[Gerben42]

Transfers are turning up in many other places also, because they allow for many more sequences. For 15 - 17 NT transfers are great, also for for example 1M (Dbl). For mini NTs they are not so great. Where does the usefulness no longer compensate the clear advantages? I have no idea. But somewhere

[whereagles]

Hum.. I see many are thinking of transfers in the trend of hiding/disclosure of opener's hand. I don't think this is the most important thing. It's tertiary in comparision with shape/strength issues, but ok..

[kenberg]

I have played without using transfers. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes bad. Probably on balance transfers earn their keep but I wouldn't rate them highly.

One thing I have often thought of as useful: Use 1N-3M as gf, with perhaps no more than five cards in the major. It offers the responder the option (when he wants to force to game) of choosing which hand is to be concealed. If the partnership does not consist of two hand hogs, this can be a useful option. It can also lead to slam development: If opener has two card in M, he bids 3NT. If opener has a fit he either bids 4M or cues, depending on strength and general suitability for slam. I have (but don't currently) played this and I think it has merit. You can still play transfer and drop, transfer and invite, or transfer and then 3NT with suitable hands. Of course it gives up other possibilites, such as 3M=5-5.

[mikeh]

In my view, transfers represent one of the most powerful advances in the theory of bridge.

When I was learning the basics, I was told (and read) that the main advantage of playing transfers in response to an opening 1N (strong) was to right-side the contract, and I suppose that this is still a valid argument...altho as others have noted, this breaks down somewhat as the strength of the opening bid declines.

However, in my opinion, the main advantages of transfers lie in the conservation of bidding space.

We can argue that sequences such as 1N 4Major might have tactical advantages over 1N transfer to 4Major, but this is both debatable and, in any event, a special case.

For the more common, low-level, transfer, the preservation of bidding space is key... playing transfers allows responder to show an important element of his hand (length in the indicated suit) while assuring him of another opportunity to bid, should he need it. Thus 1N 2♦ can be bid (as a transfer) on a wide range of hand types, from weak (intending to pass) to various invitational hands, to game-force one or two suiters or balanced'unbalanced to slam-invitational and so on.

Compare that to 'natural'. Is 2♥ weak? If it is, how does one invite? If not, then how does one get out in ♥? And so on. There are 'answers', but one need only read old bridge books and magazines to realize what a quagmire these simple hands became.

Furthermore, the use of transfer responses allows for the bundling of various hand types into one initial 'transfer' response. Walsh relays are an obvious example, well-know to many North American players: 2♦ is ostensibly a transfer to ♥ but may in fact be a single-suit minor hand with slam ambitions.

This technique of combining quite disparate hand types into one initial forcing bid (forcing in the sense that opener cannot pass the transfer) allows for sophisticated response structures that mesh well opposite a well-defined opening bid.

Even the 4 level transfer allows for the preservation of bidding space by allowing distinctions to be drawn between hands shown via a 2-level transfer and a 4 level transfer: based once again on the advantage accruing to responder being assured of another chance to bid.

Thus 1N 4♦ 4♥ 4N can be keycard while 1N 2♦ 2♥ 4N is quantitative.

Also, of course, one can now add toys to the texas transfer: 1N 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ exclusion keycard.

Compare 1N 4♥ to play: we now use the jump to the 4-level for only oine hand type: a hand that wants to play 4♥. Transfers allow us to use the 4-level not only for that hand-type but for other, stronger hands.

The power of the transfer concept is reflected in the many, many top pairs who use transfer principles throughout their methods. Several top pairs use transfer responses to a 1♣ opening. Many pairs use transfer advances of overcalls, and transfers after their opening bid gets doubled for takeout.

Thus 1♠ (x) 2♠ can be a garbage hand, with (say) 2♥ used for a 'real' raise to 2♠. This allows for maximal preemption by a weak responding hand with 3 trump, while preserving the chances of finding a game should opener be strong and responder have a real raise.

So are transfers actually a good idea?

My answer is a resounding YES.

[1eyedjack]

I think that transfers as a means to placing the declaration in one hand or another is pretty neutral, and was never the primary reason for their adoption. Transfers were designed to increase the range of expression, and when they were invented they were, in that regard, a huge improvement on the methods that they displaced. I just happen to think that there have since evolved methods that are superior again to transfers, although the margin of superiority declines with each iteration in the evolution, as the optimal method is approached.

Having said that, I am only talking in context of a 1NT opener. In other situations, such as in response to overcalls or jump responses to take-out doubles of 1-suit, they still have their net merits. At the moment anyway, until someone cooks up something yet again better.

[mycroft]

I am going to agree with MikeH while disagreeing with him...

Tranfers do three things:
1) make the NT opener declarer
2) open up the number of bidding sequences for responder by allowing her the second call
3) kill the diamond suit :-)

As many have said, 1) is an advantage for strong NTers, less so as the range decreases. I don't know where the break-even point is, but I know playing 12-14, when in game, there *is* no strong hand, so it is almost certainly a plus to have the less well-defined hand concealed. How much of a plus I do not know, but in the land of the strong, I had many more bad results from 1NT(weak)= vs 1m-1M; 2M= than I ever had due to wrongsiding game (after all, in game, we *weren't* wrongsiding; most strong NT auctions went 1m-1M;...and the same hand declared).

Again, in partscores, "wrongsiding" didn't hurt us, because the field were playing it the same way; I don't know how much transfer-rightsiding the partscores would have gained us. Probably a lot, if we got to play it...

2) is definately an advantage for transfers, when you are going to want the space or the second chance to call (here's where I disagree with MikeH). As the NT gets weaker, the number of hands where space conservation helps the opponents more than you becomes greater. Same with that "second call": one of the strong wins of a weak NT is preemption - a Kamikaze NT more so; giving fourth hand a guaranteed second chance to call in 10-12-opposite-3 situations *has* to be a loser (especially 10-12, pass, 2H-on-3 HCP, where fourth hand is the known monster, and gets *one* chance to make the right decision).

Remember also that if we switch second and third hand and it's 10-12, pass-on-3, 2H-on-10, and fourth hand has that same monster, he also has one chance to make the right decision, and it's a different one than the previous case.

3) I pass on this one, because I used to play Forcing Stayman, so I didn't have a diamond suit either (except when a PH, of course).

I like science, and use a lot of it. But with a weak NT, given the choice between sticking it to fourth seat (frequently) or having one of those beautiful game auctions (note that with slam, there aren't all that many "extra" auctions in transfers) every two or three sessions, I'll go with no transfers all the time. I'm obnoxious that way; of course, the better my opponents, the better they'll guess. But they're still guessing.

(and they're guessing more often now that WeaSeL vs. NT has been preempted in the ACBL by Announcements).

Michael.

[willow23]

I would stick to transfers as it appears to have more for than against it..not that I have willingly tried natural responses ..often I play it, when my partner(new) plays natural.

1. Most material that I have read prefer to keep the stronger hand concealed; think about it..entire systems have been designed to accomodate that situation ..like transfer positives..

2. One often picks up a trick of two with the lead coming into strength. Especially with nice intermediates..with the rule of 11, 7 and others working for you.

With that 3 point margin a king or queen is concealed from opps ...that can go a long way..as well as the NT openers with a five card minor..hidden..the possibilities are endless

[mgoetze]

It's really amazing to me what a lot of... uh... things have been said in this thread. Why do transfers kill the diamond suit? Even talking specifically about 1NT openers, we have 1NT-2NT of course. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that transfer positives are generally used in relay systems. In relay systems, it is 20 times as important to right-side the contract as in any natural system, and it's not about strength at all...

Anyway, thanks to mikeh for bringing some sense into this thread.

[Gerben42]

Quote

In my view, transfers represent one of the most powerful advances in the theory of bridge

I agree! But there are situations where they bring the opponents more than they bring you. A simple example is transfer preempts.

[mikeh]

Gerben42, on Jul 4 2006, 06:09 PM, said:

Quote

In my view, transfers represent one of the most powerful advances in the theory of bridge

I agree! But there are situations where they bring the opponents more than they bring you. A simple example is transfer preempts.

Agreed:))) A good friend of mine and an excellent player persuaded me to play transfer (two under) preempts. My experience with them confirmed my prejudices: they give the opponents two chances to bid, while also giving them extra bidding space.

This is an extension of a comment I (and others) have made already in this thread: the weaker the range of the 1N opening, the less effective are transfers: indeed, I do not play transfes over weak notrumps for this reason.

[1eyedjack]

willow23, on Jul 4 2006, 09:44 PM, said:

I would stick to transfers as it appears to have more for than against it..not that I have willingly tried natural responses ..often I play it, when my partner(new) plays natural.

I don't think that many players would argue that natural responses are superior to transfers. That does not mean that transfers are better than other alternatives.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Jul 3 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

I think that transfers as a means to placing the declaration in one hand or another is pretty neutral, and was never the primary reason for their adoption.

I wonder if this is historically correct.

I agree that right(?)-siding the contract is generally not a good reason for playing transfer in response to a 1NT-opening.

But text books, especially old ones, emphasise making the strong hand declare. It's my impression that bidding theorists of the 50-60-70s found this issue more important than we do today. It may also make some sense in the context of a style in which a key criterion for opening 1NT was that you want to declare in 3NT. 4432-shapes with the honours concentrated in the long suit were frequently treated as two-suiters, and the off-shape 1NT opening still had to be invented.

At least that's my impression. I haven't done any (systematic) research on this issue so I might be wrong.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Jul 5 2006, 07:54 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 3 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

I think that transfers as a means to placing the declaration in one hand or another is pretty neutral, and was never the primary reason for their adoption.

I wonder if this is historically correct.

I agree that right(?)-siding the contract is generally not a good reason for playing transfer in response to a 1NT-opening.

But text books, especially old ones, emphasise making the strong hand declare. It's my impression that bidding theorists of the 50-60-70s found this issue more important than we do today. It may also make some sense in the context of a style in which a key criterion for opening 1NT was that you want to declare in 3NT. 4432-shapes with the honours concentrated in the long suit were frequently treated as two-suiters, and the off-shape 1NT opening still had to be invented.

At least that's my impression. I haven't done any (systematic) research on this issue so I might be wrong.

I've seen quoted in a sef textbook that putting the strong hand to play was indeed one of the motivations for transfers. But then people quickly realized that showing shape/strength and economize bidding space was FAR more important than right siding.

In fact, it is so much more important that even after a 9-11 NT the motivation for transfers remains 99% valid.

[mycroft]

"kill the diamond suit" - yeah, you can play *three* diamonds. But you can no longer play *two* diamonds. More particularly, you can't escape into two diamonds and let them play. As the NT gets weaker, this becomes more of an issue (but then again, as the NT gets weaker, the number of times this is an issue after 1NT-pass- goes way down, too; and after weak 1NT-X, if you can't get out in diamonds, you need a new runout system).

At MPs, at least, the number of times that *three* diamonds will be preferable to *one* notrump are small and obvious. The number of times that bail-to-two and either play or let them bail you is preferable to 1NT is higher. Not high enough to outweigh the advantages of transfers, but it does have its weight in the balance sheet.

Okay, I'm a weak NTer at heart - I'm more concerned about surviving after opening 1NT than I am about finding a minor slam :-).

Michael.