[RufusVan]

I am obviously missing something. I will open 1NT and my partner will bid 2-4 diamonds. I assume they have a pre-empt, but when we play the game ... they have very few diamonds? Can someone explain? Also, if it does mean something else ... how do you tell the difference between it and a pre-empt bid?

Thanks in advance,

Vanya

[pilowsky]

It's a transfer to 4 hearts https://www.bridgebu...as_transfer.php
different method if you are in Dallas or Capetown!

[Cyberyeti]

Most in the US play 4♦ as a transfer to hearts, we play it as 5-5 in the majors, it's whatever you agree it is.

2♦ is almost universally a transfer to hearts these days.

3♦ is often diamonds, but whether it's invitational, semi invitational or forcing varies.

[pilowsky]

I take it 'we' is Acol? Is that all forms of Acol?

[Tramticket]

RufusVan, on 2020-June-19, 04:08, said:

I am obviously missing something. I will open 1NT and my partner will bid 2-4 diamonds. I assume they have a pre-empt, but when we play the game ... they have very few diamonds? Can someone explain? Also, if it does mean something else ... how do you tell the difference between it and a pre-empt bid?

Vanya

The simple answer is that 4D it is whatever you have agreed it to be. As already stated, many (particularly in the US) will play this as a "Texas Transfer" to hearts. There are other options including my preferred option of using 4♣/4♦ as transfers to hearts and spades respectively or maybe an ace-asking (Minorwood) bid.

I see little need to pre-empt opposite even a weak 1NT opening - but I suppose that this is possible

A 2D response is a transfer for almost everyone and we play a 3D response as slam invitational in diamonds.

pilowsky, on 2020-June-19, 05:01, said:

I take it 'we' is Acol? Is that all forms of Acol?

I don't think that Standard Acol has this bid defined. In Standard Acol 4♣ is probably Gerber and 4♥/4♠ are natural.

[mycroft]

I have played it as "diamonds", "hearts", and "spades" - once all in the same day! Not played it as minorwood (different "diamonds"), but totally reasonable.

I hate people who play pickup and expect their partners to just "get it" with bids like this (or 4NT - of course you play the same set of blackwood responses I do, right?) Make a bid you know partner will understand, even if it's not the "right" bid. But where to draw the line is difficult.

I agree with the other posters:if your partner is from the US or Canada, at least, they meant it as "hearts". The joy is, of course, that they will bid 4H, and expect you know that it's "spades".

[P_Marlowe]

One thing for sure, this is a bid an Beginner should refrain from doing.

[Cyberyeti]

pilowsky, on 2020-June-19, 05:01, said:

I take it 'we' is Acol? Is that all forms of Acol?

No, we is me and my partner, there are various schemes, it's just that most weak NT pairs don't play the 4♦ transfer, exactly how they do play it varies (I know Vampyr suggests dumping Gerber and playing 4♣ as both majors)

[akwoo]

My preference over a 10-12 or 12-14 1N is for 4♦ to be spades. Over a 15-17 1N my preference is for 4♦ to be hearts.

[johnu]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-June-19, 11:04, said:

One thing for sure, this is a bid an Beginner should refrain from doing.

It's perfectly okay for a beginner/novice to make that bid, as long as there is agreement on what it means. If you have no idea what the bid is supposed to mean, even world class players should make another bid.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-19, 14:34, said:

No, we is me and my partner, there are various schemes, it's just that most weak NT pairs don't play the 4♦ transfer, exactly how they do play it varies (I know Vampyr suggests dumping Gerber and playing 4♣ as both majors)

We play 4-level transfers. I’m not sure why most weak NT players don’t use them; if nothing else it gives you the chance to bid RKCB.

We also have a direct ace-asking bid, 4♠. Might as well assign that bid a meaning, in order to accommodate the never times it comes up.

[DavidKok]

Vampyr, on 2020-June-19, 17:34, said:

We play 4-level transfers. I’m not sure why most weak NT players don’t use them; if nothing else it gives you the chance to bid RKCB.

We also have a direct ace-asking bid, 4♠. Might as well assign that bid a meaning, in order to accommodate the never times it comes up.

You need a possible bid for every hand, not a hand for every possible bid. Of course at the highest level making economic use of your bidding space is a big deal, but at the club level I'm always astonished at what kind of agreements people will come up with just to fill their system card.

I have nothing against this particular treatment of 4♠, but I'd personally always prefer to leave the bid blank instead.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2020-June-19, 17:34, said:

We play 4-level transfers. I’m not sure why most weak NT players don’t use them; if nothing else it gives you the chance to bid RKCB.

We also have a direct ace-asking bid, 4♠. Might as well assign that bid a meaning, in order to accommodate the never times it comes up.

We have ace asking bids in the sequences that need them plus gerber. The key is that if Stayman followed by 4N and transfer followed by 4N are quantitative, you need a way of either agreeing the suit in a forcing manner so you can follow up with 4N or a direct ace ask.

The reason I suspect most don't use them opposite a weak NT is if you want to play 4♥ opposite a weak NT, your hand is often nearly as good as partner's but will have more surprises so you want to declare with it.

[RufusVan]

pilowsky, on 2020-June-19, 04:35, said:

It's a transfer to 4 hearts https://www.bridgebu...as_transfer.php
different method if you are in Dallas or Capetown!

Thanks everyone for the information ... the link provided in this post helped me understand how it works by providing examples as well as explanations for anyone with similar confusion!

Thanks Pilowsky!

Vanya

[pigpenz]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-June-19, 11:04, said:

One thing for sure, this is a bid an Beginner should refrain from doing.

alot of people play it as showing hearts with no interest in going further, that way when playing jacoby transfers 2 ♦ to show hearts followed by a bid of 4♥ is meant as a mild slam try

[bluenikki]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-19, 14:34, said:

No, we is me and my partner, there are various schemes, it's just that most weak NT pairs don't play the 4♦ transfer, exactly how they do play it varies (I know Vampyr suggests dumping Gerber and playing 4♣ as both majors)

In Kaplan-Scheinwold, it is forcing to 6NT at least, beginning the partnership's bidding decent suits to try to locate a suitable strain for 7.

[Vampyr]

DavidKok, on 2020-June-20, 01:55, said:

You need a possible bid for every hand, not a hand for every possible bid. Of course at the highest level making economic use of your bidding space is a big deal, but at the club level I'm always astonished at what kind of agreements people will come up with just to fill their system card.

I have nothing against this particular treatment of 4♠, but I'd personally always prefer to leave the bid blank instead.

Why leave it blank? It is not inconceivable that after 1NT or 2NT opening you may wish to ask for aces. If the right hand comes up it might prove handy to have a way to do so.

[bluenikki]

Vampyr, on 2020-June-20, 11:36, said:

Why leave it blank? It is not inconceivable that after 1NT or 2NT opening you may wish to ask for aces. If the right hand comes up it might prove handy to have a way to do so.

But can you be sure both you and your partner will remember it 10 months later when the first appropriate hand arrives?

[DavidKok]

Vampyr, on 2020-June-20, 11:36, said:

Why leave it blank? It is not inconceivable that after 1NT or 2NT opening you may wish to ask for aces. If the right hand comes up it might prove handy to have a way to do so.

Because my ability to remember agreements is quite limited, and this is a silly place to burn some of that. Almost three years ago I last saw a hand (although I do not remember it) in a bidding competition where after a 1NT opening by partner the truly, undeniably correct bid was 4♣ Gerber - anything else would present problems down the line. I'm happy to sacrifice one hand every couple of years (and it wasn't even at the table!) and focus on improving elsewhere in the meantime. Besides, if I do have slam aspirations it is likely better to start describing my own hand and ask for aces later.

Also these agreements tend to come with sticky problems. I play 'system on' after a 1NT overcall, and even after some sequences like 1♣-1♦-1NT - would this be part of that? What if the opponents opened 1♥ and partner bid 1NT, would you interpret 4♠ as 'to play, partner forgot our agreement' or as ace-asking? You mention it also over a 2NT opening, but I already use 4♠ as a transfer to 5♦. I think your agreement, while technically sound, is in practice not worth the trouble. And between the limited memory of both my partner and me it is likely to do more harm than good.

It is quite normal to get to bad contracts, but to get to horrible ones requires methods. - Roy Hughes

[Vampyr]

bluenikki, on 2020-June-20, 11:55, said:

But can you be sure both you and your partner will remember it 10 months later when the first appropriate hand arrives?

We have remembered it for 20 years. It’s not hard when you have never assigned any other meaning to the bid. Some people play Gerber. How do they remember that?

DavidKok, on 2020-June-20, 15:18, said:

Because my ability to remember agreements is quite limited, and this is a silly place to burn some of that. Almost three years ago I last saw a hand (although I do not remember it) in a bidding competition where after a 1NT opening by partner the truly, undeniably correct bid was 4♣ Gerber - anything else would present problems down the line. I'm happy to sacrifice one hand every couple of years (and it wasn't even at the table!) and focus on improving elsewhere in the meantime. Besides, if I do have slam aspirations it is likely better to start describing my own hand and ask for aces later.

Also these agreements tend to come with sticky problems. I play 'system on' after a 1NT overcall, and even after some sequences like 1♣-1♦-1NT - would this be part of that? What if the opponents opened 1♥ and partner bid 1NT, would you interpret 4♠ as 'to play, partner forgot our agreement' or as ace-asking? You mention it also over a 2NT opening, but I already use 4♠ as a transfer to 5♦. I think your agreement, while technically sound, is in practice not worth the trouble. And between the limited memory of both my partner and me it is likely to do more harm than good.

It is quite normal to get to bad contracts, but to get to horrible ones requires methods. - Roy Hughes

People who have trouble remembering their methods should go over their convention cards with their regular partners from time to time.

DavidKok, I have very sophisticated methods for bidding minor suits over 2NT openings, so I don’t need to use 4♠ as a transfer to diamonds, but I am curious about how often it comes up.

The auction you posit is absurd of course, but if it came up, I would know what it was. Partner would not forget our methods. We have never used a bid of 4♠ meaning “to play”, so why would partner have a sudden hallucination?