[phoenixmj]

Several months ago, we were playing in one of the BBO games and I opened 1NT. The opps interfered with a 1D bid and alerted that it was a transfer to hearts. I looked at their convention card and it indicated that they bid TONT - transfers over NT. I had never heard of it so I googled it after the game.

We actually like the reasoning behind the bid, that this way the lead would have to come from the strong 1N bidder, and you would only interfere with a 6 card suit. In reading the write up, you could also interfere with 2 5-card majors by bidding double, and 2 5-card minors by bidding 2N.

I am now unable to find any reference to this online. When I found the write up on TONT, it was part of a much larger online notes on bridge bidding and carding. I would very much like to take another look at that.

Has anyone heard of this system and where might I find information on it.

We have tried it and found it to be successful, it is obviously simple. Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Thanks in advance.

[mycroft]

I played this in one partnership very regularly for 3 years with good success. I learned about it from a "book" created by our bridge club's creator (and former Junior world bronze medallist), which I might still have (and would love if I could find it). Basically what you see is what you get, though.

Transfers in direct seat (only) over strong (only) NT has a few advantages:

• The strong hand is on lead, frequently "endplayed on trick one"
  
• unlike many other "bid this, please" conventions, it guarantees the suit, so in competition, advancer can still raise confidently, or know what suit to lead in the play if they get in.
  
• with a decent+ two-suiter, you can get both in.
  
• If you do this (and contra some of the previous lines, balance is up to you), you can overcall very aggressively. More than once, it went (1NT)-2♦!-p-p "what does that mean?" "His diamonds are better than my hearts." One of the defences to conventional defences is "bid if you don't care (or if you want to keep them in the dark, not as relevant here), pass and lebensohl around what they actually have if you like that instead"; having your next action potentially be the opening lead makes that harder. On the other hand, they don't need to play the "pass and come in" as much because they, too, know what overcaller has. But it is a part of the game.
  
• And, of course, the joy of hearing "but we bid NT". Trust me, it happens more than you would think.

Obviously the downside is that you give them a double of the transfer and a 2-level cuebid of your suit, which many will use to advantage. And you basically need 3 defences to NT - Transfers direct, something else in balance (we used straight Natural), and something else over a weak NT. And sure, transfers/NT are easy to remember. Natural in balance, oddly enough, less so...

There is a player in my area that likes transfers over weak NTs (and strong clubs). He bullies his partners into playing it when we show up at the table; they always forget. I assume the benefit of transfers/weak NT is more the "I get a chance to show my good two-suiters" than anything else.

[bluenikki]

For a while, regardless of any technical advantage, it will torture opponents who agreed to play "stolen bid double" without further discussion. To increase the torture, add 2♣ for majors.

The combination used to be called "Sontag."

[DavidKok]

Mycroft's version sounds far superior to the one you originally describe. I would only play this in direct seat, and I would be much more aggressive than wait for a 6-card suit or a 5-5 two-suiter. It pays to bid over a NT, and waiting for the perfect hand is statistically a losing proposition. If you bid more aggressively I think transfers can work quite well, though the(/my) standard defence against them should also fare quite well for the opponents. I'm also unhappy with not being able to bid both majors, though that's more of a problem over a weak notrump than over a strong notrump. Swapping in 2♣ = both majors rather than 2♣ = diamonds sounds like an improvement.

With all those changes it ceases to be simple though - now you'd be playing a different approach in direct and passout seat, not all bids are transfers, and you might need ways to deal with possible 5-card bids (especially in competition).

It is strikingly similar to what I wish to play when they overcall 1NT over our 1♣ opening:
1♣-(1NT)-?

• Pass - weak
  
• X - values, we're going for blood, usually balanced
  
• 2♣ - both majors
  
• 2♦ - hearts transfer
  
• 2♥ - spades transfer

[akwoo]

Yes - of course if you're playing this you should play 2♣ as "stayman", usually promising both majors (but if you want you can agree to bid it also with a 4 card major and longer minor - this gives up advancer's ability to preempt for greater usage).

Also, I see no reason to play something different with weak NT, though I see why you might not want to play it in balancing seat (but it's not that terrible to play it in balancing seat to reduce memory load).

I've had teammates who played it (and maybe I did play it for a few sessions when one of said teammates was unavailable and I partnered the other - I can't remember).

[mycroft]

Heh: against a strong NT, just make double: majors in direct seat. If you want to keep the penalty double, change your requirements a bit in balance to make it coöperative (12-9 sets a lot more 1NTx contracts than 16-5, even with the cards "over" declarer).

[Gilithin]

I certainly wish I could construct a 1NT defence using a 1♦ overcall - it would make life so much easier! For the more popular 2♦ overcalls, you might consider broadening your horizons at Dave Stevenson's site. The page that hold this family of defences is here, with Transfers and both Mohan conventions being worth a mention. If you also allow X to be something other than Penalty, there are Toxic, Sahara, Schuler, Club Doubles and Transfer Hamilton. I daresay some additional workable variants can be constructed but this is probably enough to get you started.

[kcschwols]

Well, I've never had much of problem losing the ability to double a strong 1NT for penalty, and use the Double as an 'partner has 2 suiter; either the minors or the majors'.

Against weak NT though, I very much want the Double for Penalty. So, we use the 2♣ bid as a transfer to diamonds AND could also be both majors (by bidding 2♥ after partner's diamond bid.

Since in both cases we use 2NT as a transfer to 3C, showing both minors also uses the 2♣ relay(transfer) to diamonds and then a ongoing bid of 3♣ would tell that 2-suited story. In practice, do you want to compete against a weak NT and inform the opponents that you hold shape in the minors; making it easier for them to find and bid 3 of a major? So, only comes up when minor shape hand is stronger than usual.

For historical purposes, I know this Transfer Defense after NT as TRash (Transfers and Shapes). Against weakNT mnemonic is TRAP (Transfers and Penalty). Seems to be have developed by bridge Expert Steve Turner in the late 70s early 80s. I have several of his presentations and an unpublished manuscript from the Colorado Bridge club he played in.

The additions to above (and different than TONT) is 2♠ is two-suited spades and a minor, 2NT is a transfer to 3♣ and 3 of a minor shows that minor and at least 4 good hearts.


]<eith