[jillybean]

Hi, we are playing this system over opps 1n

BID Direct Seat
X Trans to 2C*
2C Trans to 2D
2D Trans to 2H
2H Trans to 2S
2S Minors

* If 2D follows X/2C, then this shows both major suits.

Balancing seat
X 14-18
2suit natural

The question is, how should we play 2N? In balancing seat I assume it should show the minors but what is best in direct seat?

[Free]

Sorry jilly, but I think this is an awful system, and no matter how you play 2NT, it will still be awful. Why do you play this? What are the design goals?

[Zelandakh]

The aim would be to put the 1NT bidder on lead as often as possible. One option would be to use 2S as 5 spades and a 4+ minor and for 2NT to be minors. It is really very useful to tell the difference between 5M4m and 5m4M hands here.

[jillybean]

Yes, the idea is that the 1N bidder is on lead. Other than that, idk. My partner plays it in other
partnerships and likes it.

Why is it bad?

[gwnn]

You're giving them one more tempo in their information exchange. In particular, they can now show values (if they play double=values) or gauge whether to compete in the lower suit (if they play double=the suit you bid). The same argument applies for transfer preempts, although there it is somewhat worse because here the 1NT opener's partner will often know where he wants to play with or without transfer methods because he knows quite a bit about his side's combined assets and suit lengths.

Free seems to like your system, though, because he thinks it inspires awe (sorry! ).

[Free]

gwnn, on 2011-October-17, 07:23, said:

Free seems to like your system, though, because he thinks it inspires awe (sorry! ).

Huh?

[Free]

gwnn, on 2011-October-17, 07:23, said:

You're giving them one more tempo in their information exchange. In particular, they can now show values (if they play double=values) or gauge whether to compete in the lower suit (if they play double=the suit you bid). The same argument applies for transfer preempts, although there it is somewhat worse because here the 1NT opener's partner will often know where he wants to play with or without transfer methods because he knows quite a bit about his side's combined assets and suit lengths.

That, and the fact that you're unable to show both Majors at once (and 5♠-4♥ not even at 2-level).

[jillybean]

Free, on 2011-October-17, 08:39, said:

That, and the fact that you're unable to show both Majors at once (and 5♠-4♥ not even at 2-level).

Ah, we can use 2N to show majors. (or 2♠ M 2N minors)

[mycroft]

I played this (see note) for years, and really like it - especially in a "very aggressive interference" strategy. Yes, you give tempo, and more options to responder, but having the strong NTer on lead is worth something - my tutor said "about half a trick" which seems high, but it is something. Having the described hand on the table *also* is worth something. Keeping the (1NT)-2♦!-p-p "what does that mean?" "his diamonds are better than my hearts" is *also* worth something - especially the *next time* you interfere against these opponents.


Note: direct only, vs strong NT only, and X=strong, 2♠= clubs, 2NT=minors. I would expect that any meaning for double (penalty-oriented? majors? spades+suit?) would be better than X = clubs. You're never playing 2♣ anyway, and showing it doesn't take anything away from them; so you might as well use 2♠ for that.

Oh, and putting my TD hat on for a bit - Please don't describe the double, the way you're playing it, as "transfer to clubs". "clubs or both majors", please. I still think X=majors, 2♠ = clubs is better :-)

[dake50]

Could I xfer to 3-suit so my rebid is 5+M?
Eg. S:KJxxx H:xxx D:AJx C:xx and 2C-> 2D, then 2S.
Usually this is a 4-5+ 2-suiter, but a fragment
before a real 5+ Major appeals.
Which xfers can I use for big hands
as a catchall strong T/O?

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2011-October-17, 11:35, said:

I played this (see note) for years, and really like it - especially in a "very aggressive interference" strategy. Yes, you give tempo, and more options to responder, but having the strong NTer on lead is worth something - my tutor said "about half a trick" which seems high, but it is something. Having the described hand on the table *also* is worth something. Keeping the (1NT)-2♦!-p-p "what does that mean?" "his diamonds are better than my hearts" is *also* worth something - especially the *next time* you interfere against these opponents.


Note: direct only, vs strong NT only, and X=strong, 2♠= clubs, 2NT=minors. I would expect that any meaning for double (penalty-oriented? majors? spades+suit?) would be better than X = clubs. You're never playing 2♣ anyway, and showing it doesn't take anything away from them; so you might as well use 2♠ for that.

Oh, and putting my TD hat on for a bit - Please don't describe the double, the way you're playing it, as "transfer to clubs". "clubs or both majors", please. I still think X=majors, 2♠ = clubs is better :-)

Thanks, so ater 1N (direct seat)
X = majors, 2D response = bid your best major ?
2C=D
2D=H
2H=S
2S=C

& yes, we do disclose fully, or atleast try to until we are cut off in our explanation.

[gwnn]

I would prefer

X=one suited in a minor
2♣=majors
2♦/2♥=transfers
2♠=something
2NT=something

2♣ is widely recognised as the best bid for majors Also then you can safely bid 2♣ with 6-5 hands as well as 5-4 hands, with no fear of partner passing the double.

[akhare]

gwnn, on 2011-October-17, 16:03, said:

I would prefer

X=one suited in a minor
2♣=majors
2♦/2♥=transfers
2♠=something
2NT=something

2♣ is widely recognised as the best bid for majors Also then you can safely bid 2♣ with 6-5 hands as well as 5-4 hands, with no fear of partner passing the double.

+1 for 2♣...everything else is optional ...

[Fluffy]

ok, so I play landi with transfer, for many years, it goes like this:

2♣= majors
2♦= ♥
2♥= ♠
2♠= ♣
2NT= minors
3♣= ♦

double is minor+major 2 suiter, penalty against weak NT

reopening we want 1NT opener on lead, so we don't transfer, however 2♣, double and 2NT remain the same. Against weak NT we also play transfers to have a rebid.

[whereagles]

Transfer overcalls of 1NT are very popular in France and apparently also so in Spain. Theoretically I don't see anything clearly wrong with them. The trade-off for leaving 1NT bidder on lead and having some flexibilty with strong hands is to leave LHO with more options and the occasional slip of the memory. I don't know if there's a net gain in this.

[jillybean]

Here's our latest thought, finally we have included 2♣ for the majors.

X by the overcaller is either diamonds or a major and a minor. Partner bids a forced 2C, and with diamonds, the overcaller bids 2D. With a major/minor hand (should be 5-5, but can be 5 and a good 4 card suit), overcaller bids her major and partner then either passes or raises, or bids the other major to play, or bids 2N asking for the overcaller's minor.
2C shows both majors, 2D over 2C asks overcaller to bid his best major, while 2H or 2S are to play
2D transfer to hearts
2H transfer to spades
2S transfer to clubs
2N shows both minors
3C shows a strong hand with both majors (rare), with same overcall structure as over 2C.

[gwnn]

you don't need that 3C bid, all hands with majors can start 2♣. Because you like transfers so much you should have 3♣=diamonds.

Also note that the 2♦ bid can be the start of an invitational sequence, e.g.

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♠-p-3♠ = invitational in spades

1NT-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♥-p-3♥ = invitational in hearts

But also

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♥-p-2♠ =invitational in spades

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♠-p-3♥ =invitational in hearts.

[Zelandakh]

if rearranging the bids you could also run a double as clubs or both majors, then after a 2C advance 2D would be both majors with better hearts and 2H would be both majors with better spades. Rebids of 2S and up can show the stronger hand types you are currently running through 3C. So something like:-

X = clubs or both majors (after 2C, 2D=H+S, 2H=S+H)
2C = diamonds
2D = hearts
2H = spades
2S = 5 spades and 4+ minor
2N = minors

This or gwynn's scheme look to be the best ways (so far) of minimising the downsides and maximising the upsides of the approach. If you worry about the loss of X followed by 2M to show a stronger hand with clubs then it would be possible to use 3C for this hand type (or keep X->2S for this and use X->2NT for C + H).

[jillybean]

gwnn, on 2011-October-18, 01:08, said:

you don't need that 3C bid, all hands with majors can start 2♣. Because you like transfers so much you should have 3♣=diamonds.

Also note that the 2♦ bid can be the start of an invitational sequence, e.g.

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♠-p-3♠ = invitational in spades

1NT-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♥-p-3♥ = invitational in hearts

But also

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♥-p-2♠ =invitational in spades

1N-2♣-p-2♦
p-2♠-p-3♥ =invitational in hearts.

Thanks, the invitational sequences are great. If we use 3♣ transfer ♦ then I'm not sure how useful vs. memory load X for M+m is.
Perhaps X = equivilent hand is fine.

[gwnn]

gwnn