[laughter]

Recently engaged in designing transfer responses to 1C opening:

1C*-? *Genuine suit (5+ or 4-4-4-1) OR 16-18 balanced (can be 5D-2C)

1D = Transfer, 4+H, same as a Walsh 1H (may have longer D)
1H = Transfer, 4+S, ditto.
1S = ??
2 options here:
1. Catchall: Enough strength to respond, denies 4M, non-specific m lengths.
2. Transfer to D: 4+D, if less than FG, denying 4M.
May have 4M with FG hand??
1NT =??
If 1S is played as 2, then it is a non-forcing transfer to C, 4+C, 5-8.
If 1S is played as 1, then it is an idle bid, perhaps a weak Ms 2 suiters.
2C = Inverted minor raises, 4+C with enough for game opp strong NT.
2D higher = ??
Thinking about 2 way jump shift:
Either a SJS in suit bid or weak in one higher
(Zia and Rosenberg play this toy)

Just want to hear your opinions on the meaning of 1S and jump-shifts.

Thanks in advance!

[Poky]

I play this way and woks fine:
1♦ - 4+♥
1♥ - 4+♠
1♠ - 2+♣, 4-11, some kind of transfer to NT
1NT - GF relay (can hold 4M)
2♣ - 5+♦ (5♦5M inv or 6♦short♣)
2♦ - reverse Flannery, 5♠4♥ 4-8
2♥ - 6+♥ inv
2♠ - 6+♠ inv
2NT - 6+♣, transfer preempt
3♣ - 6+♣ inv
3♦ - 6+♦ inv

[helene_t]

I've played transfer responses since 2000 with my regular p. 1♣ shows 2+ clubs but is "in practice" 4+, hence non-forcing (we play a 15-17 1NT). We play
1♦/♥: (4)6+ HCPs, Walsh-style transfer
1♠: 7-10 HCPs w/ diamonds OR 6+ transfer to notrumps
1NT: 0-6 or 11+ HCPs, Walsh-style diamonds
2♣: 11+ HCPs, clubs
2♦: inverse Flannery (very weak)
2♥/♠: very weak
2NT: natural, non-forcing (allowing flexibility in dertermining declarership)

It is debateble whether you can bid 1♦/♥ with 4-5 HCPs. If you do, you don't want opener to rebid 3♣ or 2NT, but fortunately he is obliged to accept your transfer with 3-card support.

In the "Borring Club" system, 1♣ shows 12-18 ballanced. Partner should respond with any weak hand hand with less than 4 clubs. Hence,
1♠: transfer to notrumps (0-6 OR 11+, if 0-6 may have a 4-card major), OR GF with one or both minors
1NT: 7-10

[Gerben47]

It's called "Transfer Walsh".
Normal Walsh is bidding the major even with longer ♦, and in T-Walsh you shift the major responses down a step. I have a description on my webpage.
Transfer Walsh

The higher responses are:

1♠: Balanced or 10+ with ♦
1NT: 6 - 9 with ♦
2♣: 6 - 9 with ♣
2♦: GF with ♣
2M: 5 - 8 with 6+card (described here)
2NT: GF balanced
3♣: Invitation with ♣

[paulg]

I play that 1♠ shows 4+♦, denying 4M if less than GF, but may hold 4-card major in a GF hand. This choice is largely dictated by the EBU who do not allow a two-way meaning for the 1♠ response in any level of competition (so we cannot play it as either diamonds or balanced).

We play 2♦ as weak with both majors and 2♥/♠ as weak jump shifts.

p

[laughter]

Thanks all for help!
It seems that 1S response as a transfer into NT is quite popular.
But there may be a hidden trap for my system.
My style is to play weak NT, and use the 1C opening to handle strong NT.
1NT rebid here should promise extras.
So opener can't accept the transfer into NT and is forced to rebid minor at two level.
When responder's exact minor suit length is unknown, opener has to guess the best fit in dark. He may be sure of a fit as responder probably has at least 7 minor cards but it is quite hard for him to find it.
How do you find your minor fit when playing transfer methods?

[helene_t]

In that case you can rebid 2♣ and will almost always be in a 5-3 or 5-4 fit since responder denies a 4-card major.

1♣-1♠*
2♣-pass

---

The above auction is awkard, that is a drawback that I choose to live with.

[laughter]

OK, I can also live with occasional system fix.

As opener cannot rebid 1NT freely here, sometimes he can't pick the right strain as other systems permit (I read that 1C-1S*; 1NT may be min 4=3=1=5, or similar).

Imo, this drawback is more than compensated by the fact that opener has always guranteed his suit as real or he has extra high cards. This fact can encourage responder to better judge the competitive auctions as he knows that opener can't have the dreaded weak NT and bad C.

Giving up the inverted raise to play 1C-2C NF also seems to be a good idea as it allows responder to describe his minor suit length with more accuracy holding min strength. But maybe a 1NT response to show the same kind of hand is even better. (allowing opener to drop it holding str NT and weak C)

Anyway, it is better for responder to show something about his minor than just denying his major, as opener can't freely retreat to 1NT and be forced to pick 2m.

Maybe transfer responses are optimal for a strong NT system where opener can freely rebid 1NT with minimum hand.