[thepossum]

I considered ignoring this transfer for a few reasons. 1. They are new and seemingly rather useless. 2. I don't really like them and 3. I believe unlike major transfers ignoring them is ok.

This proved very costly at MPs (and I don't mean missing an extra trick)

---

And before anyone says that is the right contract, whatare you complaining about. Its because for some unfathomable reason West did not lead a diamond against those in 3nt (edited for clarification)

[hrothgar]

FWIW, many people play

2!S is a transfer to clubs
2N is a transfers to diamonds

With a hand like yours (with a fitting honor) in partner's long suit, you'd bid the intermediate step to show a super accept and suggest 3N if the suit would run.

GIB (obviously) doesn't play this, so this isn't an option on this hand.

I'm not convinced that passing 2N is a good call.

This only works on the hand in question because GIB made a really bad lead.

It would be interesting to see what the east GIB would have lead against a NT contract.

With respect to the MP score, your auction looks very normal. How were the opponent's improving the contract?

[Cyberyeti]

Tough hand to get to the cold 4♠.

ALso resulting is never good, that GIB didn't find the lead that beats 2N out of hand is not your problem but annoying. You are in the normal spot.

[nige1]

thepossum' I considered ignoring this transfer for a few reasons. 1. They are new and seemingly rather useless. 2. I don't really like them and 3. I believe unlike major transfers ignoring them is ok. This proved very costly at MPs (and I don't mean missing an extra trick)And before anyone says that is the right contract, whatare you complaining about. Its because for some unfathomable reason West did not lead a diamond'
+++++++++++++++++++++
IMO, over 1NT, you do need methods to reach minor contracts.
With a balanced 17 HCP super-fit in ♣, I'd punt 3NT but I fear that GIB would always lead a red suit to defeat the contract.

---

[Vampyr]

hrothgar, on 2020-September-04, 03:29, said:

FWIW, many people play

2!S is a transfer to clubs
2N is a transfers to diamonds

With a hand like yours (with a fitting honor) in partner's long suit, you'd bid the intermediate step to show a super accept and suggest 3N if the suit would run.

The intermediate stop does not show a super-accept; bidding the suit itself does. This is the modern way.

It is particularly useful when you have a weak hand with 55 minors. You transfer to diamonds by bidding 2NT, and when partner bids 3♣, showing no great love for diamonds, you pass as you are probably in your better fit.

[Stephen Tu]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-04, 07:22, said:

The intermediate stop does not show a super-accept; bidding the suit itself does. This is the modern way.

It is particularly useful when you have a weak hand with 55 minors. You transfer to diamonds by bidding 2NT, and when partner bids 3♣, showing no great love for diamonds, you pass as you are probably in your better fit.

It's the modern way if you are using 1nt-3♣ as say puppet stayman and want to be able to cater to 55 minors weak. If you are using an older scheme with 1nt-3♣ as weak both minors, then arguably using the middle step as super-accept is marginally better.

[Stephen Tu]

thepossum, on 2020-September-04, 01:21, said:

I considered ignoring this transfer for a few reasons. 1. They are new and seemingly rather useless. 2. I don't really like them and 3. I believe unlike major transfers ignoring them is ok.

Minor transfers aren't "new"; they've been around for many decades, surely they came in around the same time as major transfers as you kind of want to do something useful with 1nt-2S if you aren't using it for natural any more. New to you, perhaps.

It's a really bad idea to ignore minor transfers for several reasons, which make them not useless:
1. Partner may have a weak distributional hand, without side entries. In NT, you may not be able to reach their long minor after establishing the suit, you could easily be held to only 1 or 2 tricks in the suit and have no prayer of making any number of NT. 3m might make while 2nt (and even 1nt) fails, or 3m may go down less.
2. Partner's distribution might mean 3m just outscores 2nt period, because it prevents opps from running a long suit (like this hand on a more normal lead).
3. Partner may have a slam try, intending to xfer to show the suit then bid on (showing shortness at 3 level). If you pass their transfer you are playing potentially slam in a part score!

The first 2 reasons are why partner chooses to xfer with weak hands rather than just passing 1nt in the first place; you are supposed to trust their judgment that playing in the minor is better.

Just because it happens that 2nt can score better on a black suit lead is just random; on other hands you can do a ton worse if the lead doesn't matter, or if you can't run 2 black suits without losing lead and they get a 2nd chance to find the right shift. If you accept transfer you will do fine since you'll be matching everyone else who is paying attention and realizing the 2nt is xfer, only losing to the random few people who think 2nt is natural AND it's a better contract on a bot lead AND GIB has no 2nd chance to get it right or botches the 2nd chance also.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-04, 07:22, said:

The intermediate stop does not show a super-accept; bidding the suit itself does. This is the modern way.

It is particularly useful when you have a weak hand with 55 minors. You transfer to diamonds by bidding 2NT, and when partner bids 3♣, showing no great love for diamonds, you pass as you are probably in your better fit.

Playing the intermediate STEP of a diamonds transfer as dislike rather than like is also consistent with playing 2♤ as Range Ask plus clubs transfer.

[thepossum]

Top scores were 3nt south with or without overtricks. I was upset then I realised they didn't get a diamond lead

What I meant by ignoring the transfer in this case was not passing but bidding 3nt which I believe is more permissible with minor transfers

[thepossum]

hrothgar, on 2020-September-04, 03:29, said:

FWIW, many people play

2!S is a transfer to clubs
2N is a transfers to diamonds

With a hand like yours (with a fitting honor) in partner's long suit, you'd bid the intermediate step to show a super accept and suggest 3N if the suit would run.

GIB (obviously) doesn't play this, so this isn't an option on this hand.

I'm not convinced that passing 2N is a good call.

This only works on the hand in question because GIB made a really bad lead.

It would be interesting to see what the east GIB would have lead against a NT contract.

With respect to the MP score, your auction looks very normal. How were the opponent's improving the contract?

Hi Richard, as I said it led spades against 3nt. I wasn't very clear sorry

[thepossum]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-04, 09:52, said:

Minor transfers aren't "new"; they've been around for many decades, surely they came in around the same time as major transfers as you kind of want to do something useful with 1nt-2S if you aren't using it for natural any more. New to you, perhaps

Indeed, a lot of bids were new to me since I started playing GiB 2/1 a few years ago

It seems to every convention under the sun on it's card plus some unique bids of its own

When I learned via basic acol I think the only conventional bids i knew were strong 2C, strong 2s, strong and weak nt, Blackwood standard, Stayman, major transfers, and a few simple signals etc

Oh I forgot. I learned a few basic conventional leads against suits and especially NT

[Stephen Tu]

thepossum, on 2020-September-04, 15:51, said:

What I meant by ignoring the transfer in this case was not passing but bidding 3nt which I believe is more permissible with minor transfers

No, it's not permissible, because as like major transfers, partner may have a very weak hand with zero interest in game. Transferring may just be a small chance to make 3m, and often going down 1, plus partner thinks leaving you in 1nt is likely down even worse, and simultaneously may score better than some major partial the opponents might reach if he passed 1nt instead.

3nt will make you play a hopeless game or a level higher than you want.

Minor transfers are often rather weak or very strong, as in the middle range of strength responder is usually just going to blast 3nt if there's a reasonable chance to make it.

[thepossum]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-04, 17:27, said:

No, it's not permissible, because as like major transfers, partner may have a very weak hand with zero interest in game. Transferring may just be a small chance to make 3m, and often going down 1, plus partner thinks leaving you in 1nt is likely down even worse, and simultaneously may score better than some major partial the opponents might reach if he passed 1nt instead.

3nt will make you play a hopeless game or a level higher than you want.

Minor transfers are often rather weak or very strong, as in the middle range of strength responder is usually just going to blast 3nt if there's a reasonable chance to make it.

Thanks Stephen. This is a clear case where 3NT is disastrous with the correct lead. I just read it somewhere, thats all, if you felt your NT opener was strong enough to cover the other suits

[Vampyr]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-04, 09:33, said:

It's the modern way if you are using 1nt-3♣ as say puppet stayman and want to be able to cater to 55 minors weak. If you are using an older scheme with 1nt-3♣ as weak both minors, then arguably using the middle step as super-accept is marginally better.

Yes, probably. But 5-card Stayman is increasingly popular.

But why play it as Puppet? You don’t need to give the information that opener has a 4-card major.

[sfi]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-04, 09:33, said:

It's the modern way if you are using 1nt-3♣ as say puppet stayman and want to be able to cater to 55 minors weak. If you are using an older scheme with 1nt-3♣ as weak both minors, then arguably using the middle step as super-accept is marginally better.

I'm interested to hear why you think using the middle step is better. There is another more subtle, but IMO more important, reason to make bidding the suit the superaccept.

If you do so, responder plays 3m when you don't know whether they were weak or invitational (looking for a fit). Opener plays 3m when responder's hand strength is revealed. Using the middle step as a superaccept reverses that, so the defence knows more about responder's hand when they declare.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-04, 19:28, said:

Yes, probably. But 5-card Stayman is increasing popular.

But why play it as Puppet? You don’t need to give the information that opener has a 4-card major.

I strongly suspect Stephen is using 'Puppet' as shorthand for 'asking for a four or five card major', rather than mandating the same responses he's using over a 2NT opening. I've not seen anybody good play the sequence 1NT - 3C, 3D as guaranteeing a four card major.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2020-September-04, 19:32, said:

I strongly suspect Stephen is using 'Puppet' as shorthand for 'asking for a four or five card major', rather than mandating the same responses he's using over a 2NT opening. I've not seen anybody good play the sequence 1NT - 3C, 3D as guaranteeing a four card major.

Perhaps. Most will ask for a four-card major with 2♣.

[Stephen Tu]

sfi, on 2020-September-04, 19:32, said:

I strongly suspect Stephen is using 'Puppet' as shorthand for 'asking for a four or five card major', rather than mandating the same responses he's using over a 2NT opening. I've not seen anybody good play the sequence 1NT - 3C, 3D as guaranteeing a four card major.

Yes. Asking for a 5 cd major, or *showing* a four card major after 3d only denies 5 cd major. Actually think the original version of puppet stayman worked this way, where 3c is puppeting to 3d most of the time (or 2c to 2d over 1nt). The version over 2nt that got popular with 3d showing 4 cd major, 3c isn't really a puppet IMO.
Perhaps a bit strangely, I think the std version of puppet over 2nt openings is so bad that I typically ask partners to just play regular stayman over 2nt and only play puppet over 1nt. (I hate the interference with Smolen hands, also I really can't remember the last time a team pwned me by bidding to making 4M on a 5-3 fit while I went down in 3nt). I could probably be persuaded to play a souped up modified Muppet or Romex type version but most partners seem content to just play regular.

[Vampyr]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-September-04, 20:02, said:

Yes. Asking for a 5 cd major, or *showing* a four card major after 3d only denies 5 cd major. Actually think the original version of puppet stayman worked this way, where 3c is puppeting to 3d most of the time (or 2c to 2d over 1nt). The version over 2nt that got popular with 3d showing 4 cd major, 3c isn't really a puppet IMO.
Perhaps a bit strangely, I think the std version of puppet over 2nt openings is so bad that I typically ask partners to just play regular stayman over 2nt and only play puppet over 1nt. (I hate the interference with Smolen hands, also I really can't remember the last time a team pwned me by bidding to making 4M on a 5-3 fit while I went down in 3nt). I could probably be persuaded to play a souped up modified Muppet or Romex type version but most partners seem content to just play regular.

I play a simple version of Puppet Stayman, with 3♥ denying majors and 3NT showing ♥. I have found it to be successful, actually. Playing 2NT-3♠= please bid 3NT is OK; we have found a few minor slams this way. 2NT-3NT as Baron never comes up, and I would be grateful if someone would give me another idea (not natural though - too boring!)

One thing that people around here like to do, after opener shows a 4-card major with 3♦, is bid 4♣ and 4♦ to show both majors. Hilarious.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-04, 19:51, said:

Perhaps. Most will ask for a four-card major with 2♣.

To quote your earlier post: "You don’t need to give the information that opener has a 4-card major."

Using 3C means you can often have responder show a four-card major so the defence has less information. It also takes a bunch of hands out of a 2C response (any hand with one four-card major that knows what level to play), so you can use bids for other things.

It all depends on whether you have a better meaning for 3C. I don't, and I think hiding distribution from the defence is a big win.