[straube]

Do transfer advances apply for passed hands? We play two contradictory things...transfer advances and fit non-jumps by passed hands and realized that they clashed last night. I think our auction was P (1S) 2H P 3D which was meant as a strong raise but which I took as a fit non-jump.

[han]

I would not play transfers here, the main upside (NF + F) is gone.

[akhare]

Well, if new suits by PH are going to be considered as fit non-jumps, why not retain the transfer semantics?

Not using transfers does allow advancer to bid 2N naturally, but then we can't distinguish between "good and bad" raise of the overcall.

The real question to ask though might be whether a new suit by a passed advancer implies a fit for the overcaller and if so, at what level.

For example:

1) P - (1S) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ -> Natural implying ♣ support?
2) P - (1S) - 2♥ - (P) - 3♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support?
3) P - (1♦) - 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

straube, on 2011-May-05, 15:08, said:

Do transfer advances apply for passed hands? We play two contradictory things...transfer advances and fit non-jumps by passed hands and realized that they clashed last night. I think our auction was P (1S) 2H ( P ) 3D which was meant as a strong raise but which I took as a fit non-jump.

In the auction you show:
P - (1S) - 2H - ( P )
??
..2S! = transfer to 3C
..3C! = transfer to 3D
..3D! = transfer to 3H which is a better raise than:
..3H

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-May-05, 17:01, said:

Well, if new suits by PH are going to be considered as fit non-jumps, why not retain the transfer semantics?

Not using transfers does allow advancer to bid 2N naturally, but then we can't distinguish between "good and bad" raise of the overcall.

The real question to ask though might be whether a new suit by a passed advancer implies a fit for the overcaller and if so, at what level.

For example:

1) P - (1S) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ -> Natural implying ♣ support?
2) P - (1S) - 2♥ - (P) - 3♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support?
3) P - (1♦) - 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ -> Natural implying ♥ support?

Side point, but 2N is never a transfer. It's a mixed raise. Also, the cue bid is available for a hcp with three trump sort of raise.

I think most people play transfers are off for a passed hand. In our case, passed hand had already an opportunity to show a good suit and declined. Starting probably at the 2-level, a suit bid ought to be a fit-showing bid (see Robson/Segal). One could argue that we could play transfers and have our cake and eat it, too (i.e. overcaller accepts the transfer and gets to play there OR after accepting the transfer, advancer removes to overcaller's suit showing it was a fit bid) but that won't work because overcaller needs to know immediately whether this is a fit bid or a potential I-have-a-better-suit-than-you bid.

For example...

P (1S) 2H P 3C (3S)

It matters quite a bit whether 3C is a fit-showing bid (with diamonds) or just diamonds.

So let's say that we agreed to play transfers but it was always transfers with a fit and not a desire to play a different suit. Well, there isn't much point in that except to allow opener the chance to double an artificial bid for the lead.

[whereagles]

You don't need FNJs in the case you showed because RHO passed. If you wanna show an FNJ type of hand you transfer and put it back in the ovecall suit.

FNJs are more useful when RHO bids, especially if he makes a support bid.

[straube]

whereagles, on 2011-May-06, 05:49, said:

You don't need FNJs in the case you showed because RHO passed. If you wanna show an FNJ type of hand you transfer and put it back in the ovecall suit.

FNJs are more useful when RHO bids, especially if he makes a support bid.

I don't think so. The case I showed illustrated that the message can be lost if opener makes an intervening bid. In this example, opener may want to bid 4H if partner has a fit but may want to pass if partner has diamonds. Similarly, advancer won't know what to do if 3S is passed around to him.

[awm]

I like transfers still on by passed hand.

I don't think I play fit non-jumps to the degree you seem to play them. For example I don't think P-1♦-1♠-P-2♣ shows any particular spade tolerance at all (I could have a "weak two in clubs") and while the three-level auction P-1♠-2♥-P-2♠ (clubs) won't be based on short hearts, I wouldn't define it as showing a "real fit."

The main advantage to the transfers by passed hand is that they let you distinguish between five-card-suit plus fit (transfer-correct) and six-card suit plus tolerance (transfer-pass).

[akhare]

awm, on 2011-May-06, 08:55, said:

I like transfers still on by passed hand.

I don't think I play fit non-jumps to the degree you seem to play them. For example I don't think P-1♦-1♠-P-2♣ shows any particular spade tolerance at all (I could have a "weak two in clubs") and while the three-level auction P-1♠-2♥-P-2♠ (clubs) won't be based on short hearts, I wouldn't define it as showing a "real fit."

I concur -- it's one less thing to remember. If they get a free X of the suit below the transfer, so be it...

[whereagles]

straube, on 2011-May-06, 07:42, said:

I don't think so. The case I showed illustrated that the message can be lost if opener makes an intervening bid. In this example, opener may want to bid 4H if partner has a fit but may want to pass if partner has diamonds. Similarly, advancer won't know what to do if 3S is passed around to him.

Usually he who transfers after having passed originally will have support for overcaller's suit. E.g.

pass 1♠ 2♥ pass
3♣ (diamonds)

You can't be pushing to the 3 level purely on a diamond suit because you'd have opened a weak 2 or 3♦. Arguing the diamond suit might be unsuitabe for a preempt is dodgy: neither the hand nor the suit got any better since round 1 of bidding. So the only reason to bid is to have heart support + diamond side suit (5 cards or 4 good ones, obviously).

So you can keep passed hand transfers because they're basically FNJs anyway

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-May-06, 09:49, said:

I concur -- it's one less thing to remember. If they get a free X of the suit below the transfer, so be it...

I'm fine with transfers then for ease of memory and I like the suggestion that a passed hand may want to play 2m. I don't think that we should allow for a passed hand to introduce a suit higher than 2m in the face of 1) having declined to preempt in the first place and 2) potentially misfitting partner. I don't think having tolerance is enough by a passed hand. Let's say that transfers to contracts higher than 2D are fit-showing.

[dake50]

The main advantage of transfer advances is ONE SCHEME always.
So yes ON by passed hand.
The transfer topped by MaxPass lets signoffs be easy.

[fromageGB]

straube, on 2011-May-06, 13:06, said:

I'm fine with transfers then for ease of memory and I like the suggestion that a passed hand may want to play 2m. I don't think that we should allow for a passed hand to introduce a suit higher than 2m in the face of 1) having declined to preempt in the first place and 2) potentially misfitting partner. I don't think having tolerance is enough by a passed hand. Let's say that transfers to contracts higher than 2D are fit-showing.

I like this. Simple, sensible, and I am going to suggest my partnership adopt it.

Over their overcall of our opening major we play transfers up to 2M, with fit non jumps at the 3m level for the same reason, if you are a passed hand (but natural and forcing if not passed), so we should do that same in the inverse situation of us overcalling them instead of just transfers as we do now. A transfer to higher than 2D is a FNJ if a passed hand.