[bbochev]

I moved this topic from "2-suited overcalls" becouse of applicability - it's look more general...
I'd be glad to see other oppinons - approach is used in very narrow players circle (one explanation is obvious - garbage )

Our pair use unlimited transfer bids combined with Raptor over 1st level suit openings (except against strong 1♣ - special defeance). Its deals well with most hands (including twosuiters) with cons of having to bid clubs at 3th level.

Schema:
Dbl and transer for two suits (exclude clubs and opened suit);
1♠ (or dbl on 1S) = T/O dbl or strong Balanced hand (after simple answer from partner new suit = 4 cards and 16-18, 2 NT=19-20 etc.)
1 NT - Raptor - 4M-5+m, outside opened suit
2 NT is good overcall with clubs, 3 clubs and above are preempts;
Cue after minor - 5-5 both majors unlimited
Cue after M - unlimited Michaels
Jump 2 M -> 6 (7 Vuln) tricks AND good 6+ suit.

We played transfer to opener's suit as 4441 t/o. It is matter of choice - for this shape "ordinary" t/o (1♠) could be used, and transfer to suit and major cue-bid could show exact twosuiter OM + lower/upper minor for example.

On opponents dbl we use pass as weak hand without fit, bid transfer with 3+ support and weak hand. Jumps are showing suit+fit, 2NT after transfer to M is good 4+ support at least to 3 level (if there is opportunity, simple cue shows same but only 3 cards support), after m is natural and invit.

Becouse of way we evaluate unbal hands (A=1.5, K=1, Q=.5 Tricks + (Fit-shortest)/2 Tricks), T/O dbl is promisisng 4+ tricks in support of non-bid suits. It make easy life of responder, who simply adds 4 to his Tricks (honors Tr. are same + (longest - shortest suit)/2) and bid to that level T/O dbler adds a level for evey trick above 4 after jump or free bid (non jump bids - 0-4 tricks are rised with 6+ Tricks 5+4=9 no need to rise).
Same about transfers - lower limit is -2/-3 (non/vul), no upper limit. Jumps are -2/-3 based on winners.


Pro's & Cons:
Pros:

• Becouse of forcing nature of transfers, it's easy to show additional strength of hand later by entering biding at later stage (even using Dbl). It solves a lot of problems with strong one or twosuiter hands, and give oportunity to describe twosuiters at low level.
  Opener is on lead.
  Raptor solves (almost) problem with competative hands,having 4th Major and longer minor
  1♠, despite of seeming unconvenient take-out,put additional pressure in part-score batle.
  2 NT (good unlimited overcall with clubs) looks too high, but it's level if you compete with goods clubs.
  Simplicity of convention.

Cons:

Opponents have oportunity to dbl transfer or step in suit as cue at low level.
It happens toplay contract from "wrong" side (it's depend...).
You waste time to explain overcalls to non clever opps.
You could play it with regular partners only.

List is not full - just some major points...

[hrothgar]

I think that you are missing the biggest weakness of a transfer overcall scheme

For all intents and purposes, your transfers are forcing.
As a result, the transfers don't place nearly as much pressure on the opponents.

Direct action over the transfer overcall shows one set of hands
Passing and then re-entering the auction after the double shows another

Opponents with a prepared defense will eat you alive....

[whereagles]

Well, "eat you alive" seems to me quite an exaggeration, but yeah the principle applies: the more natural a bid is, the more pressure it puts on opponents because that bid can often be PASSED

[bbochev]

hrothgar, on 2011-May-03, 11:13, said:

I think that you are missing the biggest weakness of a transfer overcall scheme

For all intents and purposes, your transfers are forcing.
As a result, the transfers don't place nearly as much pressure on the opponents.

Direct action over the transfer overcall shows one set of hands
Passing and then re-entering the auction after the double shows another

Opponents with a prepared defense will eat you alive....

Thank you for oppinion - it's good point to consider and reconsider! Remark is good (except eat alive - however some precooking is needed .

[wclass___]

Bidding psychology changes quite a bit depending on what exactly opponents open.

E.g. If opponents open 1♠ you aren't so willing to compete comparing to other 1st level openig bids. They have spades so they are likely to outbid you anyway. Entering auction is more dangerous. And they have preempted also their side meaning that they will often have to bid catchall 1NT.
Also you know that they have spades and that doubling with one and two-suiters will probably be costly, therefore transfers overcalls might be helpful.

But surely you don't want to bid 1N showing clubs... and 2N is also awkward.

One should examine each opening bid separately. Some awesome overcalling tweaks do exist.

[dake50]

One BIG advantage of using transfers
is that they are FORCING.
The accept may be passed putting
pressure on the LHO instead of RHO.
AND this criterion (FORCING or NOT)
changes for every auction that occurs not using transfers.
I astoundingly prefer a single scheme of *transfers*
rather than discussing each auction and deciding
which are *forcing or non-forcing*.
Eg. after 1S <2N> ?? is 3C force? 3D? 3H? 3S? X? 4C? 4D? 4H?
Let alone trying to guess my side suit works,
when transfer into side suit then raise asks exactly that.

[Gerben42]

I don't get it. Does this scheme mean that after opponents open 1♦, you cannot bid ♥ naturally on the 1-level? What's worse, after 1♥ you lose a natural 1♠ overcall. After 1♠, you cannot bid ♣ on the 2-level.

You are losing way too much on this. There are other situations where transfers are useful, for example Rubens Transfers:

1♣ 1♠ Pass 2♣ = ♦. Here you don't need 2♣ as natural so the transfer doesn't cost you that space. In your case, it's just a bad convention I think.

[bbochev]

Gerben42, on 2011-May-04, 15:18, said:

I don't get it. Does this scheme mean that after opponents open 1♦, you cannot bid ♥ naturally on the 1-level? What's worse, after 1♥ you lose a natural 1♠ overcall. After 1♠, you cannot bid ♣ on the 2-level.

You are losing way too much on this. There are other situations where transfers are useful, for example Rubens Transfers:

1♣ 1♠ Pass 2♣ = ♦. Here you don't need 2♣ as natural so the transfer doesn't cost you that space. In your case, it's just a bad convention I think.

Not exactly...
After opps 1♦ Dbl = overcall 5+ ♥, 1♥ = 5+ ♠, 1♠ = t/o dbl (incl balanced 16+ hand),1NT = Raptor 5+♣ + 4th M, 2♣=4441 singleton ♦, 2♦=5+-5+ both M etc., 2NT = good overcall ♣ (If ♣ hand is not good, why to mention it at 2nd level?). Of course there are cons and pro's - no silver bullet at all.

[SteelWheel]

I barely looked at the specific proposed structure here, and promise to go back and take another look. However: Wait a minute here. The forcing nature of a transfer overcall gives the opponents too much of a double shot? Really?

If the auction goes (1♦)--1♥showing spades--(P)--1♠ presumably asserting a pass of a natural 1♠overcall, haven't we put opener under a lot of pressure? If overcaller doesn't take another action, then the auction is about to go swish, and the opening bidder will be on lead, which can often be worth a trick in and of itself. LHO was presumably passing regardless of whether we were making a natural or transfer overcall. RHO has to commit now on the question of whether or not to contest the auction, without knowing as much about overcaller's hand as he would if his opponents were playing natural overcalls....or so it seems to me, anyway.....

[hrothgar]

SteelWheel, on 2011-May-05, 04:33, said:

I barely looked at the specific proposed structure here, and promise to go back and take another look. However: Wait a minute here. The forcing nature of a transfer overcall gives the opponents too much of a double shot? Really?

If the auction goes (1♦)--1♥showing spades--(P)--1♠ presumably asserting a pass of a natural 1♠overcall, haven't we put opener under a lot of pressure?

If the auction starts

1♦ - (1♥) - ???

I know what the option to play two ranges of negative doubles and have a penalty double to boot.

This is off the top of my head, but

• An immediate double shows a penalty oriented hand
  
• Bidding spades shows a "good" negative double
  
• Passing, and then re-entering the auction shows a weak takeout oriented hand

If you don't like penalty oriented methods, you can use a direct double to show some other type of take out.

I'd argue that opener is actually really well positioned after

1♦ - (1♥) - P - (1♠)

He has MUCH more information about responder's hand than he would after

1♦ - (1♠) - P - (P)

Moreover, he's not in the balancing seat. If opener passes, the auction doesn't die

[Gerben42]

My meta-agreement is

1♦ (1♥ = ♠)
* Dbl = 4+♥
* 1♠ = Values but no fit and no 4-card ♥

The 2nd hend type cannot be shown if opponents bid directly.
Pass than Dbl of ♠ is penalty.

How does this put us under pressure?

Another point: If 1♦ (1♠) is T/O, responder must bid TWO ♥ and cannot distinguish as well as after Dbl showing T/O.