[WGF_Flame]

I am sure I wasnt the first one who thought about this, reading Mike's reverse thread made me think that transfer could be superior after reverses.

1♦-1♠
2♥

I think the main advantage of using 2nt+ as transfers would be when using what mike called 'weak' reverse system, something like 16+, since after something like
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♣

opener will be able to bid 3♦ with minimum or anything else with GF.

anyone play this ?

[Zelandakh]

Yes, and have messed around with a few different structures. The one I have currently uses a transfer to the fourth suit to show 5 cards in the first suit bid. That is not necessarily optimal but has the benefit of simplicity. So

1♦ - 1♠; 2♥
==
2♠ = to play
2NT = to play 3♣, or 5 spades, GF
3♣ = diamonds (although could potentially be 4324 without a club stop, for example)
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = 6+ spades with club stop
3♠ = 6+ spades without club stop

That is designed primarily for a system with limited openings (max 17) and a limited 1♠ response (less than invite) but should be ok for standard systems too.

With unlimited hands it would be worth (at least) considering a 2♠ rebid being forcing though. In that case you would want the fourth suit transfer to be something else, perhaps showing a stopper for example.

If you search back in the archives you might find be able to find one of the previous discussions where this posibility was mentioned too.

[Jinksy]

I play a basic version of it. Xferring to the fourth suit is 'natural' (suggesting canape with good minor), since with 4SF you can xfer to 3N.

It's never come up, but it's worked nicely every time it has.

[PhilKing]

I don't think it works very well at all. Basic example:

1♣-1♠
2♥-2NT
3♦

Where opener is too strong to bid 3♣. Now you have lost a round of bidding (and often wrong-sided 3NT) when responder had, of all things, a forcing 3♣ bid and you have also made subsequent bidding ambiguous. In lebensogh responder can bid 4♣ to show real filth with no diamond stop, but here you have to cater to responder having strength as well.

Now if you were suggesting:

1♣-1♥(spades)
2♦(hearts)

you would be cooking with gas.

[karlson]

Compare
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♦ (natural gf)

1♦-1♠
2♥-3♣ (♦ support)
3♦-(some gf bid)

I think that when responder has a GF with support for opener's minor (the most common case, it seems to me), it's more useful for opener to make the next bid, as opposed to responder. Opener's rebid can show almost his entire shape, whereas responder would have to just shrug and bid 3n the majority of the time.

Also, since 2 of responder's major is already forcing, there is not as much use in the 3-level transfer.

Transfers are most useful (compared to lebensohl) when immediately knowing partner's suit might help the other hand compete over interference. That's essentially never going to happen here.

[steve2005]

karlson, on 2014-March-11, 11:27, said:

Transfers are most useful (compared to lebensohl) when immediately knowing partner's suit might help the other hand compete over interference. That's essentially never going to happen here.

no need to transfer.




Also if the 4th suit is below 2N you can use that as the 2N Lebensohl puppet and you don't wrong side the NT

[WGF_Flame]

PhilKing, on 2014-March-11, 09:06, said:

I don't think it works very well at all. Basic example:

1♣-1♠
2♥-2NT
3♦

Where opener is too strong to bid 3♣. Now you have lost a round of bidding (and often wrong-sided 3NT) when responder had, of all things, a forcing 3♣ bid and you have also made subsequent bidding ambiguous. In lebensogh responder can bid 4♣ to show real filth with no diamond stop, but here you have to cater to responder having strength as well.

I think I am in better place here after the transfer than without it, even when I had GF with club support.
compare transfers:
1♣-1♠
2♥-2NT
3♦-3♥
to lebelzohl:
1♣-1♠
2♥-3♣
3♦-3♥

there are 2 differences,
1. we know opener has extra compare to the second one when he might have and might not have.
2. the NT side. the nt side will be offside for lebelzohl on other cases, more cases i think, here atleast we have some good chances that we are on the way to slam, and if not still responder is not that weak and he is more balance and might have the stopper in the 4th suit.

agree that this isnt the transfers best point, but even here its doing fine, while when the breaking of the transfer will be the key to get to the right contract we will shine.

[WGF_Flame]

karlson, on 2014-March-11, 11:27, said:

Compare
1♦-1♠
2♥-3♦ (natural gf)

1♦-1♠
2♥-3♣ (♦ support)
3♦-(some gf bid)

I think that when responder has a GF with support for opener's minor (the most common case, it seems to me), it's more useful for opener to make the next bid, as opposed to responder. Opener's rebid can show almost his entire shape, whereas responder would have to just shrug and bid 3n the majority of the time.

Also, since 2 of responder's major is already forcing, there is not as much use in the 3-level transfer.

Transfers are most useful (compared to lebensohl) when immediately knowing partner's suit might help the other hand compete over interference. That's essentially never going to happen here.

I am not so sure the nat is better here. its true that opner pattern out might be good, but on the transfer way you have the advantage of knowing openers strengh.
In genral it make sense that when responder bid GF in the nat way he will do fine, I mean this suppose to be that system best spot,(but even in it is not clear cut) but what about the hands that will begin with 2N in leb ? those will be much better with transfers i believe.