[wank]

i've seen a few people starting to play XX as showing hearts after 1D gets doubled. i presume this is part of a wider set of transfer responses.

perhaps someone can tell me why this is a good idea. i would think the hand ownership showing XX was rather too useful to give up.

is it perhaps only popular with those who play 1D as unbalanced? for those people the penalty orientated, typically balanced XX is not so useful i suppose.

[the hog]

When have you ever nailed the opponents after a xx? The frequency of this occurring is to remote, so some have decided to make a xx a transfer response. Far more useful.

[Poky]

wank, on Oct 11 2010, 05:26 AM, said:

i've seen a few people starting to play XX as showing hearts after 1D gets doubled.  i presume this is part of a wider set of transfer responses.

perhaps someone can tell me why this is a good idea.  i would think the hand ownership showing XX was rather too useful to give up.

is it perhaps only popular with those who play 1D as unbalanced?  for those people the penalty orientated, typically balanced XX is not so useful i suppose.

Because location of major fits (from the right side) is much more important than trying to get them on level one (which happens never or very rarely). Especially if you have the "18-19 balanced" hand pulled out into some other opening (2♣, 2♦ or 1♣).

You can describe balanced hands pretty well even if you start with a pass (following with the double or something else), no matter of strength.

Besides that, the transfer to major is by agreement usually 5-carder (giving opponents a chance to play in a suit where we have 4 cards).

All in all, something like this:
Pass = weak, strong balanced or intermediate balanced with 4M
XX = TRF, 5+♥
1♥= TRF, 5+♠
1♠ = TRF, no 4M, 7-10, usually balanced
1NT= TRF, 5+♣
2♣ = TRF, diamond raise, 8+
2♦ = diamond raise, 0-7
2M = 6M, 8-10, good suit
2NT = mixed raise or any 10-13 splinter (or something like that)
3♣ = FSJ
3♦ = preemptive raise

[Free]

I play an entire level of transfers when opps Double. After 1♦-Dbl:
RDbl = 4+♥
1♥ = 4+♠
1♠ = transfer NT
1NT = 5+♣
2♣ = good ♦ raise
2♦ = poor ♦ raise

There are a few advantages here:
- you can easily find the 5-3 fits (opener accepting the Major transfer at 1-level)
- you can rightside NT contracts (let overcaller lead himself)
- you have 2 ways of supporting partner at 2-level which makes you better placed for competitive auctions

The only thing you lose is the penalty RDbl. I find it way too rare to be really important, and you can always pass and Dbl later if you happen to have one anyway. The transfers are way more frequent and help you much more.

[helene_t]

wank, on Oct 11 2010, 05:26 AM, said:

is it perhaps only popular with those who play 1D as unbalanced?

No, I think it's when opener is balanced that you are more likely to want opener to play the contract.

But the main advantage is that if doubler's partner passes, you have an extra step, using the transfer accept for (for example) showing exactly 3-card support.

[NickRW]

wank, on Oct 11 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

perhaps someone can tell me why this is a good idea.

If you like T Walsh over 1♣, then the advantage of doing something similar over 1♦x is pretty obvious.

[petterb]

Poky, on Oct 11 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

Besides that, the transfer to major is by agreement usually 5-carder...

I seriously doubt that what you're saying is true.

Seems silly to make it harder for our side to find our 4-4 major fits.

[paulg]

We play transfers after 1♦-(X) for a few reasons:

• we already play transfer responses to 1♣ and so most of the sequences are already defined - no additional memory load
  
• As 1♦ is a real suit in an unbalanced hand, it allows weak and strong single raises
  
• Redouble as penalty oriented was never particularly valuable
  
• It gives us more options

[aguahombre]

Whether 1D is unbalanced or not, using the opponents' double to gain accuracy and to right-side a contract is a good idea.

Redoubling with random strength merely wastes a round of bidding.

Even folks who do not use a T-Walsh style of responses to 1C should develope transfer responses after 1DX. They might also use them after 1CX and ease into just plain switching to T-Walsh in non-competitive auctions.

We are still in the transition phase (only after 1M (x) and 1D (x) --- but its a start.

[Siegmund]

Quote

When have you ever nailed the opponents after a xx?

Maybe 20 or 25% of the time that 1suit-x-xx comes up? I'm sure its less common in top level games than at regional open and below level, and less appealing at imps than MPs. But for me, those -200s and -300s against partscores are a big deal.

That's not to say transfers are bad - I think there's quite a lot to be said for making opener declarer, and for gaining an extra way to keep the bidding low.

[glen]

Siegmund, on Oct 11 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

... those -200s and -300s against partscores are a big deal ...

those are sometimes still available after first passing the double

[spotlight7]

Hi:

If you have a penalty double, it is still there if you pass first. Why warn the intended victum that the axe is about to fall?

You get 20-25% penalties after XXing? I defend a lot of doubled contracts and I barely get a fraction of your results after XXing.

Why is +200 or +300 against a partscore not a good result at IMPs?

Regards,
Robert

[Siegmund]

Yes, many of the penalties are still available after you start with a pass. I am sure one can create quite a good system where most of the balanced hands start with pass. I think the transfer idea is a very interesting one well worth experimenting on.
All I am saying is that there are advantages to the rest of one's own bidding to establishing a forcing pass auction early. Especially the sets where neither one of you has a trump stack are hard to find. Its not QUITE as one-sided of a case against the strong redouble as the_hog made it out to be.

I am sure you already knew what I meant about +200, spotlight: it's a good result at any form of scoring, but a much less likely result at imps where you can't afford to double with only a 75% chance of a 1-trick set and rarely double with an almost sure 1-trick set.

[awm]

Some of the advantages of transfers:

(1) You get takeout doubler on lead a lot, which can be worth a trick.
(2) You can get out at the one-level if you want to.
(3) Auctions where the opponents can preempt are easier than if you start with XX.
(4) Distinguishing constructive from competitive raises is really valuable.
(5) Certain shapely hands (like long clubs + shorter major) are much easier to bid.

The main disadvantage of transfers is that you can no longer redouble for business. Potentially this loses you some hands where you could double them at the one-level. However, some of these hands you will still get to defend doubled (via converting a takeout double from partner). Some of these hands become easier to bid by describing shape right away rather than "points" especially if the opponents actually do have a fit somewhere and can potentially preempt. The claim is that the combo of "I have a redouble and our best score is on defense and we won't be able to defend doubled in the transfer style if I start with pass" requires a lot of things to happen at once, and if one or more of those is not the case we will probably do better playing transfers than business redoubles.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 11 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

The main disadvantage of transfers is that you can no longer redouble for business.

I think the main disadvantage of transfers is quite clearly that you let LHO double to show a suit that you would have preempted to the next level if you weren't playing transfers.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Oct 12 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

awm, on Oct 11 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

The main disadvantage of transfers is that you can no longer redouble for business.

I think the main disadvantage of transfers is quite clearly that you let LHO double to show a suit that you would have preempted to the next level if you weren't playing transfers.

Yes. Equally though, if they x your xfer instead of preempting the next level, they didn't preempt you - you still have all that space and xx of their x of your xfer - if that isn't too much of a mouthful.

Nick

[NickRW]

The parallel between xfer Walsh and 1♦x is obvious enough. How do all the folks in favour of xfers after 1♦x play 1♣x, 1♥x and 1♠x?

[awm]

jdonn, on Oct 12 2010, 03:16 AM, said:

I think the main disadvantage of transfers is quite clearly that you let LHO double to show a suit that you would have preempted to the next level if you weren't playing transfers.

In general there are two problems with transfers: (1) What happens with the hand that would make the cheapest call if you didn't play transfers (2) The extra step also helps the opponents.

However, in this particular situation (1♦-X) I don't think the extra step helps the opponents all that much. For example, it takes very little in the way of values to bid 2♥ in the auction 1♦-X-1♠ (NAT). So how does it help you to be able to double to show hearts in 1♦-X-1♥! (spades)? You could somehow distinguish strength or length I suppose (like double shows four hearts and 2♥ shows five hearts) but note that every time you double when you would've bid 2♥ over a natural 1♠, you've actually given the opening side many more useful calls. It just doesn't seem like a big help to me. Note that this is quite different from T-Walsh for example where there are a lot of hands with hearts that can't afford to bid at the two-level after 1♣-PA-1♠ (NAT) but can now double after 1♣-PA-1♥! (spades).

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 12 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 12 2010, 03:16 AM, said:

I think the main disadvantage of transfers is quite clearly that you let LHO double to show a suit that you would have preempted to the next level if you weren't playing transfers.

In general there are two problems with transfers: (1) What happens with the hand that would make the cheapest call if you didn't play transfers (2) The extra step also helps the opponents.

However, in this particular situation (1♦-X) I don't think the extra step helps the opponents all that much. For example, it takes very little in the way of values to bid 2♥ in the auction 1♦-X-1♠ (NAT). So how does it help you to be able to double to show hearts in 1♦-X-1♥! (spades)? You could somehow distinguish strength or length I suppose (like double shows four hearts and 2♥ shows five hearts) but note that every time you double when you would've bid 2♥ over a natural 1♠, you've actually given the opening side many more useful calls. It just doesn't seem like a big help to me. Note that this is quite different from T-Walsh for example where there are a lot of hands with hearts that can't afford to bid at the two-level after 1♣-PA-1♠ (NAT) but can now double after 1♣-PA-1♥! (spades).

I don't get it. You never double if you would have bid 2♥ anyway, you just double if you wouldn't have been good enough to bid 2♥ anyway. That would quite clearly help you.

[awm]

jdonn, on Oct 12 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

I don't get it. You never double if you would have bid 2♥ anyway, you just double if you wouldn't have been good enough to bid 2♥ anyway. That would quite clearly help you.

The point is that:

(1) There are not very many hands with hearts that can't bid them at the two-level in the natural auction, so you're rarely going to benefit.

(2) When you double on the hands with hearts that aren't good enough to bid 2♥, you give the opening side two more calls (pass and XX), as well as giving them some information about your shape that they wouldn't have otherwise. These things potentially help them, especially since the hands that aren't good enough to bid 2♥ are typically really bad hands (again, it doesn't take much to bid 2♥ in the natural auction) so the opening side will often end up declaring.

Combining these makes me think that doubling to show hearts helps the opposing side very little (the hand type is rare, and the space/information given to the opening side compensates for your gains). I don't think this is as significant as the loss of the natural redouble.

Of course, arguably there might be a better use for the double of the transfer here than showing hearts, but I'm not sure exactly what that would be nor do I think that many opposing partnerships have developed such an agreement.