[shevek]

Transfer responses to 1♣ seem like a good idea, with no constructive down-side. Responder gets some extra options plus you right-side majors, etc.

How should 4th hand defend after 1♣ - No - 1♥ (spades) - ?

Normal "expert" style in Australia is to bid their possible 4-card suits naturally. For instance, over Flannery 2♦, a 2♠ overcall is natural.
In the transfer auction, that suggests

X = takeout of spades, 1♠ natural, 1NT natural.
Or the same with 1NT as 5-5 reds.

X as takeout of spades is a bit safer than doubling a natural 1♠ response for takeout, which risks getting carved up at the 2-level on a mis-fit.
You might also gain a 1♠ pivot response from partner. All good.

Another way is to bid 1♠ on any hand that would double a natural 1♠ response for takeout. That's okay, albeit with the increased risk of sustaining a penalty. Then double could be hearts, but not good/long enough to overcall 2♥. My feeling is that this is not quite as useful.

Other thoughts include X as a strong notrump, 1♠ for tko, 1NT as a 2-suiter. This might please those who think a sandwich 1NT shouldn't be natural.

Or having double and 1♠ as different takeouts.
One limited, one strong?
Or one classic, one off-shape?

What think ye?

[brianshark]

With my partners, I keep things fairly simple. Dbl is ♥s, and 1♠ is t/o of ♠s. I suppose I could bid 2♠ if I wanted to bid ♠s naturally.

At the one level, the important thing is just to have good agreements so you know what bids mean what. The risk of any of these 1-level choices getting you doubled for penalties is negligible.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I strongly disagree that there is no downside to a transfer response structure. You're giving the opponent's extra bidding room. If they use this room efficiently there are going to be costs. Its quite possible that the benefits outweigh the costs, but don't pretend that the transfer responses dominate natural bidding.

Comment 2: Its unclear whether

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - 1♠ should show Spades. I haven't given this great amounts of thought, but its entirely possible that you might prefer to use

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - 2♠ as showing the same sort of hand that would show Spades after a natural auction like

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - ???

If the opponents have shown 4+ Spades, I don't want to show any old Spade suit. I want to show a good suit, in which case, I am happy to assign a high level bid to show a (fairly) rare hand type.

My initial reaction is that I would prefer something like the following after
(1♣) - P - (1♥)

2N = Diamonds and Hearts high ODR
2♠ = Spades
2♥ = Hearts
2♦ = Diamonds
2♣ = Clubs
1N = Natural, balanced
1♠ = Diamonds and Spades, low ODR
X = Values

[RichMor]

Without too much deep thought, it seems to me that:
1. a double of a transfer response should be takeout of the target suit.
2. a cue of the target suit should be about the same as a cue of a natural response.

So 1♣-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
is the same as 1♣-(P)-1♠-2♠

It is sort of standard in the US to play the cue as a 2-suiter with Hearts and a minor. So we get to show the same hand at the one level. Good deal.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Comment 1: I strongly disagree that there is no downside to a transfer response structure.

shevek said no constructive downside. Obviously there are downsides in contested auctions.

[FrancesHinden]

On the more 'normal' auction 1C P 1S natural, there is no real consensus for the meanings of 1NT and 2S. I think the closest to 'standard' is 1NT = natural & strong, 2S = natural, good suit. I already have two ways to show the other two suits - via a take-out double or a 2NT overcall. But 1NT Sandwich and/or 2S two-suited overcall are certainly fairly well known. There's also not a great deal of consensus on the 2C overcall, which some play as natural and some as a 2-suiter.

When they respond with 1H showing spades you have gained one extra call: the 1S overcall. The best use for this may well depend on what you currently think the best use for 1NT and 2S is. If you have no way of bidding spades naturally at present, IMO it would be best to use 1S to show spades. But then I'm biased, I think being able to bid spades naturally is important.


I like to use the extra call to show something I couldn't show easily before (hearts), so I play

1C P 1H (spades)...

x = hearts, not strong enough to bid at the 2-level (which is constructive)
1S = take-out double of hearts.
1NT+ = as I played them before

I don't really think there's any extra risk in using 1S as a tox of spades compared to doubling 1S, you are if anything better off after 1C P 1H 1S x than after 1C P 1S x xx.

If partner has doubled 1C for takeout, so the auction has started 1C x 1H (spades), I think it is fairly obvious to play
x = hearts, not long/strong enough to bid 2H
all spade bids = natural

The other auctions worth thinking about are
1C p 1S

where 1S has different meanings in different versions of T-Walsh, but fairly uniformly does not show spades (it might be balanced, or clubs, or diamonds, or either minor...)

and

1H p 1S (Kaplan inversion - equivalent to a forcing NT)

It's not obvious to me whether it's better to usethe double as showing the suit doubled, or as take-out of opener's suit.

Over Moscito-style transfer openings (1D = 4+ hearts, 1H = 4+spades) I use the 1-level overcall as natural and double as take-out of opener's suit. The auction is subtly different, because currently over e.g. a natural 4CM 1S opening I have no way of showing spades, and think that's a more useful addition given that I can always bid 2H over 1H with hearts (after 1C P 1S I already have a way of showing spades naturally)

[awm]

It may be worth noting that transfer responses do have a constructive down-side. As with most such methods, the down-side is the hands which now reply using a higher bid -- i.e. the hands that used to bid 1♦ (natural) but now bid 1♠ (diamonds). Now opener can no longer rebid a major at the one-level, which means you might lose a superior partscore (1M in a 4-3) and instead be forced to play in two of a minor in what could easily be a worse fit. If you have a game-forcing hand for responder, you are behind in opener describing his hand (i.e. 1♣-1♦-2♣ is always six, whereas 1♣-1♠!-2♣ will often be 5♣+4M and a minimum). Finally, you lose opener's game forcing jump rebids, since while 1♣-1♦-2M is forcing to game, presumably 1♣-1♠!-2M is just a "forcing one round" reverse which cramps your auctions a bit because you need a way to get out below game, and also means that if responder has real trash you can't get out in the major suit at any reasonable level (instead of 1♣-1♦-1M-Pass you are bidding 1♣-1♠!-2M and even this is forcing one round).

Anyway, I like Frances' method where over 1♣-P-1♥! double is hearts. This is actually pretty useful, as there are many hands with hearts (or diamonds) where I'd like to bid over 1♣-P-1♠ natural but where it is rather dangerous to stick a call in at the two-level. I would actually prefer to play 2♥ here as like a weak jump shift in hearts, whereas double is a "one level overcall" since it is nice to be able to obstruct with the weak hand (more important than obstructing with the strong hand).

[jtfanclub]

I haven't thought about it too much, but it seems like something like this would be more useful:

1♣ P 1♥! (showing spades)

X= 3 suited hand (short spades)
1♠ Hearts and a minor
1NT: Clubs and diamonds
2 bids: Natural (yes, even 2♠)

I think one suited sandwich calls at the 1 level are kinda pointless. They almost always end up being more useful to the opener's side. That would include doubling to show a single suit.

[OleBerg]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Comment 1:  I strongly disagree that there is no downside to a transfer response structure.  You're giving the opponent's extra bidding room.  If they use this room efficiently there are going to be costs.  Its quite possible that the benefits outweigh the costs, but don't pretend that the transfer responses dominate natural bidding.

Comment 2:  Its unclear whether

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - 1♠ should show Spades.  I haven't given this great amounts of thought, but its entirely possible that you might prefer to use

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - 2♠ as showing the same sort of hand that would show Spades after a natural auction like

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - ???

If the opponents have shown 4+ Spades, I don't want to show any old Spade suit.  I want to show a good suit, in which case, I am happy to assign a high level bid to show a (fairly) rare hand type.

My initial reaction is that I would prefer something like the following after
(1♣) - P - (1♥)

2N = Diamonds and Hearts high ODR
2♠ = Spades
2♥ = Hearts
2♦ = Diamonds
2♣ = Clubs
1N = Natural, balanced
1♠ = Diamonds and Spades, low ODR
X  = Values

Very much with you on this one. (Assuming "diamonds and spades" is a typo, and should be "diamonds and hearts.)

You have not set any points limits for the "values" double. In my book a decent 13-count should be enough. (Remember to play at least one take-out double.)

This is even more importent when opponents play unbalanced 1♦. Here the sequence 1♣-1♠ is sometimes played as a two-way bid, that can contain 0 points.

[mycroft]

Depending on the nature of the transfer response, there's always a downside.

1C-1H (spades) is great, but 1C-2D (hearts) sucks. More so than 1C-2D diamonds, as it's a major. 1C-1S (hearts) tangles spades in a way that 1C-1H does not. 1C-1D (hearts) is great, but where's your 1C-1D negative? At 1S now? 1NT?

I play transfer responses to a strong 1C, and I find it very useful. Not for the space increase (which usually balances out between 1H great and 2 level that would have been 1 level), but because we want to play in responder's suit much more often than we want to play in opener's suit *and the suit is one-under responder's*. Right-siding the contract, and hiding the big hand is a big plus, and worth all the extra work (and occasional "Oh bugger, how do I make a game/slam decision after 1C-2D; 3D?") But I don't say there isn't a downside, even if it's "can't play in 2D after we open 1NT."

[PrecisionL]

I hate to add what we play, you might use it against me .

In 2nd seat (to 1♣) we use Bugatti.

In 4th seat we use Mathe over 1♦ negative.

Over 1♣ p 1♥: 1♠ is for takeout and X is hearts. 1NT and higher are transfers to the next highest suit.

Having played a stong 1♣ for years, I only remember one time we didn't land on our feet after interference and that was the 1♣ opener's fault for not supporting my transfer suit with xxx.

Larry

[hrothgar]

PrecisionL, on Aug 27 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

I hate to add what we play, you might use it against me .

In 2nd seat (to 1♣) we use Bugatti.

In 4th seat we use Mathe over 1♦ negative.

Over 1♣ p 1♥: 1♠ is for takeout and X is hearts. 1NT and higher are transfers to the next highest suit.

Having played a stong 1♣ for years, I only remember one time we didn't land on our feet after interference and that was the 1♣ opener's fault for not supporting my transfer suit with xxx.

Larry

I had assumed that we were discussing a Transfer Walsh type framework NOT a defense structure after a strong club opening followed by a GF positive.

[shevek]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 27 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

It's not obvious to me whether it's better to usethe double as showing the suit doubled, or as take-out of opener's suit.

Over Moscito-style transfer openings (1D = 4+ hearts, 1H = 4+spades) I use the 1-level overcall as natural and double as take-out of opener's suit. The auction is subtly different, because currently over e.g. a natural 4CM 1S opening I have no way of showing spades, and think that's a more useful addition given that I can always bid 2H over 1H with hearts (after 1C P 1S I already have a way of showing spades naturally)

Too subtle for me.
If someone opens 1♦ transfer, your method is to double as takeout of hearts and bid 1♥ natural. Fine.
You don't do that in 4th seat since you have a way of overcalling in their suit - at the 2-level.

Well, you could do the same thing vs a transfer 1♦ opening - doubling to show diamonds, 1♥ for tko, 2♥ natural.

[gwnn]

everyone seems to say

1♣-p-(trnf to a major)-{double or 1M or something)

is "takeout of hearts/spades"

does this mean that it promises clubs also and not just ♦+oM? or am I just a fat nitpick?

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on Aug 28 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

everyone seems to say

1♣-p-(trnf to a major)-{double or 1M or something)

is "takeout of hearts/spades"

does this mean that it promises clubs also and not just ♦+oM? or am I just a fat nitpick?

What a take-out double shows, depends on what the 1♣ opening showed.

[SoTired]

1C (p) 1H=spades:
X= hearts
1S = takeout
everything else is natural overcall

Same with 1C (p) 1D=hearts:
X = diam
1H = takeout
everything else is natural

[csdenmark]

A variety of persons here seems to be happy they are able to create harakiri-actions showing nearly any kind of distribution.

The fact is it is time to shut up. Opps has at best 16HcP. Unless you have an extreme distribution you will be able to produce 5-6 tricks on a good day. This means you are down 2-3 tricks already at 1-level.

It is for opps. to secure they are able to handle Lightner doubles in a decent way and that there signalling features are optimized.

It is for opening side to see to that their low-level penalty double cannot be misunderstood.

Shut up and hope your team-mates will duplicate for a push.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

A variety of persons here seems to be happy they are able to create harakiri-actions showing nearly any kind of distribution.

The fact is it is time to shut up. Opps has at best 16HcP. Unless you have an extreme distribution you will be able to produce 5-6 tricks on a good day. This means you are down 2-3 tricks already at 1-level.

It is for opps. to secure they are able to handle Lightner doubles in a decent way and that there signalling features are optimized.

It is for opening side to see to that their low-level penalty double cannot be misunderstood.

Shut up and hope your team-mates will duplicate for a push.

Excuse me, but I don't don't understand a word of this post. Aren't we discussing transfers to a natural 1♣ opening and what to do in 4th seat when responder bids the suit below the one s/he has?

What is this nonsense with "at best 16 hcp" then? 1♣ is not 16+ here.

Twice in Claus' post we are even asked to shut up. If I misunderstood it all, please enlighten me someone.

Roland

[PrecisionL]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

PrecisionL, on Aug 27 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

I hate to add what we play, you might use it against me  .

In 2nd seat (to 1♣) we use Bugatti.

In 4th seat we use Mathe over 1♦ negative.

Over 1♣ p 1♥:  1♠ is for takeout and X is hearts.  1NT and higher are transfers to the next highest suit.

Having played a stong 1♣ for years, I only remember one time we didn't land on our feet after interference and that was the 1♣ opener's fault for not supporting my transfer suit with xxx.

Larry

I had assumed that we were discussing a Transfer Walsh type framework NOT a defense structure after a strong club opening followed by a GF positive.

Silly me, transfer responses to a natural 1♣? Why would I think the 1♣ would be strong (15+ hcp?). Maybe because it wasn't clear in the original post? And I live and play in ACBLand where transfer responses to 1-bids are ONLY allowed over a strong 1♣ in non-competitive auctions?

Anyway, my comments in 4th seat are still applicable, and if 1♦ shows hearts, then double shows diamonds and 1♥  is takeout for the other 3-suits.

Larry