[EricK]

Are there any methods which employ transfers in response to 1NT 2♣?

I was thinking something like:

1NT 2♣(at least inv)
2♦ 4+♥
2♥ 4+♠,3-♥
2♠ no 4 card major maximum
2NT no 4 card major minimum
3X 5 card suit maximum

After 1NT 2♣ 2♦/2♥ (M = major implied by opener, OM = other major)
2♥ would show support but NF (but still inv values, of course)
2♠ would show ♠ NF
2NT is GF asking for more information
3♣/♦ natural (5+), probably 4 cards in OM
3M support GF (slam suggestion else just 4M)
3OM haven't got anything for this yet!

After 1NT 2♠
2NT asks for more information
3X 5+ natural
3NT to play

After 1NT 2NT
Pass = minimum
3X natural 5+
3NT to play

This is just my first shot so any suggestions/criticisms/improvements are welcome.

(I realise that there are right-siding issues especially if one plays a strong NT)

[helene_t]

Berkowitz in his "Precision Today" book recomends something like this after a natural 1NT response to a strong 1♣

[SoTired]

Playing transfer stayman, don't you deliberately wrong-side the contract?

Alternate higher level rebids also interfere with extended forms of Garbage Stayman that allows responder to bid Stayman with a weak hand that contain a 4-card major and 5-card minor to sign off in one of responder's suits.

[kgr]

SoTired, on Apr 22 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

Playing transfer stayman, don't you deliberately wrong-side the contract?

Alternate higher level rebids also interfere with extended forms of Garbage Stayman that allows responder to bid Stayman with a weak hand that contain a 4-card major and 5-card minor to sign off in one of responder's suits.

and I would think that an advantage of transfers is that responder can accept the transfer most of the time allowing the transferer to describe more. Doesn't seem to be very usefull to allow 1NT opener to transfer.

[Free]

MOSCITO used a similar approach in the old days, to ask for entire shape. It doesn't use this anymore, I think garbage stayman is just too valuable...