[gnasher]

In a sequence like

1♣-1♠
2♥

I usually play 2NT as Lebensohl.

It seems to me that transfers would work better, for the usual reasons:
- If opener has enough to game-force, he knows what sort of weak hand he's facing
- It allows opener to limit his hand by completing or not completing the transfer
- It allows responder to transfer to clubs and then bid 3♠ to show 5-3

Similarly, after

1♣-1♠
2♦

you could start the transfers at 2♥.

Does anyone have any experience of playing transfers in this sort of auction?

[straube]

I'd rather use lebensohl because I want responder to be able to start a gf or limit his hand. Your idea would work best when opener always had a minimum reverse but that's not always the case.

Many play that 1C-1M, 2D-2OM is a weakness signal. 2N rebid by responder is then natural and gf.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with all your premises. This reminds me a little of the rubensohl/lebensohl distinction: a big disadvantage of rubensohl is that opener doesn't have any idea how strong responder is. At least playing lebensohl you immediately know if responder is weak or game forcing (barring some slightly odd sequences after a reverse).

One thing I have thought about, but not done anything about, is that ideally you want to play quite different methods depending on the exact sequence i.e. 1C - 1S - 2D should not have the same continuations as 1D - 1S - 2H. Things also get more difficult if you are playing transfer responses, because if opener has a strong 3=1=4=5, say, opposite a weaker hand with five spades, you'd quite like to get the spades played by opener.


I assume you are thinking of playing, say,

1C - 1S
2H -

2S = natural, F1(?)
2NT = clubs, initially a sign-off
3C = either to play in 3D, or the start of some other strange hands
3D = riase to 3H (or more)
3H = good hand with spades
3S = a game force too strong to bid 3NT(?)

[gnasher]

This is a bit simplistic, but comparing transfers with Lebensohl:
- When both players are minimum, we break even
- When opener has a game-force and responder has a minimum, transfers gain, because opener knows which suit responder was trying to play in.
- When opener has a minimum and responder has a game-force, transfers gain, because responder learns that opener is minimum.
- When opener has a game-force and responder has a game-force, transfers lose on balance: responder learns that opener has extra values, but space is consumed in showing that.

So (getting even more simplistic) we have two gains and one loss, and the loss is less frequent than either of the gains. Against that, the loss occurs when we're in the slam zone.

[Fluffy]

I think the likellyhood of this whens is the key for making your system
I mean, depending on partnership agreements one reverses higher than others, also some would open 2♣ so GF reverses are less likelly.
Also some people pass partner's opening more likelly than others and all of this affects what is best treatment.


If you hardly pass at the 1 level when you have 5 card major you might want to have 2 levels of weak hands.


I like the idea of going relay, with cheapest bid avaible being a general GF hand asking to pattern out, and anything esle being weak.

[kayin801]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-05, 06:33, said:

If you hardly pass at the 1 level when you have 5 card major you might want to have 2 levels of weak hands.

I think this best reflects my feelings on it, if opener knows responder will only bid on his first turn with 5+ pts then he can know that responder will always try to sign off with 5-7 and will GF with anything else. If responder will frequently bid with less, transfers become more complicated because we need to find a way to show 3 different ranges instead of 2, or just suck it up when responder has crap and opener has a big hand.

I don't think it's a huge deal that responder has no way to show slam-range extras for gnasher's given reasons.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2010-December-04, 04:55, said:

This is a bit simplistic, but comparing transfers with Lebensohl:

Sorry, I don't quite follow this.

Quote

- When both players are minimum, we break even

I agree there.

Quote

- When opener has a game-force and responder has a minimum, transfers gain, because opener knows which suit responder was trying to play in.

Let's say that the auction has started 1♣-1♠-2♥and that Responder has a weak hand with 4-card heart support.

Playing Lebensohl, the full auction is something like 1♣-1♠-2♥-2NT-3♦-3♥-4♥ and Opener (declarer) has not given away much more information to the defence about his hand. A bonus is that with a huge hand, Opener can show that he has slam interest even opposite a non-FG Responder below the level of 4♥.

Playing transfers, the full auction is something like 1♣-1♠-2♥-3♦-4♣-4♥. Opener is too strong to complete the transfer, but feels obliged to make a further hand description (cue bid or patterning out depending on style) in case Responder has a good hand. That is helpful for the defenders, so bad news for declarer.

Quote

When opener has a minimum and responder has a game-force, transfers gain, because responder learns that opener is minimum.

Responder will learn that anyway, when Opener does not show great interest after 1♣-1♠-2♥-3♥.

Quote

- When opener has a game-force and responder has a game-force, transfers lose on balance: responder learns that opener has extra values, but space is consumed in showing that.

So (getting even more simplistic) we have two gains and one loss, and the loss is less frequent than either of the gains. Against that, the loss occurs when we're in the slam zone.

In fact, we seem to have more losses than gains.

I agree with Straube that transfers work best when partner normally completes. For example, in the non-reverse sequence 1♥-1♠-2♣, there would be more of a case for playing transfers, as Opener will be completing the transfer a lot more often to cater for partner having a minimum response. However, I also agree with Frances that each sequence is different.