[ewj]

Hi

My partner and I are playing transfer responses to 1♣, and playing 1m-1M-2NT as these 6/3 or 5/4 hands with support for responder's major. But we have some pretty rubbish continuations....does anyone know of any nice ones?

Thanks,

ewj

[paulg]

We play, where M is major shown:

1m - 1M* - 2NT:

3m, 3M are weak sign-offs
3om is game forcing with 4M: 3-level bids now show 3-card support and highlight values/fragment, 4-level bids show shortage.
3OM is game forcing with 5+M 3-level bids now show 3-card support and highlight values/fragment, 4-level bids show shortage.

One problem we found was that the 4-5 hands were too wide-ranging, so we now restrict them to 15-17 points for the 2NT rebid. This means that we use 1m-1M*-4M to show (2425) with 18-19 points and high-level splinters are also very strong.

This all originated with the methods of Welland-Fallenius and Fredin-Fallenius. Both pairs are generous in their system notes.

[mtvesuvius]

Over 1♦-1M-2N, I usually play:

3♣ -> 3♦ then:
-- 3♦ is to play
-- 3oM is GF with exactly 4M
-- 3M is to play
-- 3N is a quantitative invite
3♦ is natural and forcing
3oM is GF with 5+M (Usually a slam try)
3M is Invitational with 5+M
3N is to play

However, this structure becomes completely irrelevant over 1♣, so perhaps it isn't nearly as useful unless playing precision. I use it whenever I play a strong club, so 1♦ is limited... Then the 2N bid is a little lighter, and therefore the need for the Invites/Signoffs IMO.

In a 2/1 context I like Paul's structure a lot.

[Zelandakh]

Adam, within a limited 1D opening context, what is the advantage of playing 2NT here as 5m4M/6m3M rather than as, say, a good 3 card raise? Would it make a difference if 1M (or equivalent) is limited to less than 10hcp? To me, at first glance, it actually makes more sense in the Swedish Club set-up where 1C can be very strong; but I need to think about it some. (Yes I have a selfish reason for asking since I currently play 1D - 1S/1NT* - 2NT as a good 3 card raise, where 1S/1NT are weak with spades/hearts respectively.)

For the OP here is the CC of Fredin-Fallenius - the relevant section is Note 6.

[Phil]

When I played transfers / 1♣ with Gnome, here were our auctions (and I really liked them):

1♣ - 1♦ (hearts) - 2N was a SJS in spades, since 2♠ is a strong heart raise.
1♣ - 1♥ - (spades) - 2N is a strong raise of spades. Following this we played step 1, step 2 (balanced extras), 3-5 (lmh shortness), 6-8 (lmh 2nd suit hhxx minimum)

It works the same after 1♦, although 1♦ was unbalanced.

[mtvesuvius]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-11, 08:34, said:

Adam, within a limited 1D opening context, what is the advantage of playing 2NT here as 5m4M/6m3M rather than as, say, a good 3 card raise? Would it make a difference if 1M (or equivalent) is limited to less than 10hcp? To me, at first glance, it actually makes more sense in the Swedish Club set-up where 1C can be very strong; but I need to think about it some. (Yes I have a selfish reason for asking since I currently play 1D - 1S/1NT* - 2NT as a good 3 card raise, where 1S/1NT are weak with spades/hearts respectively.)

For the OP here is the CC of Fredin-Fallenius - the relevant section is Note 6.

I'm not really sure here... I haven't played any systems where 1M responses weren't forcing. Personally I prefer to play 2N as the 6m3M hand because I think that hand is much harder to bid. By giving it such a definitive definition, it allows for better bidding after 2N. I think if it were "any very good 3 card raise", it would be too hard to sort out what strain to play in below 3N, while still being able to sign off when responder is weak.

Perhaps if 1M responses were limited it could work though, since there wouldn't be such thing as slam tries. I can't say from an experience standpoint, just a theory one.

[paulg]

Phil, on 2011-July-11, 10:45, said:

When I played transfers / 1♣ with Gnome, here were our auctions (and I really liked them):

1♣ - 1♦ (hearts) - 2N was a SJS in spades, since 2♠ is a strong heart raise.
1♣ - 1♥ - (spades) - 2N is a strong raise of spades. Following this we played step 1, step 2 (balanced extras), 3-5 (lmh shortness), 6-8 (lmh 2nd suit hhxx minimum)

It works the same after 1♦, although 1♦ was unbalanced.

Would a 16 count with 3 hearts and 6 clubs be sufficient to show a strong heart raise?

[Phil]

paulg, on 2011-July-11, 11:24, said:

Would a 16 count with 3 hearts and 6 clubs be sufficient to show a strong heart raise?

No, a raise would be 4 pieces.

[fromageGB]

Phil, on 2011-July-11, 10:45, said:

1♣ - 1♥ - (spades) - 2N is a strong raise of spades. Following this we played step 1, step 2 (balanced extras), 3-5 (lmh shortness), 6-8 (lmh 2nd suit hhxx minimum)

Phil, sorry, I don't understand the terminology - can you expand on it for me?
Responder's step bids showed what?

[Phil]

fromageGB, on 2011-July-12, 06:21, said:

Phil, sorry, I don't understand the terminology - can you expand on it for me?
Responder's step bids showed what?

2N shows a good spade raise. It can either be any strong hand, but opener also had the option of splintering with 3♦ or 3♥. Over 2N - Responder bids:

3♣ = any minimum (less than a good 8-9), 3♦ by opener asks again if interested.
3♦= extras, no shortness
3♥ = extras, low shortness (clubs)
3♠ = extras, middle shortness (diamonds)
3N = extras, high shortness (hearts)
4♣ = extras, a good second suit in the low suit (clubs) (here, two of the top three honors, at least four pieces)
4♦ = extras, a good second suit in middle suit (diamonds)
4♥ = extras, a good second suit in high suit (hearts)

Our experience with this exact auction was limited, but we liked it because it paralleled our structure after:

1♠ - 2N (forcing raise)

and

2♠ (10-13) - 2N (inquiry).

[fromageGB]

Phil, on 2011-July-12, 08:34, said:

... explanation ...

Many thanks, lmh ! (hits forehead)
Sounds useful, and we can discuss this.