[phoenix214]

I know i read on brideguys the Vasilevsky convention which is basically transfers in the position (1M)-(1NT), now X is transfer to ♣, 2♣-Diamonds, opps major is Strong take-out, OM is weak take-out with 4+OM.
I had the idea of using them in similar positions such as, 1m-1M, and the likes(basically all 1/1 positions).

And on a side note, does anybody know how often do you get a strong NT overcall, cause i was thinking, isnt it better to use 1NT as raptor/take-out/Something else

[Codo]

It is hard to follow your thoughts- at least for me. If partner opens, how can you bid opps major? If partner bid 1 NT, how can you double him?Or did they bid (1M) pass (1 NT)? I guess the downside to commit to the 3. level with a weak take out and no major fit is too hard to take for most of us.


For the second part: You may have a look at "Rubens Transfers" in the net, they handle your ideas.

For the third question: Raptor hands are much more frequent, but if you do not use 1 NT as natural, you will sometimes have real trouble in the later bidding. We had some very heated discussions here about the pros and cons. At the end a natural NT is much more common for the professional players- which is a strong indication that it is the right approach.
And: The number of aggressive bidding pairs is increasing. So the chance, that you have enough HCPs for game even after they opened and answered is increasing too.

But despite these reasons: I played raptor for years, for me it worked better...

[phoenix214]

Thanks for the answer, the sequence i meant is (1M)-pass-(1NT), and now the transfers.
For the Rubens transfers, i play them, but i was wanting to increase to look at specifically the place like (1♦)-pass-(1♠), and now use 1nt as clubs, 2d- diamonds, and so on. 2NT as the big two-suiter, and X as power double.

And for raptor, i was reading an blog post by Nil Ulsen where he suggested using canape jump overcalls in situations like (1m)-2M where 2M means 4Mand 5(6) of om, and similar.

+ if vs the polish club and precison diamond im using such structures, where i do not have a strong nt, im have been thinking to remove it from other places as well and use X as power.(Like the overcall system, which uses PD and 1NT for take-out)

[fromageGB]

If double and bids are transfers, then transfer to their major can show 4 OM, while transfer to OM shows 5+. This can save a level, as well as giving you a length distinction.

Re side note - I hate having bids that never come up, so abandoned a natural NT in sandwich position and switched to Raptor, finding it much more fun as well as useful. The canape jump sounds like pushing to 3m unnecessarily.

Combining these two ideas, you can't distinguish between a weak takeout and a strong one in the first bid, but does this matter? While game for you is possible, it may be pretty rare. Using transfers, you can always show a strong hand on your second bid if you want to.

[fromageGB]

Taking the (1m) p (1M) case, you transfer to their MINOR to show 4 cards other major. This keeps the bidding lower, and if partner does not have the other major he can either bid naturally (so your 4 card transfer acts as a takeout double) or complete the transfer to their minor to either show a stop or show a weak balanced hand.

In this scenario where you are beneath 1NT, you have a choice of transferring including or excluding no trumps. ie (1♣) p (1♥) 1♠ is transfer to 2♣ (ie 4 spades!), with 1NT being natural/raptor, or is it a transfer to 1NT (natural or raptor), with a 1NT bid being a transfer to 2♣?

[fromageGB]

Further thought on the idea of using raptor and transfers including NT led me to think that there is an argument to swap bids around on case beneath 1NT, so that the transfer to 1NT showed the 4 cards in the other major (also denying 5 of the other minor). This enables partner with no 4 card support to complete the transfer to play in 1NT if he prefers this to bidding his minor. Raptor can be the transfer to their minor.

This scheme then looks like : (1♦) p (1♥) ??
X = 5+ ♠
1♠ = 4 ♠ {transfer to NT = 4 cards other major}
1NT = ♣
2♣ = 4 ♠ + 5+ ♣ {transfer to their minor = raptor)
2♦ upwards = unspecified here.

This also looks quite neat because when they have bid hearts (as here) your 1♠ to show 4 of them means that partner with an appalling hand can pass, denying opps the chance of punishment.

[phoenix214]

Depends on what you want X to be, if it long spades, then it can work.
Im thinking that using the bid 1♠ here should be the raptor(transfer raptor), Now 1NT can be asking
1NT/2♣ is the minor w/o 4 spades. 2♦ is a good heart suit. 2♥ is one suited in spades, good hand
2♠ is 5spades and 5 in a minor(transfer to the unusual 2nt), Here we win because we can play 2♠ and at the same time we can show the two suited hand. This leaves X with hand that lots of points, and maybe hands weak enough not to bid 2♥.

[awm]

I've never really understood this transfer business. While it would be nice to distinguish overcalls where I'm just interfering (something like a weak two bid) from those where I'd like to hear partner try for game, the latter variety of overcall doesn't often want to take a second free bid opposite air. So what I'd really seem to want is more like "two under transfers" where partner can bid the intervening step to show interest. However, this method seems awkward to implement...

The transfers have the disadvantage of giving LHO a lot more calls, which can be really helpful if opponents are competent. For example:

1♠ - Pass - 1NT - 2♣ (diamonds)
Dbl = takeout of diamonds

1♠ - Pass - 1NT - 2♣ (diamonds)
2♦ = strong hand no clear direction

1♠ - Pass - 1NT - 2♣ (diamonds)
Pass - 2♦ - Pass - Pass
Dbl = penalty

If I had just bid 2♦ natural then LHO would lose two of these three sequences. Also he has in principle a direct/delayed 2♥ and 3♣ bid available. This seems like a pretty significant problem in exchange for a pretty small gain (I can have pd accept the transfer and then bid again if I somehow have a real moose of a hand). The transfers even put the wrong opponent on lead (the weaker hand and less-described opponent hand is leading though our strength with the stronger opponent hand behind).

Not having a takeout double also loses you the ability to penalize. I agree that I cannot remember ever hearing an auction like 1♣-Pass-1♥-Dbl-All pass. But the following auctions are not too unusual:

1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Dbl
2♣ - Dbl - All pass

1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Dbl
1NT - Dbl - All pass

1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Dbl
Pass - Pass - 1NT - Dbl (extras)
All pass

If I had to bid 1♠ to show my takeout double, opponents are off the hook entirely.

[gwnn]

I thought this got a 1 in Yokohama 2008.

[fromageGB]

I think that may have been generous.

[phoenix214]

I didnt know this was in the secret bridge Olympiad o.O Anyway well but you still use the double as general points, takeoutish, so it does not change that position

[Free]

Transfers after (1M)-(1NT) are a poor idea imo. It's theoretically unsound:
- the way to show a 'takeout' hand is terrible: whenever you don't have a fit in the unbid Major you commit to 3-level. Also after a 1♠ opening you commit to 3-level when you have a strong takeout. Opps haven't shown a fit, therefor the chance that we have a fit is smaller than usual. Committing to 3-level in such situation is a bad idea.
- transfers give opps a free cuebid at the same level, for whatever purpose they want.
- transfers give opps a Dbl to show that suit (for example (1M)-(1NT)-2♣-(Dbl) showing ♣), which can help them fighting the part score battle.

[wclass___]

*Agree that transfers are unsound is this situation, well, at least they won't fill their main reason of contract rightsiding.


*As for 1NT overcalls. I am sure that standard [1M]-1NT isn't best. With 2 cards in the opponent suit one can comfortably double, but with 4 cards pass works very well. If you have 3cards... you make judgement. What is best then? Well, I don't think there is an easy answer to this.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2013-May-24, 09:10, said:

Re side note - I hate having bids that never come up, so abandoned a natural NT in sandwich position and switched to Raptor, finding it much more fun as well as useful.

Very true that it never comes up. Can you provide details of Raptor?

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-26, 04:53, said:

Very true that it never comes up. Can you provide details of Raptor?

The idea is that 1NT shows a 4 card major and a 5+ card minor. Strength is up to you, whatever you would play for an overcall, but I play it with a 10 count minumum when in second position. This is how I play it, simply, - others may have different treatments.

Over a minor (say 1♦) you therefore have 5+ of the other minor,♣, and the major is unknown. Partner bids 2♥ as pass or correct. 2♦ can be used as an artificial reply of some sort, maybe just a simple request to bid the major, or a game invitation in both majors.

Over a major, you therefore have 4 of the known major, and 5+ of an unknown minor. Partner bids 2♣ as pass or correct. We use a reply of 2 of their major as game invitational in the known major.

In the sandwich position, when they have bid both a minor and a major, it obviously shows 5+ and 4 in known suits.

One of the advantages of Raptor is that other overcalls are better defined : if you bid a minor, you are denying 4 cards in the major; if you bid a major, you will have 5; if you X you are denying 5 of a minor. When in the sandwich position, a takeout double shows 5-5 in the other suits (edit - or 4-4) because you failed to Raptor, and with only a 4 card minor you may well have preferred to bid a 5 card major.

I like the method when they have bid a major, and it is economical in space. We have abandoned it over a minor, partially because you are forcing to the 2-level to find the major, and therefore have to return to 3 of the minor if it is the wrong one, when the minor fit is not good. Additionally, we play transfer walsh, and over a 1♣ open, a double - meaning "I would have opened 1♣" - is better at finding fits and describing major lengths, with "system on" (eg (1♣) X (1♦) X shows hearts). We now play natural 1NT over a minor.

Edit - over (1♦), if you were playing a 2♦ reply to 1NT as a request to bid the major, a 2♥ reply would probably be a natural unilateral declaration in hearts.

[mikestar13]

fromageGB, on 2013-May-26, 05:31, said:

The idea is that 1NT shows a 4 card major and a 5+ card minor. . . .

How do you handle Raptor-type hands in the balancing seat? Seems that 1NT natural is needed here.

[fromageGB]

mikestar13, on 2013-May-27, 16:58, said:

How do you handle Raptor-type hands in the balancing seat? Seems that 1NT natural is needed here.

I expect you could use Raptor, but I do play (1♥) p p 1NT as natural. With a Raptor hand I may X or I may bid 1NT with no stop. Whatever you would do if you have never heard of Raptor.