[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we are looking for a structure, that uses Transfer Responses to a Major Suit Opening.

Google, being your best friend, came up with

http://www.bridgematters.com/idea3.htm

Do you have any other useful links? And do you have some experience with this?

Context would be a 5 card major system, with 11-14 NT opening.

Thanks for your help.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

Your link doesn't seem to work for me (although if I type http://www.bridgematters.com/idea3.htm into the address bar, it does).

Gnasher & catch22 play a strong NT (which might change things somewhat) with responses to 1S

1NT = semi-forcing
2C = INV+ artificial relay
2D = hearts
2H = either a weak or invitational 3-card raise
2S = constructive raise
2NT = 4+ cards support INV+
3suit = NAT INV

well, it's got 2D as a transfer in the responses...

[petterb]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-23, 16:18, said:

2H = either a weak or invitational 3-card raise

So with the invitational raise you have to make one more bid when opener rebids 2♠?

That's terrible. You really want to stay at the 2-level when opener declines the invitation.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Frances,

thanks a lot for the answer, ... besides the 2D bid, 2H is also a transfer,
but transfer is not a must have.

What are the follow ups to the 2C bid?

The reason we are looking for is, at the moment the 2C / 2D response
after a 3 seat opening is idle, also the FNT is no longer really useful.

My partner does not like to play different systems according to position,
i.e. no Drury, so one option would be to go via transfer.

We already play 3x as natural inv. strength, so this seems to be an agreement
set, that could be inccoperated without to many changes.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

petterb, on 2012-December-23, 18:09, said:

So with the invitational raise you have to make one more bid when opener rebids 2♠?

That's terrible. You really want to stay at the 2-level when opener declines the invitation.

Well, it's not my system, but it's hardly terrible. For example, it's no worse than all natural methods of showing a 3-card raise to the 3-level.

[FrancesHinden]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-December-24, 16:51, said:

Hi Frances,

thanks a lot for the answer, ... besides the 2D bid, 2H is also a transfer,
but transfer is not a must have.

What are the follow ups to the 2C bid?

All I know is what's on their convention card at http://www.ebu.co.uk...wles-howard.pdf which isn't much.
I don't play this.

[jallerton]

petterb, on 2012-December-23, 18:09, said:

So with the invitational raise you have to make one more bid when opener rebids 2♠?

That's terrible. You really want to stay at the 2-level when opener declines the invitation.

No. With a good raise to 2M, you bid 1M-2M "constructive" and partner passes if he declines the invitation.

1M-2[M-1]-2M-further bid implies a strong invitation, just short of a game force.

[gnasher]

petterb, on 2012-December-23, 18:09, said:

So with the invitational raise you have to make one more bid when opener rebids 2♠?

That's terrible. You really want to stay at the 2-level when opener declines the invitation.

On those hands we get to the same level as everyone who plays 2/1, Standard American, Standard French or Acol. It seems a bit extreme to call that "terrible". There are lots of things that you want to be able to do. One of the interesting things about system design is that you can't do all of them, so you have to choose where to have your system gains.

Our main gains over standard methods are:
- Responder can show a balanced invitation without a fit below the 2♠ level. We think it's more useful to be able to stop in 2♠ on these hands than when we have similar values with a spade fit.
- With an invitational 3-card raise, we conceal opener's hand-type whilst allowing responder to describe his hand.
- With a balanced 3-card invitation opposite a balanced rejection we can stop in 2NT .

I'm sure there have been occasions where we've gone down at the three-level after showing a 3-card invitation, but I don't think it's a common occurrence. That may be because we don't invite very often and we bid game often.

[cherdano]

Amazing, gnasher's systems has more 3-card raises than most natural systems, and doesn't get any higher than those systems on any of the raises. Yet someone thinks this is a problem of the system?
I would be much more worried about the multiplex 2♣ bid.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2012-December-24, 18:13, said:

I would be much more worried about the multiplex 2♣ bid.

Yes, it worries me too. It only (just) works because our 1♠ opener has denied a minimum with 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors - we open 2♣ on that.

Opener's rebids are:

2♦: Up to 14 (not both majors)
2♥: 15+ (not both majors, not 14-16 5-5)
2♠/2NT: Various hands with both majors (game-forcing if 5-5 or 5-4; we can stop in 3M when opener is 6-4)
3m/♥: 14-16 5-5
3♠: Natural with a self-supporting suit

After 1♠-2♣;2♦:

2♥ = balanced invitation. All other actions are FG.
2♠ = enquiry, either usually balanced or a slam try with spade support
2NT/3♣ = transfer, unbalanced
3♦ = 5-4 minors
3M = 5-5 minors
3NT = natural
4m/♥ - splinter with 3-card support
4M = to play (we do this a lot, because we like uninformative auctions)

In most of these sequences we have 3♥ available as an artificial bid, because we're known not to have a fit there. That helps to alleviate the shortage of space.

After 1♠-2♣;2♥, the continuations are similar to those after 1♠-2♣;2♦, with some twiddly bits to split responder's range when he's balanced.


This won't work in a natural system, because you need to be able to find 4-4 heart fits. After 1♠-2♣ you might try something like:

2♦: Up to 14 (not both majors)
2♥: Natural, F1
2♠: 15+, balanced or 5-4 with a minor
2NT: 15+ with six spades
3m: 15+ 5-5

but it's rather cramped.

[Fluffy]

I play 2 way responses, over 1♠ they are like this:

2♦ hearts weak or strong diamonds
2♥ constructive raise or strong hearts
2♠ preemptive

2♣ can be used as whatever you like, balancd GF or clubs is the most reasonable IMO

[Zelandakh]

Uwe, another option is to turn everything round. So

P - 1♠
1NT = any invitational hand without 4 spades
2♣♦♥♠ = weak and natural
higher bids show 4+ spades

After P - 1♠ - 1NT,
2♣ = min without 4 hearts (now natural bidding)
2♦ = 4+ hearts (now natural bidding)
2♥ and up = max without 4 hearts, GF (now you can choose either to relay or bid naturally)

Bidding 1NT followed by 2♠ acts as a form of delayed Drury in effect. The direct 2 level responses are obviously non-forcing and apply pressure if the hand is a part score scrap. My experience is that these work best when bid "up the line" with possible canape.

A similar structure works over a 1♥ opening too:

1♠ = any invitational hand without 4 hearts
1NT = 4+ spades, nat and weak
2♣♦♥ = nat and weak
higher bids show 4+ hearts

After P - 1♥ - 1♠
1NT = min without 4 spades (now natural bidding)
2♣ = 4 spades (now natural bidding)
2♦ and up = max without 4 spades, GF (now you can choose either to relay or bid naturally)


This has nothing to do with transfers of course...