[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

--------------------------------------

This topic is for transfer advances when both sides continue to compete. Can you see the reason still use them if only 1(0) unbid suits remain? Is there any level limitation of usage? Any limitation about round of bidding, number of bids...?

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------------

Misho

[mishovnbg]

This post is application of "Equality" method:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...indpost&p=18392

Examples:

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♦{♥} - (1♠)
?

dbl: 4+♦
1NT: nat
2♣: nat
2♦: 3♥
2♥: 4♥
2♠: 6+♣, inv+
2NT: 4♥, inv+
3♣: 6+♣-3♥, inv+
3♦: 5+♣-3♥-Singleton/Void ♠, inv+
3♥: 5+♣-4♥, distributional raise
3♠: 6+♣, solid suit, ask for stopper
3NT: 6+♣, solid suit, stopper


(1♦) - dbl - (2♦) - ?

dbl: 4+♥
2♥: 4+♠
2♠: 5+♣ or bal
2NT: nat, because p didn't show any suit yet

Spoiler

----------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

This advancer (partner of the first player to interfer) using transfers is a new concept to me (well since misho describe it to me a couple of days ago).

It has some advantages and some disadvantages. There are some reasons you want the STRONGER opponent hand on lead. With everyone bidding, the opener rates to be the stronger. So let's looks at an example misho used.

(1♦)-DBL-(2♦)-?

If you dbl here to show ♥, and your partner raises ♥'s who will be on lead? Right the weaker hand. If on the other hand you simple bid ♥ to show ♥'s, the strong hand will be on lead.

Against this, the advancer transfers in this situation provides room to make weak and strong moves. You can, for instance, with both suits, start off with DBL and over 2♥ bid 2♠ or something else. No need to jump to 4♦ asking your partner to pick between majors when he might have good hand a so-so three card support for both majors but great ♣ suit for instance. Or a balanced hand too good for anything but the intial double, with ♦ well stopped and no real major.

I suspect the best way to play, is to keep balancing bids natural, but direct seat actions this transfer advance. A question, how high do you continue this stuff. Let's imagine, for instance....

(1♦)-DBL-(3♦)-?
(1♦)-DBL-(4♦)-?
(1♦)-DBL-(5♦)-?

When does Double stop showing ♥ and a ♥ bid stops showing ♠?

And what if they play mini-splinter over your double...

(1♦)-DBL-(3♣)-?

What does DBL show here (♣? or ♥?). All these can be worked out by agreement, but this will take some time.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

-------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Spoiler

-------

Yes, right sided contracts are important! I just wonder why all people just didn't start right now to play NTC and continue to bid their suit natural with 6hcp!!! . I actually agree with you that need to find positions where transfers can lead to wrong sided contracts, but need also to think about flexibility that the can give to bidding. If add simplicity of usage all time same scheme will be probably better to continue to play them. I will give an example:

Scoring: IMP

(1♦) - dbl - (2♦) - ?

---

You have a choice to bid some number of ♥ or to bid your ♣ at 3 level as positive response (leb), but is clear you can't bid them both. This is the second reason of usage of transfers.

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------

Misho

[mishovnbg]

About level of of bidding proably critical like with any other bidding is 3NT. Above this one of basically searching contracts penalty/optional doubles are also acceptible solution, instead of go down on high level contracts. One of main advantages of transfers - flexibility - is practically off above 3NT, because rebid of advancer is too high and you don't have possibility to choose between contracts. Like meta overcalls I think is reasonable to play transfer advances below 3NT only. Any different opinions?

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on Apr 6 2004, 03:14 PM, said:

Like meta overcalls I think is reasonable to play transfer advances below 3NT only. Any different opinions?

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

Well that is the question, isn't it.. that and what would a double of a mini-splinter be... somekind of transfer or to show the suit bid....

Ok, so below 3NT, the transfer advances are on, so are you saying that...

(1♠)-DBL-3♠-DBL

Here since 3♠ is below 3NT, that this double shows either clubs or balanced hand? Since 3♠X might be a transfer, would 4♣ also be a transfer, or is it that this bid is above 3NT that both the dbl and the 4♣ bid should keep their tranfer advance theory. That is, if one where to agree to below 3NT rule, should it be their suit below 3NT or is it only our "bids" we can get in below 3NT.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

This post is application of "Equality" method:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...indpost&p=18392

Examples after opponent's artifical bids:

(1♦) - dbl - (3♣{splinter}) - ?

dbl: bal
3♦: ♥
3♥: ♠
3♠: ♣
3NT: nat

(1♠) - dbl - (3♦{splinter}) - ?

dbl: ♥
3♥: ♦ or bal
3♠: ♣
3NT: nat


(1♦) - dbl - (rdbl{♥}) - ?

1♥: ♠
1♠: ♣ or bal
1NT: nat

(1♦) - dbl - (1♥{♠}) - ?

dbl: ♥
1♠: ♣ or bal
1NT: nat

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------

Misho

[mishovnbg]

inquiry, on Apr 6 2004, 10:31 PM, said:

mishovnbg, on Apr 6 2004, 03:14 PM, said:

Like meta overcalls I think is reasonable to play transfer advances below 3NT only. Any different opinions?

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------------------

Misho

Well that is the question, isn't it.. that and what would a double of a mini-splinter be... somekind of transfer or to show the suit bid....

Ok, so below 3NT, the transfer advances are on, so are you saying that...

(1♠)-DBL-3♠-DBL

Here since 3♠ is below 3NT, that this double shows either clubs or balanced hand? Since 3♠X might be a transfer, would 4♣ also be a transfer, or is it that this bid is above 3NT that both the dbl and the 4♣ bid should keep their tranfer advance theory. That is, if one where to agree to below 3NT rule, should it be their suit below 3NT or is it only our "bids" we can get in below 3NT.

Ben

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------------

Yes Ben, over 3♠ bid method is still on, because rebid of ♥ at 4 level is still possible after dbl/4♣ transfers. Of course mean of "balanced" hand at so high level of competition is not same as at 1 level and mostly will be probably searching stopper for 3NT contract, because it was didn't bidded.

Spoiler

-------------------------------------------------

Misho

[1eyedjack]

Personally I think that this concentration on right-siding the contract is out of proportion to other factors. Yes it can be important, on some (but not all) hands. When it is important it may be possible (but not always certain) that you can tell from your hand who should declare. And then you may be constrained by system.

Where the declaration is of lesser importance, transfers win out over natural methods because they vastly increase your range of expression. When declaration is of importance then the transfer accepted will often right-side the contract.

Transfers also gain *on balance* on those occasions when placing the declaration does matter, because there remains an option to refuse the transfer and so to defer the decision as to who should be declarer. A natural approach does not allow that option.

Placing the declarer tends to assume a higher importance the higher the level of the contract. If you are defending a 1 level contract it is normally because you are expected to take about 6 tricks in defence. If you have that potential then you usually have time to develop your defensive tricks without taking an unwarranted risk on lead at trick 1.

If the contract is destined for higher levels (when the decision is likely to be more important), then you can afford to defer the decision about who should declare, by refusing to accept the transfer if you think that partner should declare.

Lastly, I have been playing with 2-step transfers in many situations, and although this has not been with the intent of right-siding the contract (rather to split ranges and avoid getting too high), there may be some scope for using 2-step transfers for this purpose (ie Bid Diamonds to show Spades, then partner can choose who declares by bidding Spades or the intervening Hearts). Instinctively I think that this would not be workable in response to overcalls, but it is an idea. It might work if you bid some suits naturally and play 2-step transfers into other suits. This at least gives you a *choice* on those hands where you have the suit that requires the 2-step transfer.

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
 -     1♣    Pass  1♠
 3♦    4♣    5♦    Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Misho, let me ask you about North's rebid here. Clearly north could have bid DBL instead of 4♣. This double shows 4♥+, correct? Is the implication this good a club suit as well. The reason why I think it has to show good ♣ is that it is for the lack of a better term a high reverse. When this hand was played in the european team championship, north bid 4♣. What do you think about four ♣? Since 3♠!!!! show ♣ or balance, what hand would simple rebid 4♣ instead of using 3♠. And if you did bid 3♠ and next hand passed and south bid 3NT, what would a 4♣ bid then show?

You see where I am going, if two or three ways to get four clubs, which show what? This hand was sad, at one table NS got to 5♣, missing very reasonbable slam, at this table, 5♦X was final contract, down two I believe.

What are north's options here playing transfer advances, and what doees each show. Can NS reasonable find 6♣ after the barrage 5♦, and what do you think of 1) South's forcing pass, and 2) North's decision in light of the forcing pass to defend?

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
 1♦    Pass  1♥    1♠
 2NT    3♠    ?

Here is another one. Ok, over the 1♠ overcall, West has a mininum jump to 2NT to show good hand and four card support. This hand is just a tad too strong for the jump to 3♥, remember that 3♥ is good hand, but limited to about 15/16 goren point in support (hcp + distribution), so that responder is well placed on deciding to accept or not.

So the question becomes what to bid over 3♠ by responder? Pass is no longer forcing (if the majors were reversed, pass would have been forcing, since 2NT forced us to the level of 3 of our major). 1ST rule, bidding is still below the level of 3NT, so transfers advances are still on by responder, correct? Would 3NT be "serious 3NT" showing slam interest as always? I only ask because of the statement elsewhere that 1NT/3NT are always natural, but here with ♥ fit I thing serious 3NT/LTTC are still on, right?

So would dbl here be a ♣ control, and neutral on Serious 3NT (because you could double to "cue-bid" a ♣ control? And would 3NT be "serious 3NT", but deny a ♣ control since you didn't double? Would 4♣ be a ♦ cue-bid, but deny both serious slam interest and a ♣ control?

These transfer advances can change a lot of normal sounding auctions... :-) BTW, this seems to be an excellent slam (3♥, 2♣, 1♠, 4♦, 2♠ ruff). but I think ZAR bidding machine doesn't come close to suggesting this should be played in slam. Anyone want to struggle with ZAR math and see if it appoaches the 62 ZAR points for slam? Even 60?

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
 -     1♣    Pass  1♠
 3♦    4♣    5♦    Dbl
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Ben: "Misho, let me ask you about North's rebid here. Clearly north could have bid DBL instead of 4♣. This double shows 4♥+, correct? Is the implication this good a club suit as well. The reason why I think it has to show good ♣ is that it is for the lack of a better term a high reverse. When this hand was played in the european team championship, north bid 4♣. What do you think about four ♣? Since 3♠!!!! show ♣ or balance, what hand would simple rebid 4♣ instead of using 3♠. And if you did bid 3♠ and next hand passed and south bid 3NT, what would a 4♣ bid then show?"

Misho:

dbl: 4+♥
3♥: 6+♣ or bal, strong hand
3♠: std raise
3NT: To play
4♣: 6+♣, competitive ( 1 A less than in example)
4♦: 4+♠, limit+ raise
4♥: 5+♣-3♠-singleton/void ♦, strong hand
4♠: competitive (distributional) raise

Note: Main principle in Equality is all raises and rebids, 1NT and 3NT to be all time natural - machines may be not need that, but humans need . So raise is NEVER transfer and 3♠ is and remain natural raise anywhere, in this case ♥ is transfer for ♣. Transfer bid for ♥ here show needed strength, but is not implication for good ♣ imho. What is suppose N to bid with 17-19 bal and 4♥? N can understand after 5♦ that it was natural reverse in example (N had short ♦). I think 4♣ was underbid...

Ben: "You see where I am going, if two or three ways to get four clubs, which show what? This hand was sad, at one table NS got to 5♣, missing very reasonbable slam, at this table, 5♦X was final contract, down two I believe."

Misho: Direct bids are all time competitive, while other, longer, transfer ways are constructive, stronger... The more bids you did, the more strength you had. Slam can be missed by any way of bidding, if S can't understand that he have 3 cover cards (K♠, sing♥ and Q♣)) and his hand worth at least forcing pass.

Ben: "What are north's options here playing transfer advances, and what does each show. Can NS reasonable find 6♣ after the barrage 5♦, and what do you think of 1) South's forcing pass, and 2) North's decision in light of the forcing pass to defend?"

Misho: After forcing pass by S, bidding slam by N is very easy... Interesting to say is if 4♣ is competitive only, then forcing pass situation will not be established.

Spoiler

-----

There is one danger playing transfers - overbidding. Transfers sometimes allow cheap bids and is hard to resist to bid with weak hands too. IMO bidding all time need at least strength for level of bidding, after preempts may be for level-1. Your opinion Ben?

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

Misho says: 3♠ shows raise, not 6+ good ♣

Ben says, hanging head in shame: "I mistyped, I meant 3♥ shows ♣ or balance, I forgot what auction was I was changing" blush.

Ben says further: "So, what you are telling me here is that 3♥, instead of 4♣ shows a strong hend with ♣ (if it has ♣ than a hand that bids 4♣. This makes sense because bidding stays below 3NT with stronger hand. So it is funny you said 4♣ was an overbid, did you mean a huge underbid? Are you suggesting a jump to 5♣ instead? What is difference then between 3♥ followed by 5♣ and immediate 5♣. Let's let the auction go the way I think it should go.....

1♣ Pass 1♠ 3♦
3♥ 5♦ Pass -Pass
6♣ all pass

Should South make a forcing pass? This is an interesting question. His ♦Ktx is useless on offense, and might be good on defense. But he does has a ♥ singleton and great ♣ support. If south does pass over 5♦, you are right, North bids slam automatically.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

inquiry, on Apr 7 2004, 03:57 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
 1♦    Pass  1♥    1♠
 2NT    3♠    ?

Here is another one. Ok, over the 1♠ overcall, West has a mininum jump to 2NT to show good hand and four card support. This hand is just a tad too strong for the jump to 3♥, remember that 3♥ is good hand, but limited to about 15/16 goren point in support (hcp + distribution), so that responder is well placed on deciding to accept or not.

So the question becomes what to bid over 3♠ by responder? Pass is no longer forcing (if the majors were reversed, pass would have been forcing, since 2NT forced us to the level of 3 of our major). 1ST rule, bidding is still below the level of 3NT, so transfers advances are still on by responder, correct? Would 3NT be "serious 3NT" showing slam interest as always? I only ask because of the statement elsewhere that 1NT/3NT are always natural, but here with ♥ fit I thing serious 3NT/LTTC are still on, right?

So would dbl here be a ♣ control, and neutral on Serious 3NT (because you could double to "cue-bid" a ♣ control? And would 3NT be "serious 3NT", but deny a ♣ control since you didn't double? Would 4♣ be a ♦ cue-bid, but deny both serious slam interest and a ♣ control?

These transfer advances can change a lot of normal sounding auctions... :-) BTW, this seems to be an excellent slam (3♥, 2♣, 1♠, 4♦, 2♠ ruff). but I think ZAR bidding machine doesn't come close to suggesting this should be played in slam. Anyone want to struggle with ZAR math and see if it appoaches the 62 ZAR points for slam? Even 60?

Ben

Spoiler

------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

You probably hit second situation were transfers must be off - after we already found fit. Probably transfer bidding is need untill you find fit - kind of take out double improvement. After you find fit is probably best to go through verified ways - game tries, max double, slam tries, serious 3NT... By the way as I remeber we play serious 3NT only after slam try (am I right?) and because of 2NT is not slam try, 3NT here is probably nat too as choice between contracts. What is your opinion - is stopping transfer bids after fit is ok?

As I mention before I have own way of counting points, but at table I prefer to count Romex losers and cover cards - fast and enough accurate way, if you correct your count: -1/2L or + 1/2 CC for any 2A more than Q and +1/2L or -1/2CC for 2Q more than A. Zar points are really nice, but I have difficulties with large numbers and tend to overbid with them ...

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on Apr 8 2004, 05:55 AM, said:

Hi Ben!

You probably hit second situation were transfers must be off - after we already found fit. Probably transfer bidding is need untill you find fit - kind of take out double improvement. After you find fit is probably best to go through verified ways - game tries, max double, slam tries, serious 3NT... By the way as I remeber we play serious 3NT only after slam try (am I right?) and because of 2NT is not slam try, 3NT here is probably nat too as choice between contracts. What is your opinion - is stopping transfer bids after fit is ok?

As I mention before I have own way of counting points, but at table I prefer to count Romex losers and cover cards - fast and enough accurate way, if you correct your count: -1/2L or + 1/2 CC for any 2A more than Q and +1/2L or -1/2CC for 2Q more than A. Zar points are really nice, but I have difficulties with large numbers and tend to overbid with them ...

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------

Misho

Ok.. after one partner raises the other. Further transfer advances should be off. This seems good rule to me, and is why I posed the question in the first place.

As far as serious NT, no, I don't think it should be off here. The reason is simple, we have a 9 card ♥ fit and the chances to use serious 3NT to show real slam interest outweigh the frequency of the number of hands you want to stop specifically in 3NT despite your huge major fit. Further, it allows you to make a "cue-bid" at the four level in case PARTNER has undisclosed slam interest. Reread Fred's excellen article on this topic if it has been a while since you have read it.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Ben: "As far as serious NT, no, I don't think it should be off here. The reason is simple, we have a 9 card ♥ fit and the chances to use serious 3NT to show real slam interest outweigh the frequency of the number of hands you want to stop specifically in 3NT despite your huge major fit. Further, it allows you to make a "cue-bid" at the four level in case PARTNER has undisclosed slam interest. Reread Fred's excellen article on this topic if it has been a while since you have read it."

West North East South
1♦ Pass 1♥ 1♠
2NT 3♠ ?

We [B]didn't find 9 cards ♥ fit yet Ben, only 8... And nobody showed slam interest... So I am stuck here 3NT is not serious. Can we ask Fred about his opinion?

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on Apr 9 2004, 09:42 AM, said:

West North East South
1♦ Pass 1♥ 1♠
2NT 3♠ ?

We [B]didn't find 9 cards ♥ fit yet Ben, only 8... And nobody showed slam interest... So I am stuck here 3NT is not serious. Can we ask Fred about his opinion?

I think Fred's opinion will be EW have not shown any kind of ♥ fit yet.. as it is not clear he would agree with how we play 2NT here.

Also, you are of course, correct, that we have only sure 8 card ♥ fit. My bad.. type too fast, not think....

But that doesn't change the fact, with game going values (to bid again over 3♠) it is much more likely that we will have slam interest than desire to play game in 3NT not 4♥ or 3♠X.

So imho 3NT here is serious. Now to your point about serious 3NT... Once SOMEONE shows slam interest, serious 3NT is no longer needed. I mean, the slam interest has already been expressed. It is specifically where you have game going value with unexpressed slam interest where SERIOUS 3NT is needed. Let's take this auction as example.

Here 2NT is big hand with ♥ fit. East might be very minimum and willing to let them play 3♠ (pass). He might have a little extra and willing to bid game, but not want to give up on slam. So here, he can cue-bid something below game to show control and NOT SLAM going values. Or if he has slam interest opposite his strong partner, he can bid 3NT to share this good news, and see what happens. This is how the convention is suppose to work.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

inquiry, on Apr 9 2004, 05:55 PM, said:

mishovnbg, on Apr 9 2004, 09:42 AM, said:

West North East South
1♦    Pass  1♥    1♠
2NT    3♠    ?

We didn't find 9 cards ♥ fit yet Ben, only 8... And nobody showed slam interest... So I am stuck here 3NT is not serious. Can we ask Fred about his opinion?

I think Fred's opinion will be EW have not shown any kind of ♥ fit yet.. as it is not clear he would agree with how we play 2NT here.

Also, you are of course, correct, that we have only sure 8 card ♥ fit. My bad.. type too fast, not think....

But that doesn't change the fact, with game going values (to bid again over 3♠) it is much more likely that we will have slam interest than desire to play game in 3NT not 4♥ or 3♠X.

So imho 3NT here is serious. Now to your point about serious 3NT... Once SOMEONE shows slam interest, serious 3NT is no longer needed. I mean, the slam interest has already been expressed. It is specifically where you have game going value with unexpressed slam interest where SERIOUS 3NT is needed. Let's take this auction as example.

Here 2NT is big hand with ♥ fit. East might be very minimum and willing to let them play 3♠ (pass). He might have a little extra and willing to bid game, but not want to give up on slam. So here, he can cue-bid something below game to show control and NOT SLAM going values. Or if he has slam interest opposite his strong partner, he can bid 3NT to share this good news, and see what happens. This is how the convention is suppose to work.

Ben

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Spoiler

-------

Instead of "suppose how serious 3NT work" I prefer to search about definition and I found it at:
http://www.imp-bridg...cles/2over1.htm

The definition is:

When an 8 card or longer major suit fit is agreed at the 3-level and the bidding is forced to game, a bid of 3NT by either partner is completely artificial. It says: "partner I have serious slam interest, please cue-bid for me."

If you fail to bid serious 3NT when you have the opportunity and cue bid instead, that carries the following message:

"Partner, I do not have serious slam interest, but I am cue- bidding in case you do."

Spoiler

-------

Because 2NT in example is not forcing to game, 3NT is not serious, how do you [b]suppose , sorry...

Fred, can you comment please?



Regards, Misho

[inquiry]

mishovnbg, on Apr 13 2004, 09:13 AM, said:

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Spoiler

-------

Instead of "suppose how serious 3NT work" I prefer to search about definition and I found it at:
http://www.imp-bridg...cles/2over1.htm

The definition is:

When an 8 card or longer major suit fit is agreed at the 3-level and the bidding is forced to game, a bid of 3NT by either partner is completely artificial. It says: "partner I have serious slam interest, please cue-bid for me."

If you fail to bid serious 3NT when you have the opportunity and cue bid instead, that carries the following message:

"Partner, I do not have serious slam interest, but I am cue- bidding in case you do."

Spoiler

-------

Because 2NT in example is not forcing to game, 3NT is not serious, how do you suppose , sorry...

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------------

Misho

I agree completely with this "definition".

And yes, 2NT (limit raise or better), does not force to game. But if we don't pass it out in 3M, then we are forced to game.

That is, over their 3♠, the 1H bidder can

1) Pass = I see no game opposite a limit raise. If you have more, you can bid of course
2) Bid 4M = I have minimum game forcing value opposite limit raise, and nothing useful to cue-bid
3) Cue-bid cheapest something = I have control in this suit in case you might have slam interest, but I promise nothing more than minimum value for game opposite a limit + 2NT
4) Bid 3NT = I have serious slam interest (even opposite a limit + raise)

That is my interpretation here. Once we find a major fit (8 card or more, and certainly with 9 like here), and we show GAME FORCE value (which bidding beyond 3♠ will show), then we in a serious 3NT auction. This would be my interpretation.

I am willing to consider if opener passed, and 2NT bidder reopened with 3NT that would suggest a contract. Why? Because opener's pass showed mininium, so if responder wanted to move towards slam he could cue-bid/ That has to show slam interest opposite an opener willing to let them play 3♠, but that would be a special case I guess.

Ben

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

--------------------------------------------

Hi Ben!

Spoiler

-------

We can use your interpretation, I agree, but need to be clear for you it is not serious NT by common definition, because by it we must be in GF situation before bid of 3NT. This is of course formal logic only. About actual example, because 2NT replace raise of 4 with 17-19 bal or similar hands, it is practically GF and your interpretation is right as usual .

Misho