[biggerclub]

Mitch D. (Dunitz?) gave a talk at the Long Beach regional yesterday evening about using transfer responses after interference over 1 bids.

Essentially the idea is after Partner's 1S and RHOs x, 1NT transfers to clubs, 2C to diamonds, 2H show a (good or bad) spade raise, 2S shows a (bad or good) raise, etc. Mitch had a handout but someone begged me to surrender mine -- I asked Mitch for his email but did not get it taken down right.

A few questions:

Has anyone played this and what are your impressions?

Is it written up anywhere on the web?

What is the ACBL's position on this?

Thanks in advance, BC.

[Siegmund]

I do play it and like it. Requires some discussion, especially as to what Redouble shows (for many people, the equivalent of a natural 1NT response) and whether it applies only after 1M-X, or after all 1suit-X.

There is about two pages about it in the Robson and Segal book, several short writeups on the web, and several short writeups of "Capp/1MX," which is sort of an ancestor of the transfers people use now. When I started playing it, I didn't find any of the online writeups adequate, and my p and I had to work out quite a lot for ourselves.

Over a double, or other conventional action by overcaller, it is General Convention Chart in the ACBL.
Over a pass or a natural overcall, it is Mid-Chart.

A fairly complete writeup of transfers after a natural overcall is at http://www.bridgewit...titive_bids.doc

[chasetb]

1.) Yes, I bet it was Mitch Dunitz. I know MeckWell play it, as do most top partnerships.

2.) I have a limited experience with it (no willing partners), but it beats the pants off of standard in a regular partnership. Just be sure to talk about it and make sure you know what happens after the the transfer and acceptance or lack thereof. In particular, how strong can 1M - (X) - 2M-1 be?

3.) I have heard that it is GCC from several national TDs, so I take their word. On the ACBL Convention Chart, what I think covers it is either #2 or #5 under Competitive. Under #2, it says Conventional Doubles and Redoubles (technically, a takeout double is a convention) and all responses thereto. Based on this one, either side can use it after 1♠ - X . #5 allows Transfer Advances after an opening bid and an overcall by either side, like 1♠ - 2♣ .

4.) I have two links for you. The first link goes to a complex Precision Club system written up by Oliver Clark. What you want is called MOTOR, and it's on page 16. That page alone directly covers your questions.

For using it in competition, Marc Smith wrote this great article on Transfer Advances. Basically, you can use the same exact methods even if your side is the one interfering. Jeff Rubens came up with the original idea, so some people call them Rubens Advances.

[whereagles]

Transfers in competition work ok for overcall advances (e.g. (1x) 1y (pass) ??, with 2x...2y-1 as xfer), and their usefulness increases with the level of overcall, i.e. after preempts.

There is also some xfer stuff written down for situations such as

1M (dbl) ??
1m (dbl) ??

And you can also make it work ok after

1♥ (1♠) ??
(1x) dbl (pass) ??

But it is VERY HARD to make it work in other situations, such as e.g.

1x (2y) ??

[biggerclub]

 whereagles, on 2014-July-05, 01:43, said:

1) . . . and their usefulness increases with the level of overcall, i.e. after preempts. . . .

2) . . . But it is VERY HARD to make it work in other situations, such as e.g.

1x (2y) ??

I don't understand why these two sentences don't contradict one another

[RMB1]

 biggerclub, on 2014-July-05, 23:10, said:

 whereagles, on 2014-July-05, 01:43, said:

1)...
2)... But ...

I don't understand why these two sentences don't contradict one another

Hence the use of "But"?

[fromageGB]

I use them after a major open, and a sequence such as 1x (2y) or 1♠ (2♦) is far more common than 1x (1y). I see no reason why they could be thought hard to work. We play double and all bids up to 2M as transfers, any strength if to new suits, and "transfer to 2M" is not a transfer per se, but shows a normal "full strength" raise. For us this is 7-10 3 card support, or 7/8 4 card, with stronger hands shown by 2NT (3 card) or cue (4card), and weaker hands shown by direct M bids if wanted. What's hard work about that? Rather than complete the 2M "transfer", of course opener may make a trial bid etc.

Bids above 2M we play as natural (apart from 2NT and their suit) with a suit bid that could have been shown by transfer being a fit jump.

Easy to use, and if you also play Rubens transfer advances, you can adopt essentially the same meanings, modified for overcall strength agreement (eg if you overcall on a 3 count, your raise bids need to be much stronger).

If extending this to jump overcalls, then of course the support bid meanings would need to be modified, and there is the question of whether X is penalty or takeout or transfer.

[whereagles]

 biggerclub, on 2014-July-05, 23:10, said:

I don't understand why these two sentences don't contradict one another

No. Situations are different. One refers to the overcalling side, the other to the opening side. These seem similar, but they are in fact VERY different. (Just try and figure out a scheme for your own and you'll see what I mean...)

[Siegmund]

Personally I feel the opposite of whereagles -- I tried transfer advances and ultimately gave up on them, feeling I hadn't gained anything from them, whereas I would love to be able to play transfer responses in 1y-2x and 1x-2y auctions (especially over a polish style club and an overcall) but the ACBL won't let me.

They are indeed very different situations - but they also differ in whether the transfer puts the right or the wrong person on lead, and in how badly you need to create extra sequences.

[biggerclub]

 whereagles, on 2014-July-06, 06:50, said:

No. Situations are different. One refers to the overcalling side, the other to the opening side. These seem similar, but they are in fact VERY different. (Just try and figure out a scheme for your own and you'll see what I mean...)

I think I am having a problem with the terminology then rather than the concepts. I agree that bidding following an overcall is vastly different than bidding following an opening bid. But I am unfamiliar with the use of x and y to distinguish the two.

Still. . . . .

[ArtK78]

I play transfer advances after 1Mx. It works quite nicely. We have chosen to play 1♥ - (x) - 1♠ as natural, however.

[wodahs]

We've played them for 2-3 years, but starting the transfers at XX, and leaving 1NT = normal, because 1NT has some positional value. So 1♥ (X); then

XX = spades
1♠ = clubs
1NT = normal
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = 'good' single heart raise, say constructive
2♥ = annoyance

We also use them after partner overcalls, say (1♦) 1♠ (X); then

XX = clubs
1NT = normal
2♣ = transfer cue, usually a limit raise+ (distinguish from 3♦ with pard, maybe 3♦ shows a 4-fit)
2♦ = hearts (unlikely here)
2♥ = good single spade raise
2♠ = junk



We also use a similar system in most auctions after any three suits have been bid, we have bid one of them, and double is a legal call. You lose whatever you now use 'X' for, but you gain a single raise and in many cases, a suit transfer. Transfers start with X, and (if partner has bid) end with the suit below partner's suit, or (if partner has passed) end with your rebid. First eligible position is 'snapdragon' position say (1♦) 1♥ (2♣); then

X = transfer cue
2♦ = constructive
2♥ = junk

So that often evolves to Transfer Snapdragon. Those particular bids don't produce a suit transfer, but (1♦) 1♠ (2♣); then

X = transfer cue
2♦ = hearts
2♥ = constructive
2♠ = junk


At opener's rebid, the system evolves to Transfer Support X, say 1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♦); then

X = hearts
2♥ = good raise (in Support X fashion, you might equate 'good' = 4-raise)
2♠ = bad raise (maybe 3-raise)

You can play those Transfer Support X beyond the usual Support X range (probably with both raises showing 4-fits), say 1♣ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠); then

X = club rebid
2NT = normal
3♣ = diamond reverse
3♦ = good heart raise in context, better than
3♥ = competing


These positions can arise deep in an auction ... here is one analogous to Maximal Doubles. (1♦) P (1♥) X; (2♥) 2♠ (3♥) then

X = stronger spade raise than
3♠


And if partner has not bid, you gain a very powerful self-transfer situation say 1♦ (1♥) P (1♠); then

X = clubs
1NT = normal
2♣ = self-transfer strong rebid (maybe equivalent of normal 3♣ jump)
2♦ = normal rebid


We also use them when partner has overcalled and opener's suit is raised say (1♣) 1♥ (2♣); then

X = diamonds
2♦ = solid heart raise
2♥ = competing

You lose responsive doubles here, so we're careful when we overcall 1♥, not to also hold four spades (we'll find some excuse to making a takeout double instead). The system is very useful when the opps pre-empt say (1♦) 1♠ (3♦) where a standard raise to 3♠ has a wide range;

X = hearts
3♥ = solid spade raise in context
3♠ = competing

[Free]

We play an entire level of transfers, and if handled well it's a great addition. If you're an idiot when presented with too many options it's better not to play it, before someone starts transferring crappy 5 card suits to play at 2-level.

I like the transfer to 1NT, because you make the strong hand lead. Also on some occasions you don't have a fit or a stopper, but you do have values, in which case you can comfortably rightside the contract and ask for a stopper later.