[FrancesHinden]

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of the objections to playing 3S as artificial and including some hands that want to sign off in 3NT. I suspect that the objectors play 3C as artificial, play 3D as artificial, play 3H as artificial... all on hands that have a high probability (I agree not certainty) of ending in 3NT.

There is a balance between (i) improving your auction and (ii) helping the opponents. The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for. The debate between 3NT artificial (and needing another way to get to 3NT) and natural is exactly the same. You might well disagree where the balance lies, which is fair enough, but I don't understand comments like 'borderline silly'.

FWIW we play 3S as both minors and 3NT as natural after a 2NT overcall of a weak 2 opening because the slam hands are less common and the possibility of a double much higher (particularly after a protective 2NT bid e.g. 2H P P 2NT P 3S...). We play a different 3C bid there as well because choice of the right game is relatively more important and slam auctions less frequent.

[bluecalm]

Quote

The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for.

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M.
I saw some people play methods like accepting tranfer = support but those are very bad methods imo. Being able to top in 3M is huge after 2N, especially at MP's.

[Vampyr]

 bluecalm, on 2012-March-17, 15:34, said:

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M.

This is what I believe as well, and I am surprised to see that Frances disagrees.

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-17, 12:14, said:

Oh, OK. I didn't think of that, since I play Kokish, so with the most common range (20-b22) 4♠ is already wrongsided.

You mean you play Reverse Kokish.

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

[Statto]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-18, 18:56, said:

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

Not sure I agree, there is such a thing as developments, progress, etc.

[awm]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-17, 12:43, said:

I'm a bit surprised at the strength of the objections to playing 3S as artificial and including some hands that want to sign off in 3NT. I suspect that the objectors play 3C as artificial, play 3D as artificial, play 3H as artificial... all on hands that have a high probability (I agree not certainty) of ending in 3NT.

There is a balance between (i) improving your auction and (ii) helping the opponents. The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for. The debate between 3NT artificial (and needing another way to get to 3NT) and natural is exactly the same. You might well disagree where the balance lies, which is fair enough, but I don't understand comments like 'borderline silly'.

I suspect the point is that there are a large number of hands opposite a 2NT opening where you just want to play in 3NT. When you use a red-suit transfer bid (or stayman, for that matter) it's because you suspect there is a strong possibility that 3NT will not be your best game. Thus you give the opponents the opportunity to double for the lead in exchange for better game bidding. Also, the lead-directing double tends to be a lot less useful against a suit contract than 3NT, and when you transfer you suspect pretty good odds that 3NT will not be the final contract. At minimum, if opponents do lead direct (and opener doesn't have the suit locked up) you have a very reasonable place to run (a major fit of 5-2 at worst).

Forcing 3NT signoff hands to go through 3♠ (or 3♣, for that matter) means you are sending a large number of hands where you never aspire to any contract other than 3NT through a method that allows a lead directing double. Your only gains from this are going to be on awkward slam hands which are certainly less frequent. Further, you don't have a good place to run most of the time if they lead-direct and opener doesn't have the suit controlled (unlike the transfer auction). Similarly, bidding puppet with a (32)xx hand will occasionally get you to a superior 4M game, but far more often you have simply helped the opponents on defense.

It does seem like a poor tradeoff to me.

[MickyB]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-18, 18:56, said:

You mean you play Reverse Kokish.

Hint: any convention which is properly called Reverse <name of eminent bidding theorist> is likely to be flawed.

'Normal' Reverse Kokish [putting 22-24 through 2H] is indeed flawed - has anyone ever actually used this to stop in 3m? Wrong-siding is a much more frequent issue.

However, when the range is 20-21 or so, opening 2C [to allow you to stop in 2M] or rebidding 2H [to allow you to stop in 3m] is much more reasonable. Maybe Kokish thought of this method and discarded it for some reason; but then again, maybe he didn't.

[Statto]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-17, 12:43, said:

The only real advantage of red suit transfers as they are usually played is to get opener to be declarer in 4M, yet most people think the 'right-siding' element is worth paying the 'let them double the transfer bid' price for.

Huh? Showing a 2-suiter, finding a 5-3 fit, doesn't everyone know that? Not to mention slam tries...

[gnasher]

 Statto, on 2012-March-18, 19:42, said:

Huh? Showing a 2-suiter, finding a 5-3 fit, doesn't everyone know that? Not to mention slam tries...

You can do all of those without playing transfers. After 2NT-3♠ (natural), opener bids 3NT without spade support, or cue-bids with spade support. After 2NT-3♠;3NT, responder shows a new suit by bidding it. 2NT-3♠;3NT-4♠ shows a slam try.

What you would lose by not playing transfers is:
- The ability to play in 3M.
- The option for opener to break a transfer.
- The sequence 2NT-3♦;3♥-3♠ (but you get 2NT-3♥;3♠ instead).
- The rightsiding benefits.
- Information leakage when opener cue-bids unnecessarily.

What you would gain is:
- Responder knows immediately whether there's a major-suit fit, which simplifies slam sequences.
- The unused sequence is 2NT-3♦ instead of 2NT-3♠.
- Reduced opportunities for lead-directing doubles.

[FrancesHinden]

 bluecalm, on 2012-March-17, 15:34, said:

Isn't the main idea of transfer to be able to make wide ranging bid showing a suit thus allowing to stop in 3M, play in 4M or offer choice of games (as well as make slam try with 5M-4+m) ? I think "usual way to play them" caters for possibility of being able to play 3M. I saw some people play methods like accepting tranfer = support but those are very bad methods imo. Being able to top in 3M is huge after 2N, especially at MP's.

No. You don't need transfers to play in 4M, offer choice of games or make a slam try. Gnasher pointed out a couple of other potential advantages (and disadvantages) of playing transfers.

"Being able to stop in 3M" is not "huge" at either IMPs or at MPs. It's an extremely rare hand. I was persuaded to change to (ostensibly) playing game forcing transfers when my partner asked me to name one - one - hand ever where we had used a transfer to stop in exactly 3M and it was the right spot. I couldn't. (In fact we play accepting the transfer = support so responder could pass this if he wants, but often we'll just pass 2NT instead on a 0-count.) There hasn't been one where we've missed out since, either. There was a hand in a match the other week where both tables played in 3H-3 on the auction 2NT-3D-3H-Pass (we were defending). 2NT would have been 2 off, so playing our methods we would either have gained an imp or two, or played in 3NT-3 for a flat board.

Now I've pointed it out, keep a look out for hands where you stop in 3M and it's a better spot than 2NT. Don't forget that hands where partner breaks the transfer and you go off in game don't count. Nor do hands where partner doesn't break the transfer but game makes. I admit my main focus is on IMPs, so personally I am particularly interested in where 3M makes and 2NT (or 3NT/4M) goes off.

By the way, my 2NT openers are generally very disciplined so I will have doubleton support for partner's major. If you like opening 2NT on 5431s or 4441s with a singleton top honour, never mind 6322s, that is likely to make stopping in 3M worse, because opener might rustle up 8 tricks playing on his own long suit.

[mikeh]

In one partnership, I agreed to play 3N as confit, with 3♠ puppeting to 3N with a variety of hands, either to play or all slammish.

We had only one confit auction in which we reached a good slam where I felt any doubt that we wouldn't have reached it otherwise, and of course it failed on a bad trump break, to lose 12 imps.

We didn't have any auctions, that I recall, wherein a double of 3♠ cost us. I think the danger of the lead-directing double of 3♠ is overstated.

As others have pointed out, we routinely use stayman, and red suits as transfers, and few worry about the lead-directing double....indeed...haven't we all played in the doubled suit, sometimes redoubled? And when 3♠ is a puppet to 3N, while it will rarely be with a 4 card spade suit, it will frequently come with 2 or 3, and opener can redouble or pass with interest in playing, so my message to those who suggest lead-directing doubles on a good 4 card suit is....bring it on.

Having said that, my experience with confit is such that I truly think it a waste of time. It allows us to use 2N 4N for a specialized purpose, but (in our methods) that purpose arises rarely and can be accommodated with only a minor loss of precision in another sequence.

Another partner likes 3N as to play and 3♠ as a puppet, which seems redundant at first glance, but we only bid 3♠ on hands in which we are not playing 3N, and only playing notrump with substantial values....if they want to warn us off 4N and into 5m, that's ok with us, as one example....meanwhile, if we do play 3♠ xx'd, we are going to have a lot of hcp going for us, as well as good spades in opener's hand.

[han]

Is Gnasher able to show 2-suiters when opener has 3-card support for the major? If not it seems like a loss compared to transfers.

I have played 3NT as natural and artificial and I don't have strong feelings on the subject if both partners are able to remember the agreement. I do think that the "you play other artificial bids so don't complain about this one"-argument is not very strong.

[gnasher]

 han, on 2012-March-21, 18:40, said:

Is Gnasher able to show 2-suiters when opener has 3-card support for the major? If not it seems like a loss compared to transfers.

I'm not actually recommending giving up transfers, but I don't think sequences like 2NT-3♦;3♥-4♣ are a good advertisement for them. Opener usually knows which suit he wants to play in, but responder doesn't. Opener may have a good hand with a fit, a normal or bad hand with a fit, a hand with no primary fit that wants to sign off, a hand with no primary fit but still some interest, etc. He has to fit all of those into a few bids, without knowing how strong responder is. It's hard to have a good auction when only one player knows what trumps are and the other one knows what the partnership's combined assets are.

In contrast, playing natural methods after 2NT-3♥;4♣, both partners know that there's a heart fit, and opener has shown some suitability. Opener doesn't know about responder's side suit, but we have got quite a lot of definition in return, and can actually have a sensible auction.

Quote

I do think that the "you play other artificial bids so don't complain about this one"-argument is not very strong.

I agree in general. but this was intended as a refutation of "Artificial bids let the opponents double for the lead, so you shouldn't play them." In that context, it's quite a good argument.

[han]

[quote name='gnasher' timestamp='1332425004' post='623566']
I'm not actually recommending giving up transfers
[\quote]

I know.

[DrMunk]

 MickyB, on 2012-March-18, 19:28, said:

'Normal' Reverse Kokish [putting 22-24 through 2H] is indeed flawed - has anyone ever actually used this to stop in 3m? Wrong-siding is a much more frequent issue.

...

Are Reverse Reverse Kokish better than Reverse Kokish?

[Avoidance]

If you currently play 2NT-3NT as CONFI and want to keep it, but are convinced by Bluecalm's arguments, you could instead
use a Walsh Relay to combine i)the heart transfer & ii)CONFI (2+ control points balanced/semi-blanced slam try) in your 3D response:

2NT-3D*
3H- 3S* CONFI - control ask (reponder's other rebids promise 5H+)

2NT-3D*
3S (4-5H 5-7 control points A=2 K=1)-3NT CONFI control point ask (responder's other rebids promise 5H+)

2NT-3D*
3NT (4-5H 8 control points) -4C (CONFI- ask for 2nd suit/distribution - 4D/4S/5C 2nd suit, 4H = 5H 4N = 3433)
(responder's other rebids promise 5H+)
2NT-3D*
4C (4-5H 9 control points)


(Or 2NT-3D*-3NT(S)/4C/4D (4-5H 8 control points 4-5 card suit/shown bid 3+ of top 4 in that suit)-next step (not 4H)-CONFI ask for 2nd suit/distribution
2NT-3D*-4H 4-5H 8 controls no strong side suit/(9 control points), then 4S = CONFI)

etc.