[Kungsgeten]

If we open a suit and opponents overcall it is pretty common to use the Q-bid as a trump support bid of some sort. What about using the Q-bid or higher as transfers? I think this is most profitable if you usually play negative free bids. Example:

1H--(1S)---
1NT = Natural
2m = Natural, 8--11
2H = Raise
2S = Clubs, GF or fit showing
2NT = Raise
3C = Diamonds, Gf/fit show
3D = Raise
3H = Raise

[glen]

perhaps the Q should be GF, no fit, and asks opener to bid 2NT unless shapely, and 2NT+ are raises

[Kungsgeten]

Having the Q as a stopper ask (kind of what you're proposing?) is pretty common too I think. If you play the free bids as forcing I guess 2NT+ could be raises. Playing NFB I think it is pretty awkward to double with all GF hands without support (and also regular negative double hands). Also using the Q as "bid 2NT" doesn't make much sense if they bid something higher:

1S--(2C)---
2NT = Raise (INV+ with 4+ support?)
3C = Diamonds
3D = Hearts
3H = Raise (INV+ with 3 card support?)
3S = Raise (preemptive)

This way there's no mixed raise, which is a nice gadget that forcing free bids get pretty easy. It might be better to use the transfer raise as a mixed raise and 2NT as INV+ raise (where opener does not know about three- or four+ support).

I also think it works best when they enter with 1S or 2m. If they bid 1D or 1H it is possible to use double as the first transfer bid, but when they enter with 1S or 2m I think negative doubles are more important. It's also worse if they take away more space:

1S--(2H)---
2S = Raise
2NT = Raise
3C = GF clubs
3D = GF diamonds
3H = Raise
3S = Raise

[glen]

 Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-25, 06:38, said:

Having the Q as a stopper ask (kind of what you're proposing?)

not what I'm proposing, the Q is a puppet (but not mandatory) to the cheapest bid

the amount of times it goes opener-overcall-responder has GF with no fit-advancer can raise is not worth taking up a lot of bidding space, and establishing the GF/no fit gives opener forcing passes

[Zelandakh]

Seems better to begin the transfers with X as per Equality:

Quote

1H-(1S)
----> DBL Transfer to 2C or balance unsuited for 1NT or 3NT
----> 1NT Natural, non-forcing
----> 2C No unbid major, so transfer to diamonds
----> 2D “sound raise heart raise”
----> 2H Weak raise
----> 2S Mixed raise, balanced type hand,
----> 2NT Useful raise

Another logical option would be:

X = clubs or balanced without stop
1NT = nat
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = good 3 card raise
2♥ = normal raise
2♠ = 4 card limit raise+
2NT = mixed raise
3m = fit jumps
3♥ = weak raise

I guess you could also use transfers here instead of 2NT/3m but I fail to see the advantage and having the mixed raise as 2NT instead of 3♦ allows the range for it to be a little wider.

[straube]

If I interpret our notes correctly, we're playing

dbl-negative or balanced without stopper OR GF with a minor (will introduce later)
1N-natural
2C-clubs, nf
2D-diamonds, nf
2H-raise
2S-3-cd raise
2N-4-cd raise
3C-GF, 6-cd suit
3D-mixed raise
3H-weak raise

Probably the worst that can happen is that after a double, opener rebids the minor that responder was planning to GF with. It's a nice problem to have.

I think dbl should include hands weak with both minors or balanced willing to stand for a minor (like 4/3 or better in the minors) because there will be lots of these.

[Zelandakh]

 straube, on 2014-May-25, 09:12, said:

Probably the worst that can happen is that after a double, opener rebids the minor that responder was planning to GF with. It's a nice problem to have.

The worst that can happen is holding a good 3 card raise on which 8 tricks is the limit; or with a fit jump to the 3 level and the opps barrage before you can show it and Opener has to guess whether there is a double fit or not; or after X the opps barrage and it makes a difference which minor Responder has. This has similarities to the usual Lebensohl vs Rubensohl argument but imo this is even clearer since now it is the constructive hands that are nebulous and that can hurt you very easily.

[straube]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-May-25, 13:44, said:

The worst that can happen is holding a good 3 card raise on which 8 tricks is the limit; or with a fit jump to the 3 level and the opps barrage before you can show it and Opener has to guess whether there is a double fit or not; or after X the opps barrage and it makes a difference which minor Responder has. This has similarities to the usual Lebensohl vs Rubensohl argument but imo this is even clearer since now it is the constructive hands that are nebulous and that can hurt you very easily.

Yes. I meant "the worst that can happen after a double" and I might better have said "of particular concern after a double".

No, I very much like your 2D constructive raise. We used to play that.

[Kungsgeten]

Let's take another example that's not 1H--(1S). Is it still viable to play transfers starting X?

1D--(1S)---
X = Clubs/bal?
1NT = Bal
2C = Diamonds?
2D = Hearts?
2H = Hearts?
2S = Raise?
2NT = ??

It seems double is needed as negative?

1H--(2C)---
Dbl = Diamonds?
2D = Raise
2H = Spades?
2S = ??
etc.

There seems to be many special cases (my impression when I looked at Equality was that it wasn't very intuitive)?

Quote

not what I'm proposing, the Q is a puppet (but not mandatory) to the cheapest bid

Okay, so if I understand correct:

1H--(2C)---
Dbl = Negative, at most invitational?
2D = NFB.
2H = Raise.
2S = NFB.
2NT = Raise?
3C = Puppet to 3D, GF no fit. Bidding 3H would then show diamonds?

[Zelandakh]

 Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-26, 01:45, said:

Let's take another example that's not 1H--(1S). Is it still viable to play transfers starting X?

Equality is:
1D-(1S)
----> DBL - Club or balanced misfit
----> 1NT Natural, non-forcing
----> 2C = 4+ hearts, balanced pattern
----> 2D = 5+ hearts, forcing
----> 2H 5+ hearts, negative free bid thing, not forcing,
----> 2S = Mixed raise, not game forcing, see 2NT
----> 2NT = Weak or game forcing raise
----> 3C, 3H Fit jump, NF
----> 3D Weak (but not desperately weak)

For 1♥ - (2♣) he has:
----> DBL “diamonds or balance mis-fit”
----> 2D = 4+ spades, 1RF
----> 2H “any kind or raise”
----> 2S = 5+ spades, (since !D shown by dbl) not forcing
----> 2NT = Useful raise
----> 3♣ Mixed raise
----> 3♦/3♠, Fit jumps
----> 4C splinter

You can see other auctions at Ben's web site here.

There are many alternatives but obviously space is more limited than the 1♥ - (1♠) auction so something has to be compromised. To my mind it makes sense to build the structure for this auction around hearts, so either double shows hearts or it denies hearts and then the other bids handle the other hands. For example:

X = most hands without 4 hearts
1NT = 4-5 hearts, min
2♣ = 4 hearts, INV+
2♦ = 5+ hearts, INV+
2♥ = (5)6+ hearts, min
others = ♦ raises

but I take your point about having different rules for different auctions. I am personally ok with having specific rules for auctions at the 1 level providing higher auctions follow general rules. I also take your point about transfer schemes getting quite difficult and complex on occasion. Indeed I have seen a number of mix-ups from expert pairs using them so to my mind the jury is definitely still out on whether they are worth it for the general case. Maybe one day I will sit down and try to generate some workable rules for myself...

[whereagles]

If I see it correctly, what you're proposing is some sort of "Rubens advances", but for the opening side.

I've tried a couple of methods like this and the conclusion has always been that it's too messy (i.e. pro stuff). And besides, standard seems to be good enough for 99%+ of situations.

[fromageGB]

I've been using transfer responses for some time, quite happily, when partner opens a major.

For 1♥ (1♠) I prefer X to be transfer to 1NT, or balanced misfit, and 1NT as transfer to ♣, ie transfers through NT rather than transfers around NT. It has the advantage of having overcaller on lead to lead away from his suit, and I am not aware of a disadvantage. NT can be raised, or course, giving you back your lost 2NT bid.

It doesn't seem messy or pro at all, and it is the same simple thing in all cases :

• transfers start with X and go up to opener's major
  
• transfer to 2M = good (normal) 3 card raise to 2M (ie 7-10) or 4 card raise 7/8 (which will go on to 3M in competition)
  
• 2M = weaker 3 card raise, ie up to 6 count
  
• 2NT = 3 card support invitational or better (ie 11+)
  
• cue bid = 4+ card support invitational or better (ie 9+)
  
• 3M = 4 card up to 6 count
  
• 4M = 5 card up to 6 count
  
• bids between opener and overcaller suit = natural forcing (fit non-jump if passed hand)
  
• new suits higher than cue = fit jump

It's good to distinguish both length and strength of support.
Transfers to new suits of course may be weak or strong, so when such suits are available it also solves the problem of choosing one or the other.

This is obviously simpler than some methods, but seems sufficient to me

When it is a minor open, I don't want support distinctions, and want to show 4 card majors, so just play standard.

[Kungsgeten]

 fromageGB, on 2014-May-26, 10:58, said:

I've been using transfer responses for some time, quite happily, when partner opens a major.

Isn't there a problem when they overcall 2m, or do you just ignore holding 4 cards in the other major? From what I understand from your post:

1H--(2C)---
Dbl = Diamonds
2D = Constructive 3 card raise or mixed raise
2H = Weak raise
2S = 5+ spades, forcing

1S--(2C)---
Dbl = Clubs
2D = 5+ hearts?
etc.

Quote

If I see it correctly, what you're proposing is some sort of "Rubens advances", but for the opening side.

Yeah, I guess so. Playing transfers starting with double you tend to lose something (bigger loss at the two-level, especially if only one major is bid), but having the Q bid and higher bids at transfers (perhaps up to three of openers suit - 1, and perhaps using 2NT as an exception if they overcall at the one-level) it seems that the losses are small? The biggest loss is probably that opener can not reinvite after a transfer to his suit at the three-level.

[yunling]

 fromageGB, on 2014-May-26, 10:58, said:

For 1♥ (1♠) I prefer X to be transfer to 1NT, or balanced misfit, and 1NT as transfer to ♣

But you'll really get hurt when you have ♣ and p want to be the declarer of 3NT

[whereagles]

 Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-27, 04:09, said:

(...) Playing transfers starting with double you tend to lose something (bigger loss at the two-level, especially if only one major is bid), but having the Q bid and higher bids at transfers (perhaps up to three of openers suit - 1, and perhaps using 2NT as an exception if they overcall at the one-level) it seems that the losses are small? The biggest loss is probably that opener can not reinvite after a transfer to his suit at the three-level.

Rubens advances start with the Q-bid. They work nice opposite overcalls because in that case the cue doesn't take out a whole level of bidding, whereas here it does. Nevertheless, you can still apply the same "bid rotation" principle:


Rubens advances:

(1♠) 2♥ (pass) ..??

2♠ = clubs
2NT = stays as natural (or some sort of support bid if you prefer)
3♣ = diamonds
3♦ = hearts (Q-bid)


Responders transfers:

1♠ (2♥) ..??

2♠...3♦ = whatever you normally play
3♥ = spades (Q-bid)
3♠ = stays as natural (weak I guess)
3NT = natural
4♣ = diamonds
4♦ = hearts, thus another Q-bid (you can use this as splinter I suppose)

Note that here you can't transfer to clubs.


1♠ (2♣) ..??

2♦...2NT = whatever you play
3♣ = diamonds
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = spades (Q-bid)
3♠ = natural

Here you got more flexibility. Seems like the less space the overcall takes, the better it is for the methods.

NOTE: the above was done on the fly. It probably has some inconsistencies.

[fromageGB]

 Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-27, 04:09, said:

Isn't there a problem when they overcall 2m, or do you just ignore holding 4 cards in the other major?

Yes, I think trying to find a 4 card major fit when partner has at least 5 in the other major is not as useful as other possibilities, so I lose this : but that is why I play it only after a major open, not a minor. And don't forget, if he starts with spades, he will be able to bid hearts himself next if he has 4.

 Kungsgeten, on 2014-May-27, 04:09, said:

The biggest loss is probably that opener can not reinvite after a transfer to his suit at the three-level.

I don't do it at the 3-level, that 3M-1 bid would be a jump fit for me. Of course he can invite after a transfer to the 2-level, he does not complete the transfer, but makes a trial bid.

 yunling, on 2014-May-27, 08:25, said:

But you'll really get hurt when you have ♣ and p want to be the declarer of 3NT

Tough. Whatever you play, you lose other things.

[fromageGB]

 whereagles, on 2014-May-27, 09:36, said:

NOTE: the above was done on the fly. It probably has some inconsistencies.

This approach of starting transfers at the cue bid seems to have some problems I would not rather have :-

• you have only one way to bid 2M as support, while playing transfers starting with X gives you two ways to bid 2M. I think this is a nice feature.
  
• one reason for having low-level transfers is that you can transfer and then bid again constructively. There is no room for this if the transfer is at the high level.
  
• if you play new suit forcing then the only way to play in your suit is to go a level higher. If you play new suit not forcing then the only way you can force is to bid at a higher level than the transfer would be, and lose room for constructive bidding. (Example 1♠ (2♦) X transfer (p) 2♥ (p) bid again, as opposed to whatever your prior methods were, such as 1♠ (2♦) X may be strength (p) 2♠ (p) 3♥)

[whereagles]

fromageGB: agree with all that.

The point is that starting transfers below leads to other sorts of complications. I've been there before and decided against it because I'm not a pro