[ArtK78]

There are a number of reasons NOT to play transfers opposite a weak NT (and even more so opposite a mini-NT). One is that it puts the opps under immediate pressure. Another is to not wrongside the hand when it belongs to the opening side. And a third is it gives the opps fewer opportunities to enter the auction safely by doubling a transfer call when our side has less than the balance of strength.

To take it further, when in a game forcing auction, we use methods calculated to make responder the declarer as often as possible. For example, if the auction begins 1NT (10-12) - (P) - 2♦, which is game forcing Stayman, opener, with one major, bids the other. With both majors, he bids 3♣, and with both minors, he bids 3♦. Bidding suits that we don't have is less dangerous when we are already in a game forcing auction.

[gnasher]

I don't agree that transfers make it easier for the opponents to enter the auction.

If it goes:

1NT pass 2♠ (natural signoff)

both opponents get a chance to bid after responder has shown weakness.

If, instead, we have the transfer sequence:

1NT pass 2♥ pass
2♠

it's true that fourth hand gets an extra opportunity to bid, but this is balanced by the fact that second hand's only chance to bid is in a live auction.

If, for example, second hand has a minimum takeout double of spades, it's far more dangerous for him to enter the transfer auction than the natural auction.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2013-February-11, 00:49, said:

I don't agree that transfers make it easier for the opponents to enter the auction.

If it goes:

1NT pass 2♠ (natural signoff)

both opponents get a chance to bid after responder has shown weakness.

If, instead, we have the transfer sequence:

1NT pass 2♥ pass
2♠

it's true that fourth hand gets an extra opportunity to bid, but this is balanced by the fact that second hand's only chance to bid is in a live auction.

If, for example, second hand has a minimum takeout double of spades, it's far more dangerous for him to enter the transfer auction than the natural auction.

On the other hand, 4th seat can easily distinguish between a good takeout dbl of ♠ (immediately) or a weak one (delayed). I guess it balances out. After a transfer they do get an easy lead directing Dbl though.

One of the biggest advantages of 1NT-2M natural signoff hasn't been mentioned yet: the weak hand has a wide range, which makes it much harder to defend. Responder can have 0 to 10 HCP, a huge difference. After a transfer that hand is put on the table and opener's range is much better defined, which makes defense much more easy.

[kreivi68]

Free, on 2013-February-11, 02:22, said:

One of the biggest advantages of 1NT-2M natural signoff hasn't been mentioned yet: the weak hand has a wide range, which makes it much harder to defend. Responder can have 0 to 10 HCP, a huge difference. After a transfer that hand is put on the table and opener's range is much better defined, which makes defense much more easy.

In theory, yes. But if opener has 12-14 and responder 0-4, they are probably not going to declare,
Not without penalty double at least. So I think that range is not that wide IRL.

T.

[trevahound]

kreivi68, on 2013-February-11, 06:06, said:

In theory, yes. But if opener has 12-14 and responder 0-4, they are probably not going to declare,
Not without penalty double at least. So I think that range is not that wide IRL.

T.

I don't know why that would be true. If opener has say 10-12, and responder has 0-12 for their 2M signoff, when opps' points are fairly evenly divided often neither can safely enter the auction. Give responder 4 like you mention, and opener 11, one opp 12 and one opp 13. Sure, either could choose to enter the auction, but if they do, they're beginning to exchange info at the 3 level with no idea what their partner has, and if they do this regularly then they'll enter on their 12 or 13 and find responder with 10-12 too, just like opener, and opening side already knows they had only a partscore at stake yet they own half or more of the deck. Doubling is easy, and it's often quite bloody. Entering the auction with a wk NT over a wk NT is a long term loser.

The "system" wins for baby NT are putting an immense amount of pressure on the opps early, while still having constructive auctions when it's clearly our hand. The biggest loss is playing in the wrong strain on partscore deals. Adding transfers is an artifact of a str nt background only, imo.

[mycroft]

Another benefit of transfers for the opponents is that you give fourth-hand 3 calls. Double 2♥ to show hearts; bid 2♠ good takeout of spades; double 2♠ for penalty. Or double 2♥ with "I would have hit the weak NT" hand, 2♠ strong t/o spades, double 2♠ weaker takeout. Or double 2♥ with "would have hit weak NT, almost always BAL", 2♠ takeout of spades, 2NT Raptorish (4♥, longer minor, short in other minor), and double of 2♠ weaker t/o.

One thing I like as the player/hate when it happens to me is 1NT (10-12)-p- 2♠ (0-12)- and I have 13ish. Partner could have 13ish; partner could have 3. Or I have 15; partner could still have 13ish; partner could have zero. I'd like to make a takeout double; I'd like to make a penalty double. I'd like to make a convertable double, too; but maybe not with a 0=5=4=4 13.

The only person at the table that can safely make a "cards" double is responder to 1NT.

Having said that, I do play transfers with my weak NT anyway; partly it's because maybe two pairs I play against have these kinds of agreements; partly it's because of the other benefits that come from a full Keri structure, and the transfers are central to it; partly because we played 2♦ GFStayman, which while it does have its benefits, is a bit of an underload for a bid.