[RunemPard]

Just something from my club at least...

Most use transfers and play a 15-17 NT, however, a surprising amount of players have no clue about the actual follow ups. Not many know what a super accept is, and some assume that after a transfer the only possible contract is that suit. The funny thing about this is that not knowing the follow ups pretty much makes all the reasons for transferring pointless.

Auctions like...
1N-2♦
2♥-2N/3N

Just simply do not exist, or it is assumed that partner always wanted to play NT even in a 5/3 fit.

[neilkaz]

billw55, on 2012-October-17, 06:56, said:

In my experience, the most common reason for not playing transfers is that you are old, learned and played for decades without them, and can't/won't change.

Of course there may be other reasons but I don't see them much in practice.

I'm oldish and live and play in the land of 15-17 NT and honestly have to strain to remember how to play without transfers.

[aguahombre]

neilkaz, on 2012-October-17, 09:47, said:

I'm oldish and live and play in the land of 15-17 NT and honestly have to strain to remember how to play without transfers.

I am oldish too, but using my limited brainpower sparingly and won't strain it to remember.

[nigel_k]

awm, on 2012-October-14, 00:52, said:

Advantages of transfers:

(1) They create a lot more sequences for game and slam hands, because you can transfer and then bid again.
(2) They allow opener (usually the stronger hand) to declare a lot of contracts.

Disadvantages of transfers (ignoring "forget" possibilities):

(1) They make it easier for opponents to get in the bidding (mostly because the person in 4th seat gets two chances).
(2) They allow for lead directing doubles on some auctions that would otherwise be unavailable (double the transfer bid).
(3) They take away your 2♦ bid (which you could otherwise use as "to play" or as a stronger stayman bid).

In general it is probably better to play transfers. However, the advantage is significantly less if you play a weaker notrump opening (like 12-14 or even less). This is because you are less likely to be in the game/slam range (advantage 1 is less), opener is less likely to have the much stronger hand (advantage 2 is less), and it's more likely that opponents will be in the bidding (disadvantage 1 is more severe). Even so, more than half the pairs I see playing weak notrump are playing transfers too.

Re disadvantage 1, the opponent in second seat is in a worse position with transfers because he has to act without knowing responder's strength. The opponent in fourth seat will get two chances, but the first chance is also versus an unlimited responder and the second chance may not be at the two level even if responder is weak.

Re disadvantage 3, you are losing the 2♦ bid and gaining the 2♠ bid. Obviously you may play 2♠ as a transfer as well, but you are gaining a bid somewhere in exchange for giving up 2♦, and the more transfers you play, the more extra sequences are unlocked.

The ability to make a lead directing double is not an unmitigated disadvantage for the opening side either. Apart from the ability to redouble and play there sometimes, there are extra sequences available after the double.

In the end, what matters is the weight of the various advantages and disadvantages, not the quantity. My view is that the disadvantages are really quite small and easily outweighed by advantage 1 alone.

[kuhchung]

An interesting effect of not playing transfers is that the sequence 1N (p) 2H (2S); p (p) 3C is unambiguously not game forcing.

[phil_20686]

Not playing transfers is ok if you play an 8-11 NT. I did that one and it generally just produced carnage, which is ideal in a swiss pairs tournament. Also, a lot of people just assume that you forgot to alert a transfer, rather than asking, and end up forgetting to make a t/o double over them. A tiny part of me feels bad about this, but really they should be paying more attention in a serious tournament.

[rmnka447]

Playing transfers over the weak (12-14) point NT in the USA provides one major disadvantage.

Since the majority of players are playing strong NTs (15-17), they are opening 12-14 point balanced hands in one of a minor. As a result, the person responding to the weak NT is normally responding 1 of the major at most other tables. By playing transfers over a weak NT, you end up playing the contract from the opposite side of the table than most other pairs. On many hands, it doesn't make much difference. But on some hands, it does. So it makes for more variable results, especially at matchpoints.

One of the big reasons for using transfers is to ensure the opening lead comes into the strong hand and not through it. When you bid game after the weak NT, both hands are at least 12-14 points so there's no big incentive for ensuring the lead comes into either hand.

[NickRW]

Lord Molyb, on 2012-October-16, 20:36, said:

I am teaching my 11 year old brother how to play; he knows transfers as it is one of the first things I taught him.
I'm guessing the people that don't know transfers are the ones that aren't inspired to learn it, the ones that play for fun.

Well, I don't disagree with you. Except to say that the vast majority of us can't scrape a living from this game, let alone get rich, so even most experts are playing for fun

Nick

[Vampyr]

rmnka447, on 2012-October-26, 21:36, said:

One of the big reasons for using transfers is to ensure the opening lead comes into the strong hand and not through it. When you bid game after the weak NT, both hands are at least 12-14 points so there's no big incentive for ensuring the lead comes into either hand.

However, transfers allow you to show more hand-types than weak takeouts, and that is why they are extremely popular in weak-NT land.

I occasionally play without transfers, and though I don't think it is best, I really enjoy it. So perhaps one answer to the OP's question is that it is more fun.

[eagles123]

Antrax, on 2012-October-12, 21:29, said:

I'm guessing the OP is asking because of the surprising amount of BBO profiles that have NO TRANSFERS written on them. I never figured this one out, myself.

always find it totally crazy this and very frustrating!

[Vampyr]

eagles123, on 2012-December-13, 10:57, said:

always find it totally crazy this and very frustrating!

Someone in another thread mentioned that if you are playing transfers, you have to have discussions about whether they are on over interference (primarily double) and whether they are on over 1NT overcalls. So for many scratch partnerships it is probably quicker and easier to not play transfers at all. I don't know why so many people are hostile to the idea -- if you can't manage to play without transfers, you should have learnt to do so before taking them up.

[eagles123]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-13, 13:20, said:

Someone in another thread mentioned that if you are playing transfers, you have to have discussions about whether they are on over interference (primarily double) and whether they are on over 1NT overcalls. So for many scratch partnerships it is probably quicker and easier to not play transfers at all. I don't know why so many people are hostile to the idea -- if you can't manage to play without transfers, you should have learnt to do so before taking them up.

I never really learnt a system without transfers that's my main problem with people not playing them

[helene_t]

eagles123, on 2012-December-14, 08:04, said:

I never really learnt a system without transfers that's my main problem with people not playing them

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?
1NT-(x)-2♥
1NT-(2♦)-2♥
(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

[eagles123]

helene_t, on 2012-December-14, 08:21, said:

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?
1NT-(x)-2♥
1NT-(2♦)-2♥
(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

Oh sure I can play systems off - I don't have a regular system of definitely playing on/off though as I don't have a regular partner.

[plum_tree]

I have a counter question to the thread title:
Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

[Lord Molyb]

helene_t, on 2012-December-14, 08:21, said:

Have you never played any of the following 2♥ calls as natural?
1NT-(x)-2♥
1NT-(2♦)-2♥
(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥

OK you probably mean that you have never discussed what the difference between stayman followed by 3♣, and a direct 3♣, is in the context of a no-transfer system. But isn't it more essential to know which of the three above 2♥ calls are natural and which of them are transfers, as opposed to discussing the finer details of your notrump structure?

those are all natural in a weak nt system, which I currently play.

[akwoo]

plum_tree, on 2013-May-30, 11:25, said:

I have a counter question to the thread title:
Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

Before transfers came around (e.g. in Goren), invitational hands in majors went through Stayman and game forcing hands with a 5 card suit jumped to the 3-level. Responses to 1N at the 2-level (except for 2♣ Stayman) were signoffs.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-14, 13:31, said:

So few? I know of one regularish pair who play something other than Stayman (and they might, for all I know, play transfers) and one occasional pair who play Stayman and weak takeouts (I am half of this pair; but I think we play strong NT).

I used to, people who play a wide range NT opener usually play something other than Stayman. We also did play transfers, but they were 4+ cards inv+.

[Vampyr]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-May-30, 13:13, said:

those are all natural in a weak nt system, which I currently play.

I play them all as natural too, and I play a weak NT too, but would a strong NT affect any of them? In the last example, of course, the opening NT range is irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

plum_tree, on 2013-May-30, 11:25, said:

I have a counter question to the thread title:
Without Stayman and transfers, how does opener distinguish between a signoff and further exploration towards game somewhere?

It depends on the methods but one way is to use precisely the same basis as 2-way Checkback. That is 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2M = invitational, with 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ - 2♠ and 1NT - 2♦; 2♠ - 3♥ and 1NT - 2♦; 2NT - 3M = GF. There are many such methods around. Another possibility is to use 2♣ to ask about hearts and 2♦ to ask about spades. Many of the methods have been discussed on BBF at some point in the last year or so.