transfers & weak NTs: results vs. field?

[henry...@yahoo.com]

I wasn't able to add this message to the prior thread of this title,
so apologies in advance for the confusion.

One element of the decision as to whether or not to use transfers over
a weak 1nt opening bid is often cited as 'it gives the opponents two
bites at the apple.' The reason for this is that after 1nt p 2h
(natural), 4th seat has to make an immediate decision as to whether or
not to come in over 2h because chances are good that the auction is
going to die if he doesn't.

That argument only holds true when 4th seat has the bulk of their
values. When 2nd seat has the bulk of their values, he can easily opt
for a pass-then-balance strategy if we are using natural signoffs, but
he cannot do so if we are using transfers since at the time responder
reveals weakness, the balancing decision is in 4th seat's hands. So,
after

1nt p 2h ?
p ?

both opponents know of weakness and can balance, or pre-balance,
accordingly. However, after

1nt p 2d p
2h p p ?

only 4th hand knows that responder is weak, and in effect 4th hand is
in no better position than he would have been had the auction gone 1nt
p 2h ?

At one point in my weak 1nt experimentation, I toyed with a scheme
like this;

2c = nonforcing stayman
2d/2h = jacoby
2s = GF stayman but without a 5M (else go through transfers)
2nt = clubs, weak or GF
3c = diamonds, weak or GF (inv hands go through 2c)
3d = GF with equal length in both majors, 4-4 or 5-5, unbalanced
3M = natural, slam try

I wasn't quite able to fine tune the 1nt 2s sequences to my liking,
but the idea of combining the best features of two way stayman and 4-
suit transfers still intrigues me.

Henrysun909

[Walt]

Bob

Here's a theorist you may have bumped into before. I believe he was on OKb. In any case these musings have got to be of interest to you.

Walt