[SimonFa]

I was watching in the Acol room and was surprised to see responder bid a transfer to spades over a weak 1NT when the had around 17 HCP and 6 good spades.

I understood that the point of transfers was to keep the stronger hand hidden especially when responder is also weak.

In those case opener was a real expert (as opposed to a BBO self appointed one) and responder was described as advanced, so am I missing something?

Thanks in advance,

Simon

PS they stopped went on to 5♠-1IIRC and the strong hand was on the table.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The main reason to use transfer is NOT to keep the strong hand hidden, this
is just an added benefit in a strong NT context.
If you ask - why play transfer, and someone explains to keep the strong hand
hidden, you know at once, the person has no idea, what he is talking about.

The main reason to use transfer is to buy an additional round of bidding
to allow responder to ask / show add. hand types.
This add. round is more important in a strong NT context, than it is in
a weak NT context.

Holding a 5 card major, as responder, you would like to

#1 sign of, with no game interest
#2 invite, with invitational strength
#3 force to game / show a side suit

Playing traditioanl Acol
#1 => you bid the major
#2 => you start with stayman, bid the major on the 2 level
but some like to use garbage / crawling stayman, in which case the sequence
1NT - 2C
2D - 2H
is already used to show a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors
#3 => jump to the 3 level
but after the jump, you did not yet show a possible 2nd suit

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Ending up in 5S, and going down is most ´likely not due to the fact that
they have used transfer.
The usual reason is, that someone was lost in the bidding and inapprobriatly used
RKCB, and because of missing KC they stopped on the 5 level.

[helene_t]

The importance of having the strong hand declare is overrated. It is something that some teachers tell the students in order motivate them to learn transfers.

The main reason for playing transfers is that it allows responder to show more hand types. For example he can show an invitational hand with five hearts by transfering and then bidding 2NT. Or he can show a strong two-suited hand by transfering and then bidding a new suit. Or he can show a strong hand with one suit and a singleton by transfering and then jumping in the singleton suit. Those hands can't be shown if you play only stayman and otherwise natural methods.

And additional advantage is that the 1NT opener gets to declare the contract but that is not so much because he is stronger (which he won't always be when playing weak NT). It is more because he has shorter trumps and therefore more likely to have side suit honours that need protections against the opening lead.

Here responder had presumably slam interest so I suppose he could start with a forcing 3♠ bid. Then they could cuebid. But maybe he thought he could get the information across more accurately by using transfers. How did the auction go?

On the other hand, if responder doesn't use transfers and simply bids 4♠ he has the advantage that less is known about his hand than would have been known about partner's hand if he used transfers. Also, transfers give opps the option of making lead directing doubles.

In short, there are many pros and cons for using transfers and which of the two hands is stronger is probably not the most important issue.

[ArtK78]

Apparently Paul Soloway disagreed with the responders.

I play a 10-12 1NT opening and use a system of responses devised by Paul Soloway and Mike Passell for use over the 10-12 1NT opening. I have posted that system of responses previously.

http://www.bridgebas...re/page__st__20

The system of responses is devised to insure that the stronger hand is declarer as often as possible. For instance, when responder forces to game with 2♦ (Forcing Stayman), opener, with one four-card major, bids the major that he does not have. With two four-card majors opener bids 3♣. The system of responses is designed so that the strong hand declares as many contracts as possible. The only transfer sequence in this structure is a 2NT response to 1NT, which is a transfer to clubs (relay might be more accurate), showing one of a number of hands, including a weak hand with a single minor suit, both majors with invitational values, or a two-suited minor suited game forcing hand with a major suit fragment.

There is less of a need for responder to declare a suit contract in response to a 12-14 1NT opening than opposite a 10-12 1NT opening, but that does not mean that there is not an advantage in doing so when responder has the stronger hand. In addition to positional advantages, more is known about the balanced opening hand than the potentially unbalanced responding hand. The weak NT opening hand is very well described. Having the weak NT hand as the dummy while keeping responder's hand concealed as declarer gives the defenders less information.

There are a number of experts who believe that transfers are useful over weak NT openings (see the discussion in the thread containing the Soloway mini-NT response structure). But there are many who believe otherwise.

[Flem72]

One very good reason for using transfers with WNTs is the game-going two suited responder's hand. Original WNT systems such as K-S did not use transfers. Nor did they use GF Stayman. Game-going two suiters had to start with a jump to the three level, so in these structures, it is very difficult adequately to describe these hands without getting way too high way too fast.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[fromageGB]

Reasons for transfers in order of importance :
1) Allowing different strengths of responder hands to be shown ;
2) Allowing responder to show a second suit or shortage ;
3) Getting the opening lead of a different suit to go round into a hand that has more cards and probable values in that suit ;
4) When transferrer is the weaker, keeping the sides values hidden.

All are valid for any strength NT opening.

[SimonFa]

Thanks all, very helpful.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2011-July-12, 04:04, said:

Here responder had presumably slam interest so I suppose he could start with a forcing 3♠ bid. Then they could cuebid. But maybe he thought he could get the information across more accurately by using transfers.

Are natural jumps really that popular among experts?

[han]

no

[the hog]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-12, 18:54, said:

Are natural jumps really that popular among experts?

What is not uncommon in Australia is the following:
1N 2S = range probe or strong balanced single suiter. Now....
2N = min, now 3C/D/H/S = s/s slam try. 3N = mild slam try in C
3C = max, now 3D/H/S = s/s slam try, 4C = slam try in C

[1eyedjack]

I suspect that geography has a part to play in the way that common methods have developed.
It is my observation that transfers opposite a weak 1N are more popular in the UK than (proportionately) in the USA. (Sorry to exclude other countries here - they are just examples to make a point).
This is a separate point from the weak 1N itself being more popular in the UK, and separate also from its declining popularity in the UK and growth in the USA.
Weak 1N systems are I think gradually gaining ground in the USA, and with that evolution comes a fresh approach to system design.
US players who are accustomed to playing a strong NT and are of the mindset to experiment with the weak also are of the mindset to tinker with the response structure and not make assumptions that their existing response structure is necessarily optimal.
The vast majority of players are happy sheep who will play what they have taught for decades. In the UK they were taught the weak 1N and, being a triied and tested formula, went with the world-wide popular transfer structure in response. It is not that bad. If it were it would have died a death by now.

And incidentally I come across a large number of good pairs who play a jump shift response to 1N as a single-suited slam try. It does surprise me a bit to observe this, but there you have it.

[the hog]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-13, 23:00, said:

I suspect that geography has a part to play in the way that common methods have developed.

snipped

This is a separate point from the weak 1N itself being more popular in the UK, and separate also from its declining popularity in the UK and growth in the USA.
Weak 1N systems are I think gradually gaining ground in the USA snipped It is not that bad. If it were it would have died a death by now.

snipped

And incidentally I come across a large number of good pairs who play a jump shift response to 1N as a single-suited slam try. It does surprise me a bit to observe this, but there you have it.

Very true Jack. Regarding the effectiveness of the weak NT. some readers might be interested to read Austn international Bill Jacobs' comments on the wnt:
opening no. of hands imps gained/lost
1NT 398 +0.7

The net gain when a weak 1NT was opened was 0.7 imps.

The full article can be found at
http://www.vba.asn.a...ulletin1107.pdf

[mike777]

lol


weak nt were very very common in 1971. I think people forget USA history too easily.

Every one played precison or ehaa.

-----


I grant I am old but last science report I read said:

wk better in comp bidding
strong nt better in game/slam bidding

I grant I read this decades ago.

[matmat]

the hog, on 2011-July-13, 23:37, said:

The net gain when a weak 1NT was opened was 0.7 imps.

The full article can be found at
http://www.vba.asn.a...ulletin1107.pdf

I think it is a mistake to decouple the significance of a single bid from the full system. The article you reference does imply that Fantunes gains about 0.5 an imp a hand over standard american (i am not sure this is really a surprise).

Using the amount 1NT in the context of fantunes gains over strong no trump in SA as evidence of weak NT being better, in general, than strong no trump, seems a bit of a stretch (not saying that it isn't, just that the evidence given may be insufficient).

[the hog]

matmat, on 2011-July-13, 23:51, said:

I think it is a mistake to decouple the significance of a single bid from the full system. The article you reference does imply that Fantunes gains about 0.5 an imp a hand over standard american (i am not sure this is really a surprise).

Using the amount 1NT in the context of fantunes gains over strong no trump in SA as evidence of weak NT being better, in general, than strong no trump, seems a bit of a stretch (not saying that it isn't, just that the evidence given may be insufficient).

I agree totally with all of your comments, Mat. Also I think that the sample is too small. Interesting observations by Bill though.
Bill does make this comment though, "gain after our 1NT opening is due
entirely to competitive situations", so to the actions of opps after the wnt opening.

[1eyedjack]

Returning to the OP, I would make the point that just because both players were good players does not make them a regular partnership. They may of course have been a regular partnership, but the OP is silent on the matter. To my mind, whether the pair are a regular partnership is more significant than whether they are good players, concerning whether we should be surprised at their use of transfers in a weak 1N system. With a pick-up pairing of any competence (providing that they have heard of and are capable of using transfers) I would expect them to agree to play transfers even if they may privately prefer an alternative.

[1eyedjack]

matmat, on 2011-July-13, 23:51, said:

I think it is a mistake to decouple the significance of a single bid from the full system. The article you reference does imply that Fantunes gains about 0.5 an imp a hand over standard american (i am not sure this is really a surprise).

Using the amount 1NT in the context of fantunes gains over strong no trump in SA as evidence of weak NT being better, in general, than strong no trump, seems a bit of a stretch (not saying that it isn't, just that the evidence given may be insufficient).

Some years ago Inquiry ran an analysis of BBO and OKB hands using BridgeBrowser, which came up with the observation that hands which are opened 1NT tended to gain whichever range was adopted. The problem (as from recollection was discussed in the thread) was that it could not provide informative comment on the net gains and losses of the resulting hands which were not opened 1NT in context of the system adopted. There will be a thread about it somewhere in this forum if someone would care to find it.