[awm]

Of course there are degrees to everything and it has to depend a bit on your notrump range. But with all these notrump systems proliferating on the forum again, it might be worth getting some idea of where people's priorities lie.

[MarkDean]

I voted for the last one (minmizing info), but would cast a "close second place" vote to the first (stopping in 2M).

[Echognome]

I voted for the 3rd option, but would add "...at a level below 3NT". That's where I think Justin's transfer extensions help so much.

[Cascade]

Diagnosing wastage or fitting values opposite distributional hands is in my opinion the most important factor in choosing the right game. Therefore getting opener to show distribution is most important.

What are Justin's transfer extensions.

[awm]

Cascade, on Dec 19 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

What are Justin's transfer extensions.

It's amusing that they have received this name, since Justin was far from the first to use this idea. In fact I was playing a more complex (with complete shape definition) version of this long before he ever posted the idea to the forums (and I doubt I was the first either). But he is the one to popularize them on these forums.

Anyway, the idea is that after:

1NT - 2♥ - 2♠

The next bid by responder is normally another transfer. So for example in the auction above:

2NT = 4+♣
3♣ = 4+♦
3♦ = 4+♥

This enables opener to accept the secondary transfer, either as a way to show a real fit for the second suit below 3NT or as a way to relay for more shape information (depending on your follow-up style). All of these are generally game forcing -- the idea is to save a step in showing the second suit so that opener has more room to reply. The main disadvantage is that you lose 2NT as a natural bid, but this is normally solved by playing 1NT-2♣-2RED-2♠ as a five card spade invite and 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ as an artificial five-card heart invite.

[benlessard]

3 is surely the most important not close at all.

1 is very important and a must if your nt range is a bit wider like 11-14

7 is probably the next important 1.

6 is mostly when the opps intervene but over a 1 Nt opening your options are limited.

4 is a follow up of 3. Some hand allow you to have a fair shot of trying for 4M in a 4-3 fit instead of 3Nt, some hand allow for 5m, some dont. Shape is important here.

Having

Jxx
xx
KQxx
KJxx

and knowing partner cannot have 5S showing the weak doubleton is a bad % move. The downside of showing weakness is higher than the upside of reaching 4S/5m when partner has a magical hand.

[han]

awm, on Dec 19 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 19 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

What are Justin's transfer extensions.

It's amusing that they have received this name, since Justin was far from the first to use this idea. In fact I was playing a more complex (with complete shape definition) version of this long before he ever posted the idea to the forums (and I doubt I was the first either). But he is the one to popularize them on these forums.

The only name that Matt used is that of Justin, he didn't give the convention a name, he called them Justin's as in "those transfer extensions that Justin wrote about in his blog", which is the probably the place where the Gnome and others read about them. Justin never claimed that he was the first to come up with these transfers and I don't recall him ever referring to them as his invention or anything like that. In fact, I don't think he popularized them on these forums, though I remember several times that others referred to his blog. So basically, I think your jealous post is not fair.

As for references, the first place I read about them was in Danny Kleinman's "the notrump zone" which I believe was published before Justin started his blog. Of course I cannot check if Adam Meyerson was already playing a far more complex version of this before Danny Kleinman wrote his book, and it is very well possible that somebody else already wrote about it somewhere else. I don't think Danny Kleinman claims he was the first to invent them either, though maybe he does.

[glen]

A form of two-way transfers was published in The Bridge World in the 70s

[awm]

han, on Dec 20 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Justin never claimed that he was the first to come up with these transfers and I don't recall him ever referring to them as his invention or anything like that. In fact, I don't think he popularized them on these forums, though I remember several times that others referred to his blog. So basically, I think your jealous post is not fair.

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder why I bother posting to these forums.

I tried to make a useful post where I explain what the method in question is, and also commented on the fact that the name is not strictly accurate. Note that Han has not disputed any word of my post -- Justin did not invent the transfers, I didn't invent the transfers either, they have been referred to as "Justin's Transfer Extensions" multiple times.

Yet I get this attack, accusing me of some sort of attack on Justin and being somehow jealous of him having a bridge convention named after him.

From Han in particular, I see an awful lot of these snarky posts that attack other people, accuse them of things with no real basis, and contribute virtually nothing to the discussion.

[glen]

awm, on Dec 20 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

han, on Dec 20 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Justin never claimed that he was the first to come up with these transfers...So basically, I think your jealous post is not fair.

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder why I bother posting to these forums. ...
Yet I get this attack, accusing me of some sort of attack on Justin and being somehow jealous of him having a bridge convention named after him.

Yes, Han should not have taken a shot at you on this. Justin, in his blog posting did say "This is why I have come up with transfer extensions." Hopefully Han will retract.

Justin's Transfer Extensions

This was Justin's thread on the subject: BBO Thread 8685

[Tcyk]

A good system does almost all of these. My favorite system followed the lines described by Bose in his book, "Relay Club." Transfers are invitational or drop-dead, never forcing to game. All forcing sequences begin with Stayman and are followed by a 2nd asking bid. Opening bidder's exact shape can be determined without going past 3NT. The system is a little complex but not as complex as Scanian. Once the logic of the system is understood, it is rather easy to remember.

It seemed like our biggest problems occurred when we held a 4-card major and a longer minor suit and invitational strength. Some hands with 5431 shape were handled as described below. We experimented with canape transfers. They were fun but eliminated our ability to show a longer major and shorter minor suit with invitational strength hands. We corrected this by using a rebid of 2NT after a major suit transfer to show a 5-card major and a minor suit. Rebids of 3C and 3D instead of 2NT showed a 4-card major and a longer minor suit. That only left 5332-shape hands with invitational strength to present us with a problem. Playing IMPs we treated them as forcing. Playing MPs we guessed. Bridge will never be an exact science.

The method described by Bose was primarily for weak no trump hands but can work for stronger hands as well. His book showed many examples where a shapely 8- or 9-count was able to reach game after a weak no trump opening bid. The treatment is intended to be used when playing IMPs.

I have forgotten how he showed 4441-shapes but I seem to recall that he bid a suit and jumped to 3NT after the rebid. This showed a singleton in the first suit bid. On a bad day, the singleton was in his only 4- or 5-card suit. Then, he toughed it out in no trump. On a good day, a fit was disclosed and knowledge of the singleton sometimes even permitted finding a minor suit game on inviatational values.

One of his most interesting methods was how to show 5431 hands with a 5-card minor and invitational strength. I have not seen the method used since I left the Boston area in 1979 but I had a lot of success with it.

1NT - 3C showed 4=3=1=5 or 3=4=1=5 shape.
1NT - 3D showed 4=3=5=1 or 3=4=5=1 shape.
1NT - 3H showed 4=1=5=3 or 4=1=3=5 shape.
1NT - 3S showed 1=4=5=3 or 1=4=3=5 shape.

With the first two sequences, opening bidder bids a 4-card major knowing that he might be playing in a Moysian fit, takes a shot at 3NT or escapes to the minor suit. He can also bid the suit of the singleton to ask for the 4-card major. With the other two sequences, opening bidder can raise the major, perhaps knowing it is a Moysian fit, take a shot at 3NT, or escape to his minor suit knowing responder will with have at least three cards in the suit and on a good day, five.

The 2S response carried double or is it triple duty. It is the McKendrick/Russian 2S bid that asks for opening bidders strength. He rebids 2NT with less than a maximum hand and 3C with a maximum hand. If opener rebids 2NT, responder passes with an invitational strength hand, bids 3C with a weak hand and clubs, or bids 3NT with an invitational strength hand and 1=4=4=4 shape. If opener rebids 3C, responder passes with a weak hand and clubs just as if he had transferred to clubs, bids 3D with 1=4=4=4 shape, and bids 3NT with a hand with which responder wished to invite to 3NT.

2NT by responder transferred to diamonds. When we first started using canape transfers, a subsequent major suit rebid by responder promised five cards in the major and four cards in diamonds. We gave up this treatment in favor of the 2NT rebid after the transfer to promise a 5-card major and a second suit.

4C response to 1NT was Gerber. 4D and 4H were Texas transfers. We assigned no meaning to higher responses except 4NT was quantitative.

The method permitted opening 1NT with a weak 5-card major and 5332 shape but did not permit opening any hand with 5422-type shape since these shapes could not be described without going past 3NT. It did permit opening with 6322 and 7222 shapes where the long suit is clubs and the short suits contained tenace holdings. These hands are rare and definitely show a very weak club suit.

One advantage of permitting opening with a weak 5-card major is that a major suit opening guarantees a good suit or a shapely hand unsuitable for no trump. This can be an important factor when deciding to go on or compete in an auction.

No one ever said Bridge was an esy game.

[han]

glen, on Dec 20 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

awm, on Dec 20 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

han, on Dec 20 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Justin never claimed that he was the first to come up with these transfers...So basically, I think your jealous post is not fair.

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder why I bother posting to these forums. ...
Yet I get this attack, accusing me of some sort of attack on Justin and being somehow jealous of him having a bridge convention named after him.

Yes, Han should not have taken a shot at you on this. Justin, in his blog posting did say "This is why I have come up with transfer extensions." Hopefully Han will retract.

Justin's Transfer Extensions

This was Justin's thread on the subject: BBO Thread 8685

In my post I said that Justin didn't claim that he was the first to have invented these transfers after transfers. You point out that he did write he came up with them. Yes I know he did, that doesn't contradict what I wrote. Also, I know Justin is aware that he was not the first to invent them (I pointed out the Danny Kleinman reference to him years ago), and he never made any attempt to get them named after himself. This is what Adam is insinuating. I thought this was unfair and wanted to react. Since his post was also self-serving in a way I didn't like at all I didn't feel like reacting iwith a friendly post.

[Cascade]

There is plenty of precedence for naming a convention after someone other than the first inventor.

e.g. Stayman

and Cappelletti, Hamilton and Pottage are still arguing over their convention.

[y66]

Have never seriously thought about my notrump structure or how to even begin to evaluate alternatives. I like the way this poll lays out the candidate priorities.

I voted for option 3 because it best describes what I play (based on Washington Standard) which was given to me by a sensible local pro.

[keylime]

I like Keri, just because of what it does.

[dake50]

I play 4cM MAF-style. So my 10-13 1NT is preemting opponents likely Majors, and laying 3-minor escape foundation. I think this is optimal for 1NT use. Best of failing strategy is my view of your question.

[awm]

keylime, on Dec 20 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

I like Keri, just because of what it does.

I used to like Keri, but not so much any more.

My observation has been that the 2♣...2♦...2M auctions showing 4-5 in the major and invite don't work as well as advertised. Since the 2M can be five, opener can't really pass often with four card support, as the 5-4 fit will quite frequently make a game. So opener's really only passing on minimums with three card support. This means playing a lot of 4-3 major fits with the 3 hand (opener) being very balanced, and these do not seem to score particularly well (in fact they lose quite a lot of matchpoints, at IMPs it is not as bad but they still don't seem to be the net win they are advertised to be).

In addition, Keri effectively leaves you with fewer sequences. You have bid 1N-2♣-2♦ without obtaining any further information about opener's hand. This means if you have a balanced hand that wants to make game-forcing asking bids, you rebid 2NT and have effectively wasted an entire level. It's much easier to get this kind of info via stayman followed by relays. For example, finding 4-4 minor fit slams on a pair of balanced hands using Keri is extremely painful.

The signoff in diamonds is a winner at times, but you lose garbage stayman by playing Keri too. It seems to me that this is more or less an even trade (signoff in diamonds has the issue that it gives opponents more chances to balance, and also that 2♦ is a low-scoring MP spot; however holding 5+♦ is more frequent than holding the garbage stayman hand).

I do very much like the idea of direct splinters over 1NT (and not just for the (31)(45) hands) but this is not really the "core" of the method and can easily be adopted to most notrump structures.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 22 2008, 05:13 AM, said:

I do very much like the idea of direct splinters over 1NT (and not just for the (31)(45) hands) but this is not really the "core" of the method and can easily be adopted to most notrump structures.

I like these (or some variation of them) too.

We play:

3m = 4+m and 0-1 in other minor and could have a four-card major

3M = 4M and 0-1 in other major

These seem to work very well for us as a springboard for slam but also as choice of games.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I called them "Justin's Transfer Extensions" because it was from his blog I learned them and figured people would understand. I didn't mean anything more or less than that.

[mtvesuvius]

I almost always play weak NT, so pre-empting the opponents is a big part of the value of my 10-12 or 11-14 NT opener... Personally I feel that allowing responder to pattern out is extremely important (also because of the pre-empt to our side). I also favor direct splinters for 3m and 3M...


AJK