[luke warm]

ok, let's look at reason #2, stated as:

"(2) to increase your range of expression, ie to increase the number of hand types that can be described."

with a further description of:

"But the loss of all of the potential continuations that can originate from those responses (were they forcing) is in my view too high a price to pay."

playing xfers over a weak nt gives you stayman 2c, xfer 2d, 2h, 2s(?), 2nt(?).. i'm assuming 4 suit xfer... there is no way to play 2d (granted, i can only play there if opener hasn't a 5M or 6m in his hand, but even if that happens it isn't necessarily bad)

i have invitational puppet/garbage 2c, game forcing 2d, natural 2h/2s, invitational 2nt (via 2c), 3c/3d preempts

maybe you're right, jack, but i don't see the advantage.. i don't see anything you can play that i can't play, plus i can play in diamonds AND i have a bid (2d) that is a 100% game force, no ambiguity.. this bid occurs at a low level, and the results based on the responses to it have been favorable

the one area where your xfer *might* work better is in making opener declarer, but as you pointed out this "benefit" is overrated in a weak nt (if it even exists)

[pbleighton]

Jimmy -

I currently use transfers after 10-13 NT, as I play 12-14 vul and 15-17 4th seat, to keep it simple. I'm considering making a change, though the standard structure seems to work pretty well

1) Would you describe your invitational and GF puppet Stayman?
2) Do you play 1NT-3M as invitational with 6 cards?
3) Opposite 1NT, if you have 5 of a major and inv values, how do you bid the hand?

Peter

[helene_t]

I agree with Jimmy that xsfers make less sense opposite a weak 1NT, though not necesarilly that they make no sense.

For constructive bidding it hardly matters if you play xsfers or not. Only in slam-going auctions, the advantage is significant:
1NT-2♦
2♥-3♦
is more economical than
1NT-3♥
3NT-4♦

This is more relevant if you play a strong 1NT.

[Free]

Opposite weak and mini NT, I don't think transfers is better than 2M natural. However I find garbage stayman a very nice tool. If you're prepared to give that up, I think the nonforcing stayman and 2♦ GF is better. If you have a slam hand, you can always ask opener's hand (with a big chance you'll play the game if there's a fit and when you reverse the 2M and 3m responses from the standard scheme) and go for slam approach. You also have several ways to show invitational hands tnx to 2♣ and 2NT puppets, and you can usually play 2♦ which no other system can! You can transfer to a suit with 1 tophonour or 2 tophonours, you can show both minors without problems, and you can even bid 1NT-3X (not ♣) as pure preemptive!

I like Jimmy's structure, but the drawback imo is following:
- you don't have garbage stayman
- you might lose a 4-4M fit more often when invitational and opener is minimum

That's why I'm still in doubt weither to play this structure or my normal structure (also with the possibility to ask entire shape from opener btw).

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Sep 17 2004, 03:44 AM, said:

1) Would you describe your invitational and GF puppet Stayman?
2) Do you play 1NT-3M as invitational with 6 cards?
3) Opposite 1NT, if you have 5 of a major and inv values, how do you bid the hand?

hi peter

i'll email you the short table i have, it's very easy to follow.. it covers, i think, everything.. however, if you see any holes in it, please point them out to me

as for some of free's concerns, yes the 4/4 major fits where responder is weak can be lost... however, no 4/4 fit when he's invitational or better is lost.. also, while i don't play a 'true' garbage stayman (since opener bids a 5M or 6m over 2C), responder can bid 2c as invitational with, say, a 2353 hand, planning on passing any bid by opener (yeah, in that example there's a 7 card spade fit, but it is possible).. part of the problem is, i haven't updated my website in a very long time, and he might not be aware that now 1nt:2c:2d:2nt is invitational with 4/4 majors

as for helene's example of:
1NT-3♥
3NT-4♦

i assume she uses that as a responder hand interested in slam, with the red suits.. that one begins with 2D for me... opener's distribution is known completely in time to play 3NT if necessary

added by edit: i think i'm just gonna start a new thread with the structure... i'll post several shortish ones, i find the long ones very hard to read sometimes... this way, anyone interested can point out the holes and those not interested can just bypass the thread

[1eyedjack]

luke warm, on Sep 16 2004, 07:55 PM, said:

i don't see anything you can play that i can't play

I get the impression that your game forcing continuations are lumped almost entirely into the 2D response and are geared very heavily toward responder taking control and relaying, with opener describing his hand. Indeed I do not think that there is sufficient bidding space to cater for both hands to describe, in a single game forcing response. Furthermore, although 2D is a relatively cheap response it is considerably more expensive than 2C (Fibbonacci and all that, count the number of continuations). The question then arises, is it necessary for responder ever to describe his GF hand, or is it sufficient for responder to relay and for opener to describe in all GF cases?

It is my observation that by relaying, there is a limit to the amount of information that responder can obtain about opener's hand by the time that you reach the 3NT watershed. That limit is usually reserved for identifying opener's complete distribution and, if there is room (and there is not always room) a distinction between max v min. Whilst the extent of a trump fit can be established, as well as perhaps the general values, it remains unknown the extent to which opener's values are working hard or are wasted. That unknown factor tends to assume a lesser significance when responder is balanced, and a greater significance when responder is distributional.

Example 1, best contract 3NT, alternative 5D at risk

---

Example 2, best contract 5D, 6D having play, alternative 3N at risk

---

If West, responder to 1N, relays in both of the above examples, and discovers by the time of 3NT nothing more than opener's complete distribution (and perhaps a narrower point range) then he is not well placed to decide the final contract at this stage, nor even whether it is safe to venture beyond 3NT in order to enquire. If anything the presence of the 4th Heart in example 2, and lack of 4th Heart in example 1, will tend to influence him toward making the wrong gamble. By contrast, if responder shows a GF 3-1-5-4 shape then opener is well placed in both cases.

It is therefore my experience that hands worth game forcing responder fall into two broad categories: those that are better treated by requiring opener to describe his hand (responder, typically balanced, relaying), and those which are better treated by responder describing his own (typically unbalanced) hand. This conclusion in turn suggests that using 2H and 2S responses in a non-forcing capacity are not optimal use of resources.

[luke warm]

excellent points... on the 1st example hand you gave, i would be in 5D, maybe making, maybe not.. both would start the same (this is assuming i valued responder hand as gf, which i would)

1nt : 2d
2nt : 3c = any 4333, 3c asks
3nt : 4c = 4333, 4c is control ask
4h : 4s
4nt - opener has no spade control so has either A,K♥ and K♣ or ♥A and ♦A or the hand he has

1nt : 2d
2nt : 3c
3s : 4c = 3433, control ask
4h : 4s
4nt : 5c = responder knows opener has no heart control, so all 4 are in other suits
5nt : 6d = opener is known to have the hand he holds

granted, the auction might not go the way shown.. anybody can *say* they'd bid a certain way given certain hands, and i think that would be the way i'd bid, but i can't judge how objective i am (not in any objective sense heheh)...

all in all, i agree that the more balanced responder is, the better able he is to judge.. but i'm not willing to say that just because he's unbalanced (in a bridge sense ), other ways to bid good games/slams are that much better

[twcho]

1eyedjack, excellent analysis