TRANSFERS AND RELAYS
Answers from P.Sridhar.
Questions from R.VENKATESH
I have 3 questions on modern system developments:
1) Traditionally transfers were played only against
our 1NT/2NT openings, but modern systems employ transfers in many situations.
What are the factors / parameters you will be consider before deciding whether
to play transfers or not in any given bidding situation? –
ANSWER
:To my mind there are 3 prime reasons for transfer bids (a) Make the strong hand the declarer as it is
likely to contain tenaces (b) Place the overcaller on lead on the assumption he is likely to hold
majority of High cards in defense (c) in situations where you wish to be heard
again, eg in an overcall over their 1N, your bids
represent a wide range in hcp and shape ; or over
partner’s 1nt ,opg RHO competes .
-----
Please elucidate (pros and
cons based on the above parameters) if transfers are recommended in the below
scenarios:
a) After partner opens
standard 1m opening-
ANSWER : 1level transfer are very popular as
they place opener as declarer ; makes ‘pre-balancing’ difficult for opponents
as the Transferer is unlimited. When responder is stronger (OR) holds wild shape , his hand coming down as dummy is not desirable as
opponents can cash out easily. So I suggest a combination of transfer at one
level on balanced or minimum hands and natural jump shifts as GF with hands
that are stronger and shapely.
-------
b) After partner opens 1m
opening and
ANSWER : Jump Overcalls are usually weak and
there is no merit in making the overcaller on lead;
he might lead a singleton ! Another consideration is the artificial transfer
bid may be DOUBLED facilitating exchange of info by opponents; I prefer natural bidding here.
-------
c) After partner opens 1NT
and
ANSWER : Rubensohl
is a useful tool and it meets the objectives outlined in point 1 – I am in
favor of this .
--------
d) After
ANSWER : it is unlikely we will win
declaration, so the lead factor is nearly absent ; I do not see any merit or
demerit ; I prefer to either PREEMPT or make 2 suiter
O/C over strong club – it has more destructive elements.
---------
e) After partner opens strong
club opening—
ANSWER :Transfers are most desirable here, as
it meets the objectives stated in point 1 ; Mcwell play
it successfully
---------
f) Our Preempts –
ANSWER
:I do not see any merit here for transfers, except lead indication; but it
gives more opportunities for them to balance and get into auction ; I am not in
favor ( yes, I used to play this , but discontinued it now)
----------
g) After partner opens std 2c Opening-
ANSWER :Tranfers
at 3 level are useful as all the objectives stated in point 1 apply here
-----------
h) After partner opens 1s and
ANSWER
:Here the objectives are met but the disadvantages of (1) LHO doubling (2)
opener’s dilemma with certain shapes that contain shortness in your suit offset the benefits to an extent ; I am
neutral ; I do not play transfers here but I have no dispute with those who
play transfers either.
----------
i) After partner opens at 1 level and
ANSWER : I find the transfers very effective
here as it meets the objectives and also facilitates aggressive competition.
----------
j) After
ANSWER :I do not want the weak 2 opener to
be on lead ; I also wish to be able to show ranges of HCP , so I prefer lebensohl here.
----------
2) Traditionally relays were associated with strong
club systems like Precision, Power precision etc. Modern bidding systems employ
relays in many situations.
What are the factors / parameters you will be consider before deciding whether
to play relays or stick to natural methods in any given bidding situation? Does
the responder or the opener usually start the relay asking bids? As part of
relay response what is the order of priority to show i)
hcp, ii) distribution iii) Aces or controls? –
ANSWER
: Relays are effective when a player is in a position to take control , find
out what his partner has and decide the final contract ; the relay will bring
out shape, HCP and controls in that order of priority ; it is useful in slam
auctions when you hold a strong hand ( usually balanced) and your partner opens
the bidding. The results are amazingly accurate in this specific situation.
However (1) relays suffer when there is competition ( very common ) , in a
sense it suffers the same fate as strong club opening when opener is forced to
make his first natural bid at 4 level
sometimes; and (2) when partner opens and you have a shapely hand , GF , it is
preferable to use natural methods . In summary I prefer Natural methods and for
me relays represent an additional strain on memory that I can do without – pl
note one small memory lapse and you can write off 13 imps with certainty ! I have seen many star pairs suffer this in real life.
-----------
Please elucidate (pros and cons based on the above
parameters) if relays are recommended in the below scenarios: --
a) 2c after partner opens standard 1M opening –
ANSWER :I hate this since it robs me of
natural club bid ; but many stars play this , so I will reserve my opinion
-----------
b) 2c after we open standard
1M and partner responds 1n or 1s-
ANSWER
: the Italian version of this is very successful and finds worldwide
appreciation; a thorough understanding is required as their methods are
elaborate - I definitely recommend this
specific Italian version , – after all what is good for the World champions is
good for us !
-----------
c) 2c after we open standard
1d opening and partner responds 1M-
ANSWER : No , I prefer natural methods here,
I do not see great benefits here Vs natural methods
-----------
d) 1n after partner opens
Precision 1M opening –
ANSWER :
The Precision structure of natural bidding is good enough, we do not
need relays here
-----------
e) 2c after the auction
1d-1M-1NT-
ANSWER : the specific relay of crowhurst is useful , I prefer nothing else
------------
f) 2d after we partner opens standard 2c opening –
ANSWER :2C opening has already used up 1
level , I prefer natural bidding , may be transfers are fine
------------
g) 2NT response after partner
opens Weak 2s-
ANSWER : yes, this is an ideal situation for
relays , I recommend this
-------------
3) Traditionally 2NT was used as a natural Invitational
bid (11-12). Modern bidding systems use 2NT for a variety of
other purposes? What are the parameters / factors you will consider
before using 2NT as an artificial bid? Please eloborate
on 2NT used as Lebensohl, Rubensohl,
Scrambling, Good-Bad, Unusual etc. ---
ANSWER :All these 5 situations stated by you
are very useful and highly recommended – they help in showing range and shape
which are vital for any constructive bidding, I am a fan of these. Only
consideration is that the situation should not warrant a natural 2N ( you can
perhaps use a DOUBLE to substitute this requirement)
-------------
Please elucidate (pros and cons based on the above
parameters) if 2NT should be used artifically in the
below scenarios:
a) After we open 1m, Opponents bid and support a major at 2 level with partner
passing—
ANSWER :I recommend good bad 2N by opener
here ; my suggestion is 2N should be good option so that opener can declare 3N
if that is the final contract; it also helps a free competition at 3 level by
opener without any fear of misleading partner on his assets.
---------------
b) After we open 1m,
Opponents bid and support a major at 2 level after
partner makes a negative double-
ANSWER : here I prefer Lebensohl
responses by opener ; it helps describe his range of HCP and places partnership
in a good position to assess game chances Vs part score competition. Of course
we should bear in mind that opener cannot bid 2N naturally !
---------------
c) After
ANSWER : here the second double is
competition for minors usually and I do not see any merit for using 2N
artificially ; I prefer natural bidding here.
----------------
d) After LHO opens 1M and
raised by
ANSWER :here 2N as Michaels is useful ; 2N
in 4th seat can be for competition in minors
---------------
e) After we open 1S, LHO bids
2m doubled by partner –
ANSWER : Here there is room for bidding at 2
level ; so I do not see any merit in 2N artificial
---------------
f) After partner open 1NT,
ANSWER : Both lebensohl
and Rubensohl are effective , I recommend them. You
can even a play a combination of both.
---------------
g) After LHO opens 1M,
partner bids 1NT,
ANSWER : Here we need to use Double for part
score competition , so 2N natural is desirable and that is my preference.
--------------