[MickyB]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-06, 13:45, said:

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?

It's almost like right-siding isn't the main advantage of transfers

[ArtK78]

MickyB, on 2014-July-06, 13:50, said:

It's almost like right-siding isn't the main advantage of transfers

When playing a 10-12 1NT, game and slam considerations, while not unimportant, are not the first priority. Getting to a playable contract while also preventing your opps from getting to theirs are the primary considerations. Playing transfers, in addition to wrong-siding the contract when the hand belongs to you, gives the opps more space to get into the auction. It gives them another bid - double of the transfer suit. They can also bid your suit for takeout. So, there are a number of downsides to playing transfers over the mini-NT that are not as important playing any form of stronger NT opening.

I have set out the system of responses that I play to the mini-NT opening several times on these fora. They were devised by Paul Soloway and Mike Passell, who were ardent proponents of the mini-NT. There are transfers involved - transfers by opener to make responder the declarer on game forcing auctions.

[akwoo]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-06, 14:48, said:

When playing a 10-12 1NT, game and slam considerations, while not unimportant, are not the first priority. Getting to a playable contract while also preventing your opps from getting to theirs are the primary considerations. Playing transfers, in addition to wrong-siding the contract when the hand belongs to you, gives the opps more space to get into the auction. It gives them another bid - double of the transfer suit. They can also bid your suit for takeout. So, there are a number of downsides to playing transfers over the mini-NT that are not as important playing any form of stronger NT opening.

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 15:01, said:

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

I assume you mean bidding the suit shown rather than balancing with a double? Doubling the transferring suit might be sensible as penalty-seeking against a mini. I don't know, I don't see it that much either.

Quote

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

It's probably listed prominently on their card, though, and would be included in any description of their general methods.

[helene_t]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 15:01, said:

.... ACBL .....

Vampyr, on 2014-July-06, 15:39, said:

It's probably listed prominently on their card, though, and would be included in any description of their general methods.

[ArtK78]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 15:01, said:

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

Well, maybe the ethics in your local area aren't as high as ours. When I play a mini-NT, I preannounce that fact (along with the fact that we open all 10 counts nonvul 1st & 2nd).

I don't see why it takes any special memory load to know how to handle transfers. Everyone plays them. We don't when playing mini-NT. The principals are the same whether the opening NT is strong, weak or mini. It is just that the need to compete is much higher against a mini-NT.

We also don't have any two-session open pairs at our sectionals. The vast majority of the players prefer one-session open pairs at sectionals.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-July-06, 15:51, said:

Well, quite, but even if the opponents don't volunteer thir basic methods it seems normal to ask. And/or to look over their card.

[Fluffy]

There was a pair of ladies who systematically doubled 1 mayor to show 4 cards in the other and opening strength, regardless of anything else.

They were convinced this is standard, and I had some heated arguments wih them for lack of alerting, but obviously they didn't even consider that. This agreement, despite being obviously flawed, had a lot of success at match points, they never got to play 5-1 at the 3 level after a silly double.

After some years they have started to play with some other people and now are realizing that their methods are not standard (after some new arguments with their new partenrs)

[awm]

Players often copy what they see from the more successful pairs they are familiar with. We see this a lot on the forums too, with people copying Fantoni-Nunes methods, or the growing trend of playing 1♣ "clubs or balanced" with transfer responses.

Bad players do much the same, except they are less likely to be familiar with the methods of the truly top-flight pairs. Instead, they copy the methods of the most successful pairs in their local game. Of course, these pairs may be successful in spite of their methods rather than because of them, and sometimes the bad players combine methods that don't really "fit" or to which they don't know the right continuations...

An example I noticed during my time in LA was the increasing popularity of "Montral Relay" in the local club because one of the better pairs there played it. Of course, this pair won (consistently) because of superior card play and because they knew how to take advantage of the weaker players in the field (they had played at this club together for decades) and not because of their methods, but we still saw lots of "copycats."

[blackshoe]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 15:01, said:

Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

Very few people do it, but it seems to me this is a good argument for looking at the opponents' system card when they (or you) arrive at the table.

I had a woman once tell me, in a very supercilious voice, "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." This was after I suggested to her that the answer to the question she repeatedly asked my partner (who didn't know the answer, and said so) was on the card. Personally I thought, and still think, that to be a pretty stupid attitude.

[akwoo]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-06, 15:54, said:

Well, maybe the ethics in your local area aren't as high as ours. When I play a mini-NT, I preannounce that fact (along with the fact that we open all 10 counts nonvul 1st & 2nd).

I don't see why it takes any special memory load to know how to handle transfers. Everyone plays them. We don't when playing mini-NT. The principals are the same whether the opening NT is strong, weak or mini. It is just that the need to compete is much higher against a mini-NT.

People around here don't pre-announce these things. Back when I played weak NT (in a different part of the country), I did preannounce.

I was lazy in my writing. What I meant was that one might want to play different methods over transfers opposite 10-12 than over transfers opposite 15-17. Are the principals really always the same?

Frankly, most partnerships don't get around to discussing what to do over opponent's transfers, since against 15-17 one rarely wants to get in the auction anyway. (Actually, maybe one should, but...)

blackshoe, on 2014-July-06, 16:47, said:

Very few people do it, but it seems to me this is a good argument for looking at the opponents' system card when they (or you) arrive at the table.

I agree, and I usually do it, but sometimes one is behind time-wise, in a rush, and forgets.

[steve2005]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-06, 13:45, said:

Personally, I agree that transfers over weak NTs are not that great an idea, but there are many players who disagree with me. In fact, in the one partnership that I have that plays a weak (11-14) 1NT, we play transfers.

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?

Transfers greatly increase the number of hands you can show. You have to decide weather this is worth opponents having two chances to double or overcall.

not much experience with 10-12 but would agree with you, yet people still use transfers.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 17:19, said:

Frankly, most partnerships don't get around to discussing what to do over opponent's transfers, since against 15-17 one rarely wants to get in the auction anyway. (Actually, maybe one should, but...)

I use any excuse to get into the auction after a strong NT. I thought it was generally understood that one should interfere soundly over weak NT and much less so over strong NT. Anyway that is what I believe, and what I do.

[neilkaz]

Vampyr, on 2014-July-06, 18:43, said:

I use any excuse to get into the auction after a strong NT. I thought it was generally understood that one should interfere soundly over weak NT and much less so over strong NT. Anyway that is what I believe, and what I do.

Some of this getting into the auction on any excuse after a strong NT is based on the fact that many pairs in the "modern" game find it quite difficult if not almost impossible to double low level contracts for penalty.

Other factors are that defense is more difficult for most pairs than declarer play and that defense is especially difficult in new or pick up partnership below real expert level even if agreement on signals has been reached.

As a result unsound bids aren't punished badly if at all and for example, some who overbid 3 over 3 in comp. make their contract when they should fail and also when they should have set the opps had they passed, but perhaps their mediocre defense would have allowed the opps to make. Hence, players' experiences tend to indicate that when in doubt, just bid.

[neilkaz]

There's a shocking number of bad ideas floating around concerning 1NT openings.(All this is based on 15-17) LOL one player that I briefly sat across from insisted upon having a 5 card minor to open 1NT. Another who sat across from me had in his profile "I only open 1NT if I have at least 3 cards in each major"..ROFL learn how to play a 5-2 M fit at the 2 level. I left after that hand.

Then there's the comments about having two doubletons when I opened 1NT with a hand like KT,QT9x,AQ9xx,Ax (don't tell me you want to reverse with that opposite a pickup esp. with no agreements). Heaven forbid that I ever upgrade a super 14 count. Other PD's have booted me from the table for opening 1NT when 5332 and my 5 card suit is a major.

LOL .. neilkaz ..

[beatrix45]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-06, 09:58, said:

It is good to know that you consider Fantoni and Nunes, amongst others, weak players. It is sad that they overestimate their abilities and even go to national trials and other major events. I strongly suggest you point this out to them at your next Bermuda Bowl.

Fantunes system is very complex and well thought out. Maybe in their context they needed transfers over some of their weak 1NT openers? Maybe they disagree with my opinion? I only base mine on the analysis of some of the best of the North American players, plus my own experience.

1. Right siding the hand for game contracts loses importance opposite the weak NT.

2. Laying down a weak hand with a five card major kinda takes the suspense outta the defense. This can be really bad at MP's.

3. You can't play 2♦, ever.

[beatrix45]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-06, 10:24, said:

Google can't find Kalamute, BC (it keeps directing me to Malamute, Yukon). Google isn't the best map in the world, where are you? We spent our honeymoon mainly in BC with a bit of Alberta, beautiful country.

Kalamute exists where it has always existed - about 30 km off the paved road in central British Columbia. Every 100 years we become visible to the rest of the human race - very briefly.

[helene_t]

Fantoni-Nunes is a bit of a special case because they open all semi-balanced hands with 1NT (maybe not 5M4M but they do open 1NT with 5M4m).

Anyway, it must be very close whether transfers or something else is better. It could be that in certain areas, strong players tend to play one and weak players the other. A pair playing strong NT in Northern England or weak NT in the Netherlands are likely to be good because it is likely that they got their inspiration from international experience rather than just following the local trend. But then again, they could be dinosaurs left over from the Culbertson age or they could be playing something unplayable they made up themselves. In any case, few treatments are so inherently bad that decent players would avoid them for that reason. The 2♠ response mentioned in the OP probably is, though.

[TMorris]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-06, 23:11, said:

Fantunes system is very complex and well thought out. Maybe in their context they needed transfers over some of their weak 1NT openers? Maybe they disagree with my opinion? I only base mine on the analysis of some of the best of the North American players, plus my own experience.

1. Right siding the hand for game contracts loses importance opposite the weak NT.

2. Laying down a weak hand with a five card major kinda takes the suspense outta the defense. This can be really bad at MP's.

3. You can't play 2♦, ever.

You play in a field where you are allowed to play in 2 ♦ with around half the points between you?

To some extent these arguments at club level are around playing what everyone else is playing which means you play it from the same side as everyone else. Alternatively if you play a weak NT in a strong NT environment and use transfers I imagine you are playing it from a different side to most of your opponents which will bias your viewpoint on the matter. However transfers allow so many different hand types to be shown cheaply which you seem to ignore.

The people who open a possibly short club and play transfers over it (an increasingly popular method) seem to me to be effectively playing transfers over their weak NT hand. Why do they do this if there are so many disadvantages?

[Zelandakh]

beatrix45, on 2014-July-06, 23:11, said:

I only base mine on the analysis of some of the best of the North American players, plus my own experience.

Which ones? I took the time to go through every USA CC since 2010 at ecats. Any idea how many pairs played a weak NT? The answer is one, Stansby-Martel. And guess what, they used transfers.

So go back and read MickyB's post above. A clue that it might be relevant comnes from the 7 up-votes it received. Then try opening your mind a little bit - you will become a better player for it. To address your concerns about player quality I will point out that Mike is an ♥A within the EBU grading scheme, making him one of the elite players in England and, perhaps more relevant for you, is also listed as Expert at BBO Skill.

Finally, why ever do you think it is not possible to play 2♦ after a weak NT when playing transfers? Ever heard of Exit Stayman? My personal choice of scheme allows playing in 2♦ most of the time by playing 2♣ as Puppet rather than ordinary Stayman; but even when I used a scheme based on the latter I included the weak diamond hands within 2♣ to maximise the chance of avoiding the 3 level. Or do you think that 4-way transfers is the only reasonable transfer-based approach?

Beatrix, I am sure you feel that you are an expert that has little to learn from these forums and much to teach but I urge you to calm down a little bit. There are some truly great players posting here and taking such a caustic attitude as you have done so will not endear you to nor impress this community. Those of us that have been here for a few years have seen it time and time again. Occasionally such playes get it, make a couple of contrite posts, and become a part of the community. Sadly the majority do not and end up missing out on becoming a part of this fantastic resource. So please, take a time out and think about what you want to get out of BBF. It would be nice if you chose to join us here rather than descend into the Realm of the Troll.