September-07, 18:26, said:

For a strong 2C opening, most likely, the final contract will be decided by the opener especially when he holds unbalanced hand.
He knows exactly what are needed from his partner, not the other way around.

This transfer style responses can reveal the responder's hand at the first response bidding
while having the maximum bidding space for the 2C opener to explore further.

The 2♣ bidder frequently has a very good long suit if unbalanced and that suit is more likely to be a good trump suit than the possibly lousy 5 card suit in your transfer system.

You only have maximum bidding space if opener has good support for responder's suit. If opener has no good fit, transfers are no better than natural except when responder has hearts, in which case transfers are much worse than natural.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-07, 07:22, said:

We play Kokish, so we have negative instead of positive suit responses (negative meaning to play opposite opener's balanced 20-22-, the most likely case). We also have transfers after the 2♠ enquiry. Of course, the disadvantage of Kokishk is that who will play which strains is already set at the beginning of the auction.

I like a version of Kokish, something like this, redefining the strength of the 2N opener ...

• 2N opener = BAL 22-23.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N = BAL 24+ HCP.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ = PUP to 2♠.: NAT 5+ ♥ or ART BAL 20-21.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ = Normal "Puppet" completion.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2N = ♠ usually weak.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♣/3♦/3♥ = NAT weak.

If your 1N opener = BAL 14-16 HCP. then you can subtract a point from those notrump ranges.

[mycroft]

I used to play, years ago, reverse transfers:

• 2♦ waiting, GF
  
• 2♥ immediate double negative
  
• 2♠ *heart* positive
  
• 2NT *spade* positive

Came up once or twice in 15000 hands, not sure if it ever did anything.

I agree with most that the balanced hands don't need a special; if it's balanced opposite balanced, Kokish works very well; if it's balanced opposite unbalanced, opener gets to "untransfer" into their suit, and a balanced positive should just be working out 6 or 7, and fit or not, at that point.

Definitely not "positive"-ing on any GF is critical. Positives should be unusual enough that your average *unbalanced* 2♣ opener will care more often than not. Anything less than that should sit back and find out which hand opener has and how well they help. I still remember one game where we got to 7♣ after 2♣-3♣. We were the only ones at the 7 level (7NT would have actually been safer, avoiding the potential first round ruff, but we weren't sure of the 13th top), and we got asked several times how we got there. And after effectively "I showed a club positive, and she keycarded" they asked "how did you know you weren't off a trump trick?" "club positive? Had to be AQxxx at least, probably 6th or jack to not bid 2♦? Doesn't everybody do that?" Guess not.

Having said all of that, if the chance of playing the weak hand's suit from the weak hand in 2♣ auctions is even 100th on your list of problems, either you get much better cards than I do, or you open much less disciplined 2♣ than I do, or your system and card play is much tighter than mine will ever get.

[miamijd]

The problem with these sorts of systems is that they solve a problem that doesn't exist with some hands and cause more problems than they solve with others.

The 2C opener will almost always have one of two sorts of hands:

1. The big, balanced hand
2. A big one-suiter

With #1, there is little need for responder to show his suit right away unless he has a very good hand. Indeed, you generally want responder to bid 2D with almost all hands. That way, using Kokish relays, you can describe within one HCP all hands up to 27 HCP, AND you have your system over 2NT available. If responder starts making other bids with tepid hands, your bidding will suffer.

If opener has #1, then it's fine for responder not to bid 2D with either an impossibly weak hand (double negative) or else a hand that is likely to produce slam over a 22-23 HCP balanced hand. Otherwise, it's best if he bids 2D.

With #2, you will almost always want to play in opener's suit, not responder's suit. If responder starts making these transfer bids, opener is going to have to show his suit on the 3 level, which robs you of vital bidding space.

The only time your system can really gain is if opener has a semi-balanced sort of hand with secondary support for responder's suit. These sorts of hands are far less common than #1 or #2.

Cheers,
Mike

[hylins]

Huibertus, on 2020-September-08, 03:18, said:

What is IMHO opinion far more important is to protect constructive bidding by not having an opening that is strong in all cases. If for instance 2♣ is weak in ♦ or strong, opponents cannot preempt after 2♣ as preempting over preempts is bad tactics. So rather then focussing on transfers, protect your partnerships bidding by scrapping the unilaterely strong 2♣ opening. The same comment obviously applies to a strong 1♣ opening that should be protected by adding a weak or mini NT hand into it.

Your suggestion of not having an opening that is strong in all cases is strategically correct, as the opps have a difficult time to come in.
The approach of adding a weak or mini NT hand into the strong 1C bid has actually been done by the Polish Club's 1C bid
which is either 12-17 with certain type of holding or any 18+ hands.

The problem with using the same approach at the higher level 2C bid is that you may have to play 3-level contract too frequently than you normally would.
Of course, one can argue that opps may be robbed with their contract.

[hylins]

johnu, on 2020-September-08, 03:21, said:

You only have maximum bidding space if opener has good support for responder's suit. If opener has no good fit, transfers are no better than natural except when responder has hearts, in which case transfers are much worse than natural.

Indeed, in the transfer response approach, when the response is 3D showing 4+ with 5+ card H, the opener has limit bidding space before going beyond 3NT.
2C 3D
?
However, The opener may be in a better position to make a decision of bidding 3NT or his own suit of 3S/4C/4D
than what the responder can do in the 2D waiting example below.

In the 2D waiting approach, when the bidding goes like
2C 2D
3D ?

What will the responder bid holding 4-5 hcps, 3415 or 3316?
Should the responder bid 3NT to wrong side the contract before even knowing opener's holding at H and S?
or Should the responder bypass 3NT and bid 4C?
There are always those extreme cases people need to know when using a "system".

We all know there is no perfect system as the key constrain is the limited amount of available biddings .
How to come up with a simpler "system" that will cover most of the possible holdings without too much trade-off can be a very good academic research project.
Guess that is one of the reasons why bridge is such a fun game!

[pilowsky]

It is an extremely interesting question.
To me, the key part of the problem is the expression 'wrong-side the contract'.
Jacoby invented transfers - or at least popularised them long before computerised double-dummy analysis became available.
Now, it is possible to ask questions like: Are transfers really necessary? or If so how often? I suspect that the answer would surprise people.
I would really like some suggestions about how to look at this problem. I tried simulating 1NT over a couple of weak 5 card major hands and the advantage of a transfer there, but only present in 2 out of 48 deals.
The sample size was ridiculously small. I was doing it manually.
And then, there is the issue of 'human factors' - and I mean that in the technical sense. Not every partnership is suited to playing at a level that requires very complex transfer systems.

[Zelandakh]

hylins, on 2020-September-08, 16:40, said:

In the 2D waiting approach, when the bidding goes like
2C 2D
3D ?

What will the responder bid holding 4-5 hcps, 3415 or 3316?

After 2♣ - 2♦, it is quite common these days to play:-

3♦ = (5)6+ diamonds and no 4M (whether it can promise 6 depends on what scheme is being used for both minors)
3♥ = 4 hearts, longer diamonds
3♠ = 4 spades, longer diamonds

[msjennifer]

Sir,
A notable drawback of the transfer system over
openers 2♣ is that one allows an extra bid to opponents namely a DOUBLE to ask for a lead or to show the suit.For example 3♣ doubled asks for a club lead ,or 2♠ doubled to ask for a spade lead in case partner is on lead against a 3nt contract
The PRECISION and SUPER PRECISION systems have a clear advantage over a standard system by keeping the level low.The transfer method takes the bidding too high a level if 2♣ opener has say a ♣suited hand.Of course, its upto everyones liking..Thanks.

[msjennifer]

deleted duplicate.

[DavidKok]

Without commenting on the proposed system as a whole, I wouldn't be particularly worried about lead-directing doubles. Doubling a bid by opponents increases the amount of bidding space, space which comes at a high premium after a strong 2♣ opening. Even with simple agreements on how to use the newly available Pass and XX (such as bidding = as before and promises a guard in their suit, pass = denies a guard, XX = superaccept. Or even pass = extra values, bidding = as before, XX = this is my suit, let's eat the opponents for lunch) I find the double frequently helps me more than it helps opponents.

[aawk]

Trying to let the strong hand playing the contract after a 2♣ means you need a lot agreements.
This means more ways to make mistakes and also bidding space is lost.
So for the first 10 years you play bridge is keep it simple is the best way imo.

for example after 2♣ :

2♦ = relay no other bid possible or needed
2♥/♠ = 5+ card 5+ HCP (or any agreement you like)
2nt = balanced 5+ HCP (with 5-7 hcp 3nt not possible)
3♣/♦ = 5+ card 5+ HCP (or any agreement you like)
3♥/♠ = solid 6+ card
3nt = balanced 5-7 HCP no aces or kings (on agreement at least 3-3 in majors)
4♣/♦ = slam forcing in ♣/♦ with 7+ card or closed 6 card

[msjennifer]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-09, 04:37, said:

Without commenting on the proposed system as a whole, I wouldn't be particularly worried about lead-directing doubles. Doubling a bid by opponents increases the amount of bidding space, space which comes at a high premium after a strong 2♣ opening. Even with simple agreements on how to use the newly available Pass and XX (such as bidding = as before and promises a guard in their suit, pass = denies a guard, XX = superaccept. Or even pass = extra values, bidding = as before, XX = this is my suit, let's eat the opponents for lunch) I find the double frequently helps me more than it helps opponents.

Sir,
An expert doubler also keeps in mind that you will have these bids enumerated by you when doubling the transfer bid.He will foresee the danger.

[msjennifer]

deleted duplicate.

[DavidKok]

msjennifer, on 2020-September-09, 05:58, said:

Sir,
An expert doubler also keeps in mind that you will have these bids enumerated by you when doubling the transfer bid.He will foresee the danger.

You are 100% correct. On some hands doubling will be a good action (despite the increase in bidding space), on others it will be a poor action, and an expert will know the difference. My point is that the former category is infrequent enough that the upside of lead-directing doubles are often overstated, so I would not be particularly worried about them.

[Zelandakh]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-09, 09:32, said:

You are 100% correct. On some hands doubling will be a good action (despite the increase in bidding space), on others it will be a poor action, and an expert will know the difference. My point is that the former category is infrequent enough that the upside of lead-directing doubles are often overstated, so I would not be particularly worried about them.

More than that, the most common hand type for Opener is big balanced, so instead of 2♣ - 3♦ - (X), it might instead have gone 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♦ - (X), or for a 2♥ transfer to spades, 2♣ - 2♥ - (X) versus 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♥ - (X). This essentially reduces the impact of LDDs even more, particularly on those hands where they are most effective.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-09, 10:46, said:

More than that, the most common hand type for Opener is big balanced, so instead of 2♣ - 3♦ - (X), it might instead have gone 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT - 3♦ - (X)

What stopped opponent doubling 2♦?

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2020-September-10, 14:38, said:

What stopped opponent doubling 2♦?

I thought of that, which is one reason I also added the spade transfer auction. The assumption was the Doubler was willing to risk it at the 3 level but not the 2 level. If I had only included an auction with 2♦X, it would not only not have illustrated the point being made but also opened up an avenue for criticism of the level being lower.