[FrancesHinden]

It might be interesting to have as an option "allowing garbage stayman" (or its equivalent), because the only time I have actually designed a NT system, we included many of the things on your list at the expense of making a 2C response showing at least invitational values.

The other option I like to have is to allow the choice of games when responder has a 6-card major. This is (sort of) a similar option to picking 4M/3NT when opener is 4333.

There's also an option which I don't know how to summarise, along the lines of "showing responder's hand quickly". One of the reasons my partner doesn't like "2D = hearts or various other hands" as a response to 1NT, is that he wants opener to be able to raise hearts at once in competition. (I'm not sure I agree with him actually, but that's another matter.)

p.s. what does 'right-siding suit contracts' mean? Do you mean playing them by the strong hand (assumed to be opener), or allowing a choice? One of the things I do like about my methods is that, as responder with a single-suited major hand, I can choose who declares 4M.

p.p.s lots of people have invented playing transfers by responder following a transfer.

[mikeh]

While I appreciate that Adam made a good effort to set out most of the considerations, the reality is that the design of a good set of responses to 1N is a tradeoff. I might well think that one matter is the most important factor, but if prioritizing that factor creates problems handling factors that are almost as important, then I might have to compromise.

In addition, the option about relaying to find opener's exact shape is incomplete. Especially over strong ntorump, I would not give any great weight to relaying to find opener's exact shape. However, the most powerful method I have ever played, especially for slam bidding, begins with a relay to find exact shape, then moves to a relay to find number of controls, number and location of Queens, location of specific Aces and Kings, and, altho this rarely arises due to space constraints, even key Jacks. The relay structure is only a small part of the overall response scheme, utilizing the 2♣ response, with specialized rebids.. it loses the ability to play garbage stayman, but garbage stayman is, imo, less useful over strong nt than it is over weak.

If not allowed to play this method (and it is perfectly legal, but I only know 2 others who know the method), then I would not give much priority to relaying to show opener's shape. I wouldn't even give it a lot of priority over weak notrump, despite my posts on the weak notrump thread.... while I do like 2-way stayman, with appropriate tweaks, I have no doubt that a complex transfer method would work as well... better on some hands, worse on others, and there are other priorities.

[Jlall]

Yep, the whole transfer after transfer thing was a good lesson for me, at best saying that I came up with them was ambiguous (I came up with this type of idea independently, but not so surprisingly I was not the first!), and at worst it was fraudulently implying that I was the first to create them. In reality I was just naive and careless. I'm glad Han gives me the benefit of the doubt but when writing things publicly I should really be more careful, sorry.

An amusing story about this is when I moved to New York and I was about to play a regional with Kranyak he said "I play this awesome system that I made up, after jacoby transfers the next bids are transfers..." lol. I pointed him to my blog and of course he said he was the true inventor and that I copied him

Sorry to derail but just thought I should clarify, I will update that blog post if I remember how to clarify this point also As far as I know Kleinman, Rodwell, and possibly Kranyak, and I'm sure many others had this idea before I did. FWIW I play them differently (and more efficiently) now also, and I'm sure awm's system is even more efficient; the version posted in my blog was quite crude.

And another side note, to those I told that this jlall account was not actually me, I didn't lie, but I know the password to it.

[JLOL]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Yep, the whole transfer after transfer thing was a good lesson for me, at best saying that I came up with them was ambiguous (I came up with this type of idea independently, but not so surprisingly I was not the first!), and at worst it was fraudulently implying that I was the first to create them. In reality I was just naive and careless. I'm glad Han gives me the benefit of the doubt but when writing things publicly I should really be more careful, sorry.

An amusing story about this is when I moved to New York and I was about to play a regional with Kranyak he said "I play this awesome system that I made up, after jacoby transfers the next bids are transfers..." lol. I pointed him to my blog and of course he said he was the true inventor and that I copied him

Sorry to derail but just thought I should clarify, I will update that blog post if I remember how to clarify this point also As far as I know Kleinman, Rodwell, and possibly Kranyak, and I'm sure many others had this idea before I did. FWIW I play them differently (and more efficiently) now also, and I'm sure awm's system is even more efficient; the version posted in my blog was quite crude.

And another side note, to those I told that this jlall account was not actually me, I didn't lie, but I know the password to it.

LOL

[fred]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

Yep, the whole transfer after transfer thing was a good lesson for me, at best saying that I came up with them was ambiguous (I came up with this type of idea independently, but not so surprisingly I was not the first!), and at worst it was fraudulently implying that I was the first to create them. In reality I was just naive and careless. I'm glad Han gives me the benefit of the doubt but when writing things publicly I should really be more careful, sorry.

An amusing story about this is when I moved to New York and I was about to play a regional with Kranyak he said "I play this awesome system that I made up, after jacoby transfers the next bids are transfers..." lol. I pointed him to my blog and of course he said he was the true inventor and that I copied him

Sorry to derail but just thought I should clarify, I will update that blog post if I remember how to clarify this point also As far as I know Kleinman, Rodwell, and possibly Kranyak, and I'm sure many others had this idea before I did. FWIW I play them differently (and more efficiently) now also, and I'm sure awm's system is even more efficient; the version posted in my blog was quite crude.

And another side note, to those I told that this jlall account was not actually me, I didn't lie, but I know the password to it.

The Canadians also (re?)invented this particular wheel.

When I started playing with George Mittelman in 1994, he suggested we play transfers after transfers. Probably he and Kokish and Graves had been doing the same thing since at least the early 1980s.

Agree it is a good thing. I still play it in my partnerships with Brad Moss and Sheri (wife).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, the Scanian NT system uses transfers after Stayman...

I'm doing this from memory (after eating most of a pork shoulder for lunch), so forgive me if I get this wrong, however, as I recall

1N - 2♣
2♥ - 2N

2N = transfer to clubs

I really like the Scanian structure, however, I consider the memory load oppressive. I'd only recommend it for serious partnerships who play weak NT openings. (The more frequent your NT openings, the more reasonable it is to adopt complicated methods)

[han]

1994? That's before Justin was born isn't it?

[gnasher]

I remember being made to play transfers after transfers in about 1990.

[glen]

gnasher, on Dec 22 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I remember being made to play transfers after transfers in about 1990.

"Repeated Jacoby Transfers" is on pages 651-652 of Bridge Conventions Complete by Amalya Kearse, 2nd edition, 1990. It might be in the first edition (1984). Kearse does not reference the source article, but I believe it dates from the 70s in The Bridge World, or perhaps early 80s:

In the Sep. 1981 issue, in the What's New in Bridge series:

Extending Jacoby Transfers by Jim Hicks

Hicks said:

The advantages of Jacoby Transfers are well known ... Extension of the principle to the next round can lead to similar gains. ... In particular, let any any non-jump rebid by responder be a transfer to the next higher denomination ...

In the article, 1NT-2♦;-2♥-2♠ is a flat game try/slam try, in the table "Details of Second-Round Transfers"

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Dec 20 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

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

You left out Helms.

[Impact]

I have used many things but can claim to be the inventor (albeit great minds think alike) of transfers and then step 1 is any GF 5-5 (with relays available and setting suits etc) but all steps other than step 1 are transfers showing shortage in next suit up

ie 2D to 2H and then 2S= 5+H & 5+other
2NT= 5+H & short C
3C= 5+H & short D
3D= 5+H & short S
3H= 6H invit

Opener can agree suit or bid shortage to ask for a second suit (which can only be 4 cards in length).

Combine this with Stayman (which incorporates a full relay set below 3NT and then allows control asks and location as Mikeh notes) and garbage Stayman, while higher bids are:-

3C= both minors weakish (5+5+)
3D= both Majors invit (5+5+)
3M= fragment with 54 minors
4m= texas

and that is a lot simpler than Scanian

regards