[jdonn]

Natural = Standard?

[gwnn]

No but it would be mostly true with a curly equation sign.

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on May 11 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

jdonn emphasis mine said:

Not so interested in swaps or non-standard systems.

huh? What forum did you post in?

A non-natural system can easily be standard. Meanwhile, there seems to be no forum for discussing Acol...

[gwnn]

jdonn, on May 11 2010, 02:01 AM, said:

In fact (brainstorming outloud) why not after 1♦ 2♣ as well? There might need to be a little rearranging but it could be very helpful on a traditionally difficult auction.

You mean something like
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=249217 ?

[FrancesHinden]

gordontd, on May 11 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

With one partner I play transfer rebids after a 1NT (NF) response to 1M openings. I think the idea originated with Gold/Townsend. It allows you to handle various kinds of strong problem hands.

No. The idea was originally played 10+ years earlier by Allerton/Townsend and was, I think, invented by Phil King (who was the juniors' coach at the time). As with all similar ideas, it's probably been invented multiple times.

[FrancesHinden]

Well, here are the places in which I current play transfers. There are other sequences in which transfers are a good idea but we don't play them (yet).

In response to a 1-level suit opening
1-level responses to 1♣
1-level bids, dbl & redouble after 1♣/1♦ and a double or 1-level overcall
After 1M x from 1NT to 2M-1
After 1M (2M Michaels) from 2NT to 3M-1
As responder after many 2-level overcalls from 2NT to 3-partner'ssuit-minus-1
[After some 2-level overcalls we play a form of lebensohl instead]

Subsequent auction after opening at the 1-level
We play transfers by responder after
1M - 1NT - 2NT
1H - 1S - 2NT
1S - 2H - 3NT
1C - 1S (diamonds) - 2NT

and in one partnership after opener completes or shows a strong balanced hand:
1C - 1D (hearts) - 1H (12-14 bal or min 3 hearts), 1C - 1H - 1S
1C - 1D - 1NT (17-19 bal), 1C - 1H - 1NT
many (although not all) of responder's 2-level bids are transfers

In response to 1NT
four suit transfers in response to 1NT
responder's retransfers after the first transfer (e.g. 1NT - 2H - 2S - 2NT/3C/3D/3H are all transfers)

In response to 2NT
3H/3S/3NT/4C/4D/4H/4S are all transfers, or at least showing 5+ cards in a suit not being the one bid.

We also play retransfers after a fit is found (completing a transfer shows a fit) so e.g. 2NT - 3D - 3H (3-card support) - 3NT shows a heart-club slam try

In response to 2M
We play responder's bids from 2NT to 3M-1 as transfers after
- a weak 2M opening
- a weak jump overcall to 2M
- a natural 2M overcall of 1NT

We play a load of system at opener's first rebid in virtually all uncontested auctions, but I don't think it can generally be described as 'transfers'.

[mikeh]

At the risk of not interesting josh, what about after a multi 2♦, promising the majors: 4♣ asks opener to transfer into his major.

And a gadget I learned from posts written here by Fred:

2♣  2N a major positive
3♣     asks responder to transfer into his major

And one of my favourites: after a 1♣ opening, 2♦ and 2♥ responses are transfers: either weak or gf, in the latter case, a very good 6+ suit. I really like this in the context of a weak notrump method. Of course, we lose meckwell, but one cannot have everything.

And after our 1N, and an overcall that promises a specified major, transfer lebensohl at the 3-level.....and, no, it isn't quite the same as Rubensohl, which I play with some people.


And, over our weak 1N opening, transfer responses to forcing stayman:

1N  2♦
2♥ no hearts, may hold spades, 2♠ asks
2♠ no spades, 4+ hearts
2N 5+ clubs
3♣ 5+ diamonds
3♦ 4=4 majors


Over 1N 2D 2H 2S:

2N no spades, 3♣ baron
3♣ 4=4 pointed
3♦ 4=4 black

[FrancesHinden]

Oh yes, I play that 4C response to a multi as well.

I also play 1NT - 2C - 2H = spades and 1NT - 2C - 2S = hearts, but those don't really seem to me to be 'transfers' as such, they just feel like artificial rebids... maybe I'm struggling with terminology.

But we do play 1NT - 2C - 2S (hearts) - 3D as a transfer to hearts.

[Free]

jdonn, on May 11 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

Not so interested in swaps or non-standard systems. But hey whatever...

Yeah I understand. In a way swaps just exist of 2 transfers, that's why I mentioned them. 1♠-2♦ showing ♥ is some sort of transfer for sure, on the other hand 1♠-2♥ showing ♦ is a 4-under transfer .

Another one for multi (it's not natural, but over here it's quite standard):
2♦-(Dbl)-pass asks to transfer the Major (=> RDbl = ♥, 2♥ = ♠)

[zenko]

How about this one, I stole it from Bocchi-Duboin and is one of my favorite conventions:

1N-3M= showing exactly 4 cards in the other major and GF+ strength, usually balanced and with intention to play either 3N or 4M.

The key advantage is that it is showing, not asking, so there is very little to none info disclosed about the declarer's hand, unlike when using Stayman sequence.

[kenrexford]

As a related aside...

If you like Suit/Lead, you might like Suit/Lead Support Doubles, an idea Ken Eichenbaum came up with.

Example:

1♠-X-2♣-2♥-
X?

Opener's X = support double with club fragment

[Cascade]

Free, on May 12 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

Another one for multi (it's not natural, but over here it's quite standard):
2♦-(Dbl)-pass asks to transfer the Major (=> RDbl = ♥, 2♥ = ♠)

How do you play in diamonds?

[kgr]

zenko, on May 12 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

How about this one, I stole it from Bocchi-Duboin and is one of my favorite conventions:

1N-3M= showing exactly 4 cards in the other major and GF+ strength, usually balanced and with intention to play either 3N or 4M.

The key advantage is that it is showing, not asking, so there is very little to none info disclosed about the declarer's hand, unlike when using Stayman sequence.

On Free's blog you'll find a link to a structure after 1NT that gives you the same advantage... and more:
http://freebridge.bl...-after-1nt.html

[zenko]

Thank you for the link for Heeman structure, seem interesting, kind of resembles a bit Klinger's KERI which I play often. The problem with it is that is whole big structure to learn which most people have no patience/interest for, the convention I mentioned is simple and "small" i.e. it nicely fits into any NT structure and can be explained and learned very quickly.

[Free]

Cascade, on May 12 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Free, on May 12 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

Another one for multi (it's not natural, but over here it's quite standard):
2♦-(Dbl)-pass asks to transfer the Major (=> RDbl = ♥, 2♥ = ♠)

How do you play in diamonds?

I play that Pass suggests to play in ♦, but if opener is not willing to play he'll transfer his Major. RDbl asks to bid the Major and denies interest in playing 2♦.

[Phil]

In PC, aren't 1♣ - 3♦/3♥/3♠ various transfers? I thought 3♠ transferred to 3N, but I'm not sure about 3 red.

Also can't forget the little gadget 1x - (1y) - 3y that transfers to 3N that Justin suggested a few years ago.