[shevek]

Playing 4-suit transfers over 1NT, where 2♠ = ♣s, 2NT = ♦s,
it's traditioinal to bid the intermediate step as a super-accept.
(Maybe Hxx and a max, but that is a separate issue)

A recent trend is to switch, bidding responder's suit with a GOOD hand.
What is the thinking behind this?
Is the strength of 1NT relevant?

I guess it might allow responder to bid 2NT on a weak 5-5 minors, passing opener's 3♣.

[manudude03]

You pretty much nailed it with your last line. Usually people don't require a max though for good hand though.

[Free]

 shevek, on 2011-July-29, 07:29, said:

I guess it might allow responder to bid 2NT on a weak 5-5 minors, passing opener's 3♣.

Bingo!

[ArtK78]

In addition to the reason presented in the last line of your post, another reason for making the acceptance bid the bid of the suit (and not the intervening bid) is so that the 1NT opening hand can play a high level contract in the minor suit if the partnership decides to bid on.

Having the 1NT opening hand play game and slam contracts in the minor suit is more important than having the 1NT opening hand play 3 of the minor if responder is weak.

By the way, I would not refer to the acceptance bid as a super-acceptance. The standards for an acceptance bid in a minor suit are much lower than the standards for a super-acceptance bid for a transfer to a major. The obvious reason for this is that the acceptance bid for a minor suit does not increase the level of the auction while any super-acceptance bid for a major suit requires the partnership to play a level higher opposite a possible bust hand.

Many partnerships agree that the 1NT opener will accept the transfer on any hand containing a high honor in responder's suit - typically Kx or better. Other partnerships require more - a fit of some kind along with a hand suitable for play in a high level contract - more controls and less secondary cards.

[mikeh]

another and very powerful reason is that using stayman for hands that intend to invite in notrump, and lack a major, means giving the opps a lot of information about opener's hand.

So one uses 2♠ as a hand with clubs or a no-major invite to 3N. Opener bids 2N with all hands on which he would reject an invite, and 3♣ with all hands that would accept an invite.

This treatment loses a little accuracy when aiming for a club contract, tho not much, and more than makes up for it by concealment on the more common natural invite to 3N, by not giving the defence unnecessary (to the offence) information about opener's major distribution.

And to be consistent, use the same 'accept with extras' for the diamond transfer to save on memory demands.

I don't use 2N with both minors.....we use 3♣ as weak, minors.

[kenrexford]

And now for something completely different...sort of.

FWIW, I have liked a different approach entirely, one that could be adapted to four-suit transfers fairly easily.

The idea is to have a transfer to diamonds (bidding 2NT) instead ask partner which minor he prefers (also known as "Conot," by the way). If he bids 3♣, he prefers clubs to diamonds. If he bids 3♦, he prefers diamonds to clubs.

This has a slight inference as to "acceptance values" for diamonds, in the sense that a preference for diamonds sounds good and a preference for clubs sounds bad. But, perhaps more importantly, it allows the partnership a solution for weak hands with both minors without using 3♣ for that call. If Responder has 5-5 minors weak, he bids 2NT and passes Opener's call.

The same basic approach is used now by many in my local club after I suggested a similar methodology with three-suit transfers (where 2♠ shows clubs or diamonds, generally). 2NT becomes the "diamonds preferred" call, 3♣ for clubs preferred. If Responder corrects 3♣ to 3♦, this is weak and to play. if Responder corrects 2NT to 3♣, Responder either just had diamonds all along OR had both minors and weak.

[blackshoe]

Marty Bergen doesn't like 4 suit transfers. He seems to prefer that 2NT be natural. So he uses 2♠ as a transfer to clubs, and has no transfer to ♦. I don't remember how he uses 3m. This is from his new pamphlet series "Secrets of Bidding" or some such title.

[barmar]

I've been using the following system for many years. To transfer to a minor, responder first transfers to a major, then re-transfers to the minor. E.g. to show clubs, the sequence is 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠-3♣; to show diamonds, the sequence is 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣-3♦. Opener can super-accept the major by bidding the next step up, and he can super-accept BOTH the major and minor by bidding the minor immediately; we don't have a way to super-accept just the minor (although in the case of clubs, there's an in-between step that could be used -- we simply haven't bothered with it).

This leaves 2♠ available for minor suit Stayman (although I can't recall it ever coming up) and 2NT for a natural invitation.

[awm]

 barmar, on 2011-July-30, 08:59, said:

I've been using the following system for many years. To transfer to a minor, responder first transfers to a major, then re-transfers to the minor. E.g. to show clubs, the sequence is 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠-3♣; to show diamonds, the sequence is 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣-3♦. Opener can super-accept the major by bidding the next step up, and he can super-accept BOTH the major and minor by bidding the minor immediately; we don't have a way to super-accept just the minor (although in the case of clubs, there's an in-between step that could be used -- we simply haven't bothered with it).

This leaves 2[SP} available for minor suit Stayman (although I can't recall it ever coming up) and 2NT for a natural invitation.

The problem with this approach is what happens if opponents bid over your transfer. Like say 1NT-Pass-2♦-3♦. Say opener is 4432. He would really like to get to 3♥ opposite most heart signoffs, but has no real interest in playing 4♣ (or doing anything but defending) opposite a club signoff. This is a pretty serious problem. Suppose it goes 1NT-Pass-2♦-3♦-Pass-Pass back to responder, who has an invite or better. He sort of wants to double to show "cards" with a typical hand with hearts and some points, but he also sort of wants to double as a "stopper ask" with a hand including a bunch of clubs and no real diamond control. So double becomes this very nebulous bid that still doesn't tell opener which suit responder has.

This all just seems really bad to me. And you apparently have a "free" 2[sp] call anyway.

[barmar]

At least 80% of the time the transfer is to the major. If there's interference, opener usually assumes it is (although if he's looking at 5 in that major, he might guess otherwise).

[fromageGB]

 kenrexford, on 2011-July-29, 16:25, said:

The same basic approach is used now by many in my local club after I suggested a similar methodology with three-suit transfers (where 2♠ shows clubs or diamonds, generally). 2NT becomes the "diamonds preferred" call, 3♣ for clubs preferred. If Responder corrects 3♣ to 3♦, this is weak and to play. if Responder corrects 2NT to 3♣, Responder either just had diamonds all along OR had both minors and weak.

Perhaps you mean .. "if responder corrects 2NT to 3♦ he had diamonds all along OR had both minors and weak" .. because if responder corrects 2NT to 3♣, surely this has to be the hand with clubs only.

If opener prefers the minor you don't have (the normal case) then responder plays the contract. {2NT corrected to 3♣ or 3♣ corrected to 3♦.} For the benefit to be worth the cost, the use of the freed-up 3♣ response must be good.

[shevek]

Thanks everyone. It's all good ...

[sfi]

 shevek, on 2011-July-29, 07:29, said:

A recent trend is to switch, bidding responder's suit with a GOOD hand.
What is the thinking behind this?

Another reason is that responder plays the hand when their strength (weak/inv) is unknown, unlike the other way.

[Free]

 sfi, on 2011-July-31, 07:51, said:

Another reason is that responder plays the hand when their strength (weak/inv) is unknown, unlike the other way.

I don't think this is a clear advantage. While it's positive in some way for the weaker hand to declare (opps don't know general strength and trump length), it's also positive when opener declares (for example for the lead).

[sfi]

 Free, on 2011-August-01, 01:37, said:

I don't think this is a clear advantage. While it's positive in some way for the weaker hand to declare (opps don't know general strength and trump length), it's also positive when opener declares (for example for the lead).

Consider the auction 1N-2N; 3C-3D, which is the one where responder winds up playing the hand.

If 3C is a superaccept, then everyone knows that responder has a weaker than invitational hand. If 3C denies a superaccept, then responder's hand may still be invitational.

I would prefer responder's hand to be hidden in the second case rather than the first.

Making 3D the superaccept does mean that responder plays the hand a bit more frequently than before, but the lack of information to the defence more than makes up for it, IMO.

[Zelandakh]

 kenrexford, on 2011-July-29, 16:25, said:

---snip...2NT = both minors or diamonds (weak) + some stronger hands

I used to play this a very long time ago. It was part of my original 1NT system - I guess I was about Adam's age or slightly younger when I came up with it. It works fine and is super-simple. However it is less powerful than some other methods around and I subsequently (and relatively quickly) gave it up.

[kenberg]

My current agreement with one partner is, I guess, a combo of what Mikeh and KenR said. At any rate, here it is:


1NT-2♠: Either an invitational bid in NT or a club one-suiter, weak or strong (responder's next call is something beyond 3♣ if he has a strong hand and clubs). Just writing this, it crosses my mind that we have never discussed the auction 1NT-2♠-2NT(min hand, passable)-3NT. I guess it is a hand with clubs that would have been interested in slam if opener had more than a minimum.

1NT-2NT: Either a weak minor two-suiter or a diamond one suiter, weak or strong.

1NT-3♣: Puppet, obviously with the values for game.

1NT-3♦: strong minor two-suiter.

Note: 1NT-2♣ now always has at least one major. Bidding 2♣ first and then 3♣ or 3♦ is strong, holding the bid minor and some major.

How do I like this? So-so. Partner likes it so I play it. One thing you lose is the positive response (maybe a better term than super-accept, as has been noted) to a minor suit transfer. Perhaps it is worth it. You get a convenient puppet bid when you have the values for game, and you avoid the divulging of excessive information on the nt invitational hands.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2011-August-03, 07:01, said:

1NT-2♠: Either an invitational bid in NT or a club one-suiter, weak or strong (responder's next call is something beyond 3♣ if he has a strong hand and clubs). Just writing this, it crosses my mind that we have never discussed the auction 1NT-2♠-2NT(min hand, passable)-3NT. I guess it is a hand with clubs that would have been interested in slam if opener had more than a minimum.

I would have thought the most likely hand for this sequence was a traditional 4NT response.