Transfer responses in competition

I've played transfer responses in competition for well over half a year. I liked them a lot, but they were a lot of work. In this post I will give a somewhat brief overview of the agreements we had at the time, with a few teensie modifications at my discretion.
This is not a full explanation of transfers in competition - that would take me too much time to write. However, I want to quickly mention three advantages of transfer responses in competetion, as well as three disadvantages - though obviously these lists are not exhaustive.

Advantages:

Traditionally, responder's bids in competition (such as 1♣-(1♥)-2♦) need to be either not forcing and limited (usually approximately (7)8-11 hcp) or forcing and show decent strength (usually approximately 10+ with no upper limit). Transfers let you mix the two, showing shape on the more frequent weaker range while guaranteeing another bid with the stronger hands. It allows for more shape-oriented bidding in competition.
After partner opens and RHO has doubled or overcalled, we almost always want partner to declare. This is because it puts the known and strong hand on lead, forced to lead away from strength with less information. Even if we hold stoppers in an overcalled suit and we play NT, putting the strong hand on lead is a good idea.
By using transfers we get a cheaper raise, allowing for more ways to show degree of fit at a low level.

Disadvantages:

The structures easily get very complicated, especially once you consider opener's rebids and the continuations.
Transfers always give up one cheap natural call to initiate the transfers to the higher denominations, and if you hold that strain you are behind.
The forcing artificial nature of a transfer gives LHO two bites at the apple plus an extra bid (completing the transfer), and skilled opponents will use this space to better clarify their competitive intentions.

The rules we played were:

Over 1suit-(X)-?, 1suit-(1Y) with Y not being spades, and 1♥-(1♠)-?, transfers starting with (re)double. We require a five card major to transfer into the suit after the opponents have made a takeout double.
Over 1m-(1♠)-?, negative double and transfers starting with 2♣.
On the above auctions, 2♠ and up show specific 2-suiters.
Over 1M-(2m) and 1♠-(2♥)-?, Switch.
Over 1X-(2M) where M is a higher ranking major suit, Rubensohl.
Over 1♣-(2♦ natural)-? , Switch in the majors and Rubensohl.
Transfers to strains at the 1-level show 6+ hcp, at the 2-level show 8+ hcp and at the 3-level show 10+ hcp.

Below I have some examples written out, but they contain aspects that I do not like. My partner and I were experimenting at the time, and I was happy to go along with agreements for the sake of experimentation that in hindsight I think were suboptimal. I've kept the examples, but before playing these again I'd change some bids (in particular, the minor suit raise structure) around.

Spoiler

So, for example:
1♣-(1♥)-? and now:

Pass: Weak any or penalty pass of hearts.
X: 6(+)hcp, 4-5♠.
1♠: 6(+)hcp, transfer to 1NT, no upper limit.
1NT: 6-9hcp, 5(+)♣, transfer to 2♣.
2♣: 8(+)hcp, 5(+)♦, transfer to 2♦, no upper limit.
2♦: 10(+)hcp, 5(+)♣, no upper limit.
2♥: 8(+)hcp, 6(+)♠, no upper limit.
2♠: 5♠5♣, 6-10hcp, NF.
2NT: 5♦5♣, 6-10hcp, NF.
3♣: 5♠5♦, 6-10hcp.

The club raises are a little weird, and you can instead play a simple set with mixed raises over showing the 5-5's:

Spoiler

By contrast, if the overcall is spades it looks more like:
1♣-(1♠)-? and now:

Pass: Weak any or penalty pass of spades.
X: 6(+)hcp, 4(-5)♥.
1NT: 8-10hcp, natural NF.
2♣: 8(+)hcp, 5(+)♦, transfer to 2♦, no upper limit.
2♦: 8(+)hcp, 5(+)♥, no upper limit.
2♥: 10(+)hcp, 5(+)♣.
2♠: 5♥5♣, 6-10hcp.
2NT: 5♦5♣, 6-10hcp.
3♣: 5♥5♦, 6-10hcp.

Instead I would these days suggest playing:

2♥: 6-10hcp, 6(+)♥, NF.
2♠: 10(+)hcp, 5(+)♣.
2NT: 0-6hcp, 5(+)♣.
3♣: 6-9hcp, 5(+)♣.

The switch worked really well. For example, 1♠-(2♣)-? and now:

Pass: weak hand or penalty pass of clubs.
X: Regular takeout double: 8+ hcp, at most 2♠, usually 4-5♥, 4-5♦, 2-3♣.
2♦: 8(+)hcp, 5(+)♥, at most 2♠, no upper limit.
2♥: 10(+)hcp, 5(+)♦, at most 2♠, no upper limit.
2♠: Competitive raise (approximately 4-8).
2NT: Invitational(+) raise setting up a forcing pass (approximately 9+, usually 4(+)♠).
3♣: Invitational(+) raise not setting up a forcing pass (approximately 9+, usually 3♠).
3♦: Fitbid.
3♥: Fitbid.
3♠: Preemptive raise (approximately 0-5, 4(+)♠).

Two brief closing remarks:
1) On specifically 1♥-(X)-?, I believe it is better to invert XX and 1♠ compared to my proposed transfer scheme. In my default agreement XX would show spades and 1♠ would be a transfer to 1NT (which, in practice also implies some spade support). Playing XX as the hand that is comfortable defending, and 1♠ as spades, is likely better - note that this is just standard, no transfers at all!
2) Many partnerships prefer to begin their transfers with 2♣ only, citing the value of a natural 1NT (and it is easier to memorise). Personally I think the transfer to 1NT is a big winner - the siding helps, especially single dummy where the opponents don't know when to lead away from their strength. And when responder has extra values and a defensive hand, often fourth seat is unable to enter the auction and we can take it slow. Of all the transfers in this scheme I think I like this one perhaps most.

Excellent post

I play a different (well, given changes in my regular partnership, I now play two very different) transfer methods. The jury is very much still out on the one I described in the other thread. Neither is close to David’s, which looks interesting and very playable.

I agree with his pro and con points. The main one, imo, is that (as with all transfers, which is why many expert pairs play many transfers in all kinds of situations) the transferring bidder assures himself of another bid (ok, once in a blue moon partner may pass and the auction ends….imagine transfer overcalls of 1N catching partner very short in your suit and weak and long in the suit bid). This has many advantages but does require agreements on how, in competition, both opener and responder describe and evaluate their hands. I think the most problematic are when responder has invitational values and the auction gets high quickly. But there can be other difficult auctions as well. One concern is, as with all ‘close’ decisions, the need to maintain an even tempo…..with a close decision one either makes a non-pass call or one passes….and it’s tough to do that in tempo all the time. We generally use double if partner hasn’t shown support yet.

The differing raises would be my second point. It’s extremely valuable to be able to raise 1S to 2S after a takeout double and know that partner won’t bid without significant extras, which could be strength or shape. Qxx xxxx Qxxx xx at favourable….no way I’m passing but I don’t want him thinking I might have a sound raise, where it’s right for him to keep bidding or even bid game.

The title of the thread refers to transfers in competition. David is, here, discussing auctions wherein we opened. Transfers are also useful when we overcall. For example, there are various schools of thought about the strength shown by advancer changing suits after partner overcalls. As with David’s ideas above, transfers allow advancer to show a long suit (if the auction permits) with both ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ hands, or ‘in-between’.

They arise less frequently than after we open, since often responder makes it difficult to advancer to get into the auction…there may have been three bids before advancer even has a chance whereas when we open, there will have been only two bids. Plus the goals of the overcalling side will often be different in that game auctions are less common in these situations than when we’ve opened.

BBO Discussion Forums: Transfer responses in competition - BBO Discussion Forums