Transfer
Bids
Last Updated on 31st December 2007
Contents
|
Date |
Subject |
|
2nd May 2002 |
|
|
2nd May 2002 |
|
|
2nd May 2002 |
|
|
3rd July 2002 |
|
|
15th December 2004 |
|
|
12th December 2004 |
A close decision over a one no
trump rebid from the county match against Nottinghamshire. |
|
8th December 2004 |
A transfer decision over two
no trumps from the Stanley Trophy |
|
2nd May 2002 |
|
|
15th July 2006 |
|
|
19th October 2004 |
A transfer bid is a mechanism by which a suit is promised artificially by bidding another suit or no trumps in particular circumstances. The advantages of using transfer bids are that they can make more economical use of bidding space and that they can ensure that the opening lead is up to the stronger hand rather than through it. The disadvantages are that some natural bids are removed from the armoury and they also provide more freedom to the opponent’s in the bidding. The most common use of transfers are in response to opening bids of one no trump and two no trumps.
Transfer
Responses to One No Trump
Many pairs simply play red suit transfers. In this two diamonds promises five hearts and two hearts promises five spades. Opener completes the transfer by bidding two hearts or two spades respectively. The player making the transfer continues as follows:
|
Bid |
Meaning |
|
Pass |
No interest in game. |
|
Two No Trumps |
Invitational with a 5 card major. An example of this sequence occurred in the 2002 Gimson final. |
|
Raise to Three |
Invitational with a 6 card major. |
|
Three No Trumps |
Game values with a 5 card major. |
|
Raise to Four |
Game values with a 6 card major. |
|
Three of Minor |
Depends on style. Some play it as forcing with 5 in the major and 4 in the minor. Some play it as a weak take out of 1NT in the minor and don’t have the major suit at all. |
Many
expert partnerships extend the transfer mechanism such that two spades is a
transfer to clubs and two no trumps is a transfer to diamonds. They then play transfer responses to the
transfer response, in that, after one no trump – two spades, completion of the
transfer (three clubs) shows less than Qxx in clubs while a bid of two no
trumps shows Qxx in clubs. The
mechanism after the two no trumps transfer is similar; three clubs shows Qxx or
better in diamonds while three diamonds shows worse than Qxx.
An
alternative treatment is to play two no trumps as a transfer to either minor
and to use two spades to show either a raise to two no trumps or a strong
hand. The one no trump opener rebids
two no trumps on a minimum hand or bids their lowest ranking four card suit on
a maximum.
Transfer Responses to Two No Trumps
It is common to play red suit transfers in response to an opening bid of two no trumps. The rebids are as follows:
|
Bid |
Meaning |
|
Pass |
No interest in game. |
|
Three No Trumps |
Game values with a 5 card major. |
|
Raise to Four |
Game values with a 6 card major. |
When to Transfer
|
It is not correct to transfer every time you hold a five
card major and partner has opened one or two no trumps. |
|||
|
|
North ª K84 © AT97 ¨ A752 § J4 |
Dealer
South EW
Vulnerable |
On
this deal from the Glenfield Club Pairs on 3rd July 2002, North
South won most of the match points by playing in one no trump despite having
a 5-3 spade fit and only two small clubs in each hand. The
auction was simple. North opened
one no trump and all passed. East
led
a club and quickly collected five tricks.
The rest went to declarer.
South was pleased to note the traveller disclosed that the other nine
pairs had played in spades and only three of them had made nine tricks. Nevertheless, south’s action in not
transferring is a very close call and probably only vindicated by the fact
that most east’s elected to lead
the jack of diamonds. Without the early attack in diamonds
declarer has time to draw trumps and establish the heart suit for the ninth
trick. The top score went to the
north south pair who were doubled in two spades. Presumably east played it as take
out and west played it as penalties. |
|
West ª T72 © KJ ¨ QT84 § A983 |
|
East ª 63 © Q652 ¨ J6 § KQT72 |
|
|
|
South ª AQJ95 © 843 ¨ K93 § 65 |
|
|
|
The best time to pass one no trump is with 5-3-3-2
distribution, 8-9 points, and
values outside the major suit. |
|||
|
|
North ª 62 © AT963 ¨ Q3 § K753 |
Board
9 Dealer
N EW
Vul |
This
hand comes from the match
between Glenfield A and Barkby A on 15th December 2004. Both Glenfield pairs transferred, one
Barkby pair transferred and the other pair passed. Consider
the hand from North’s point of view.
They have passed initially, East has opened
one no trump and both South and West have passed. It looks eminently reasonable to protect
with two hearts. That is what
Dennis Bradley and Geoff Mead did. I
would have doubled
with the West hand but, fortunately for Glenfield, the Barkby West did
not. They escaped for two down and a
score of –100. At
two tables, one for Glenfield and one for Barkby, East-West bid to three no
trumps. One no
trump from East, two diamonds from West, two hearts from East, two no
trumps from West and three no trumps from East. That would be my preferred sequence, vulnerable, at teams. The contract makes on a minor suit lead
but the defence should prevail if South leads
a major. In the event, three no
trumps was made against Lesley Neville & Ken Clayton while Baerbel Sandhu
and Ken Skinner finished two down. At
the fourth table, Tim Glover opened
one no trump, Peter Neville transferred and left Tim to play in two
hearts. It was not possible to
overcome the poor heart break and Tim finished one down. Overall,
Glenfield lost fourteen imps on this deal but the team played well as a whole
and they were able to win the match 8-4. |
|
West ª 97 © KQ872 ¨ A62 § JT6 |
|
East ª AKQ3 © 54 ¨ J9754 § A8 |
|
|
|
South ª JT854 © J ¨ KT8 § Q942 |
|
|
|
Similar considerations can apply when considering what to
do over opener’s one no trump rebid. |
|||
|
|
North ª J32 © A9874 ¨ 985 § J4 |
Board
15 Dealer
S NS
Vul |
This
hand comes from the county
match against Nottinghamshire played on 12th December 2004. Tim
Glover opened
one diamond, Peter Neville bid
one heart and Tim rebid
one no trump. Peter
then had to decide whether to pass or bid two hearts. With five hearts and no outside entries,
it might be best to bid two hearts.
The hands fit well and this looks to just lose one spade, two diamonds
and a club for nine tricks. Peter
actually decided to pass. The defence
was merciless. Tim won the club lead,
unblocked the hearts and tried a spade to the jack. East took the ace and returned a
spade, forcing Tim to open the diamonds from hand. East later pointed out that, had Tim led high spades from hand
she would have been obliged to duck
twice and be forced to open the diamonds herself. This is true but Tim would have looked a chump had West had the
ace of spades. These
decisions cost the Leicestershire second team six imps. |
|
West ª 865 © J65 ¨ Q4 § Q9632 |
|
East ª A94 © T32 ¨ AT75 § A87 |
|
|
|
South ª KQT7 © KQ ¨ KJ32 § KT5 |
|
|
|
Conversely, over a two no trump opening bid, it may be
better to play in no trumps on weaker hands and transfer with stronger hands. |
|||
|
|
North ª JT964 © J9 ¨ JT7 § J96 |
Board
13 Dealer
N Game
All |
This
hand comes from the Stanley
Trophy on 8th December 2004. Peter
Neville opened the East hand two no
trumps, South passed and Tim Glover decided that there were likely to be
at least as many losers in hearts than in no trumps and raised to three no
trumps rather than making a transfer bid of three no trumps. In fact, either contract goes at least two
down if South leads a high spade.
However, South is much more likely to lead a high spade against a
heart contract than against no trumps.
Indeed, at the table, Yasser Haider led a low spade and Peter cashed
the first ten tricks. Yasser
was in good company; Brian & Sheila Stockdale, Peter White & Bharat
and Robert Northage & Pat Watson also failed to beat three no
trumps. |
|
West ª 2 © Q6432 ¨ K52 § 7543 |
|
East ª Q7 © K8 ¨ AQ86 § AKQ82 |
|
|
|
South ª AK853 © AT75 ¨ 943 § T |
|
|
Breaking the Transfer
|
Some pairs allow the one no trump opener to “break the
transfer”. This shows four card
support for partner, a maximum hand and a doubleton in the suit bid. Such a convention would have been useful on
this deal from Glenfield Bridge Club on 4th September 2002. |
|||
|
|
North ª T72 © K7 ¨ J8653 § KQJ |
Dealer
East EW
Game |
East
opened
one no trump, south passed and west, not playing transfers, bid two
hearts. All passed and north led
the king of clubs. West ducked
and north continued with the queen of clubs. Declarer won, took the trump finesse,
drew a second round of trumps and gave up a club. Dummy’s diamond loser was discarded on declarer’s nine of clubs for
eleven tricks. Only
two pairs (Joan Hope and Pam Leeson & Lesley Neville and Ken Clayton)
succeeded in bidding the game. A
plausible sequence is one no
trump from east, two diamonds (transfer) from west, three diamonds
(breaking the transfer) from east, four hearts from west. An
alternative sequence, not involving the breaking of the transfer, is one no
trump, two diamonds, two hearts, two no trumps, four hearts. The
board was played nine times; the other seven pairs played in two hearts. Four pairs made eleven tricks while five
made ten tricks. The defence to hold
the contract to ten tricks is for north to lead
the five of diamonds
as either the opening
lead or when in for the first club trick. This forces west to guess the diamond position. The
hand was defended successfully by Anne Thomas & David Taylor, Derrick
Symonds & Bill Young, Brenda Coltman & Anne Moncrief and Peter Tyers
& Dennis Bradley. Please
note, breaking the transfer may not be a good idea if you have agreed that
the transfer may be the beginning of a rescue into a minor suit. |
|
West ª 53 © QT843 ¨ A4 § AT96 |
|
East ª AK94 © AJ96 ¨ QT § 732 |
|
|
|
South ª QJ86 © 52 ¨ K972 § 854 |
|
|
Rescuing to a Minor
|
The importance of having a mechanism to play in three of
a minor opposite a one no trump opener was illustrated from this hand, played
at Glenfield, on 2nd May 2002. |
|||
|
|
North ª 742 © 653 ¨ QJT962 § A |
|
South
opened
one no trump and north bid two no trumps; a transfer to either three
clubs or three diamonds. South bid
three clubs; a relay bid. North then bid three diamonds.
With spades breaking kindly, there was no difficulty making ten
tricks. With most pairs playing in
one no trump and making seven or eight tricks this was worth most of the
match points. Most
pairs would have had a mechanism to play in diamonds. Some
would go through Stayman;
one
no trump from south, two
clubs from north, two hearts from south and three diamonds from north now
shows a hand that wants to play in three diamonds. Some
would begin with two diamonds, a red suit transfer. North would transfer to two hearts and south rebids three
diamonds to play there. Some
would play two spades as a transfer specifically to diamonds. South with two small diamonds would
complete the transfer by playing there. Some
North’s play a system where two diamonds is natural. This has the advantage on hands where
eight tricks is the limit. All
of these methods have implications on other sequences in response to one no
trump. Have you discussed these
situations with your partner? Are you
on the same wavelength? It
is poor judgement by North to pass one no
trump. A club lead
looks probable and the hand will then only have chances in no trumps when
south has at least three diamonds and, even then, if they are worse than AKx,
you will need diamonds to break 2-2 or a poor defence to score better than
the diamond part score. |
|
West ª J93 © KJ7 ¨ A53 § J972 |
|
East ª AT85 © QT8 ¨ K7 § 8543 |
|
|
|
South ª KQ6 © A942 ¨ 85 § KQT6 |
|
|
|
Tim’s Statistics IMPs |
Partner |
Transfer For |
Imps |
Imps/bd |
Transfer Against |
Imps |
Imps/Bd |
|
Peter Neville |
1 |
0 |
0.00 |
1 |
0 |
0.00 |
|
|
John Glover |
2 |
-5 |
-2.5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total for 2006 |
|
3 |
-5 |
-1.67 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Neville |
|
|
|
1 (2) |
1 (1) |
1.00 (0.50) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total for 2007 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
3 |
-5 |
-1.67 |
3 |
1 |
0.33 |
|
Site Map Last Updated 31st December 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Home
Page |
|
||||||
|
2. Newsletters, Photos and Correspondence |
|
|
|||||
|
3. Competitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1 Bidding |
|
|
|||||
|
6.1.1 Hand Evaluation |
|
||||||
|
6.1.2 Opening Bids |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
6.1.3 Responding to an Opening Bid |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
6.1.3.1 Responding to 1NT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1.3.2 Responding to 2NT |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
6.1.4 Conventions |
|
|
|
||||
|
6.1.4.1 Conventional Opening Bids |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
6.1.4.2 Competitive Conventions |
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
6.1.4.3 Slam Conventions |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
6.1.5 Doubles |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
6.1.6 The Protective Position |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.2 Declarer Play |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.2.1 General Technique |
|||||||
|
6.2.2 Trump Management |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3 Defence |
|
|
|
||||
|
6.3.1 Defensive Tactics |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
6.3.2 Opening
Leads |
|
|
|
||||
|
6.3.3 Plays in Third Hand |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
6.3.4 Entry Management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.4 Probability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|