[el mister]

Just started playing a basic transfer response structure after we open a major. If RHO doubles, or overcalls 1♠, is it reasonable to play an iterative one-under ladder of responses e.g. after 1♥ X then:
XX = spades
1♠ = 1N
1N = clubs
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = solid heart raise 7-9
2♥ = weak heart raise

We're just starting with it so something easy to remember is good, but wasn't sure about the 1N bid - is there value in having a natural 1N there for responder? What's a typical structure here? Thanks.

[BillHiggin]

el mister, on 2020-September-02, 10:49, said:

Just started playing a basic transfer response structure after we open a major. If RHO doubles, or overcalls 1♠, is it reasonable to play an iterative one-under ladder of responses e.g. after 1♥ X then:
XX = spades
1♠ = 1N
1N = clubs
2♣ = diamonds
2♦ = solid heart raise 7-9
2♥ = weak heart raise

We're just starting with it so something easy to remember is good, but wasn't sure about the 1N bid - is there value in having a natural 1N there for responder? What's a typical structure here? Thanks.

You might find it useful to look at https://users.cs.fiu...odifiedC1MX.pdf for an existing set of agreements for this situation. They differ from you on 1S (they play that as transfer to clubs) and 1N (they play that as semi-forcing).

[nige1]

If your partnership play 4-card majors, a simple response structure is feasible:

• 1M (X) ??
• Pass = BAL (3 card support - if you bid again).
• 1N = NAT N/F.
• XX ... = TRF to next suit e.g.
• 2M-1 = TRF 7-10 HCP 4 card support or 12+ HCP 3 card support..
• 2M/3M/4M = PRE NAT.
• 2N+ = ART 11+ HCP 4+ card support .
• J/S to 2♠+ = SPL singleton or void 4+ raise to 3 or 5.
• J/S to 3♠+ = SPL void 4+ card raise to 4.

[Vampyr]

We keep the XX for penalty (I think you need that) and 2♠ is natural. We don’t have a bid to show a balanced hand 7-9 with a stopper in, presumably, the other major. Not convinced it is necessary to have that.

[miamijd]

I think your agreement is the most common "standard expert" one here in the USA. You laid out the H sequence. The S sequence is similar, with XX being the "transfer" to 1NT (it could be a three-card spade limit raise, too).

You do NOT need XX for penalty. You just pass the double and then double when the bidding comes back around to you.

Cheers,
Mike

[el mister]

Adding to this after playing it a while - it seems to be working ok for us. Certainly the core idea of discriminating major suit raises is massive, but we've had a few times where pard is stuck for a bid holding a natural 2N sort of hand.

e.g. 1♠ - 2♥ (overcall) to pard holding something like a balanced 10 no fit.

We don't currently have 3♣ defined - is it reasonable to use this bid as a catch-all invitation? Like 10+ no fit.

[paulg]

We play 1♠ - (2♥)

Double = takeout (typically your 10+ balanced with no spade fit)
2♠ = simple raise (in reality this is fairly wide range)
2NT = transfer to clubs
3♣ = transfer to diamonds
3♦ = good 3+ spade raise (essentially a limit raise)
3♥ = mixed raise, 4+ spades, 7-9 points
3♠ = pre-emptive

There are trade-offs given the limited space, but we are happy to miss out on differentiating between a good and poor raise to two spades.

We also changed from distinguishing between three- and four-card limit raises to gain a mixed raise.

[awm]

I’ve always played that redouble is natural (value showing) as is 1♠, and transfers start with 1nt. Basically we sacrifice the natural 1nt to get better definition on hands with a long suit and on raises.

In higher auctions like 1♠-2♥ I’ve found that distinguishing between the invitational and game force raise is quite important. Opposite the invite opener will often want to jump to 4♠ which is great for concealment but awkward when responder has a mild slam try; also the GF raise creates a forcing pass if opponents bid more while the invite shouldn’t. This seems a lot better to me than distinguishing 3- and 4-card raises or mixed vs weak raises (mixed raise can always bid 2 and compete to 3).