[mike777]

I am finally ready to add transfers over one club openings. However, the options feel overwhelming. Any recommendations or links to prior ideas, appreciated.
The basic framework is: 2/1, 5 card majors, strong NT, one club=2+ (clubs or balanced), one diamond=5+ and unbalanced.
Thank you in advance.

[DavidKok]

Here are some relatively simple and well documented suggestions. I think these are not best, but they improve on 'standard' in simple and obvious ways with limited downside. It's therefore comparatively easy to switch over.

• T-Walsh - there was discussion on style in both this thread (despite it explicitly mentioning not using T-Walsh) and your previous unbalanced diamond thread. I've also seen Michael Goetze's T-Walsh be linked frequently, though I think it's not the best starting point.
  
• Unbalanced diamond, transfer rebids after 1♦-1M is straightforward. In the previous threads I mentioned my own preference, which differs from these transfer rebids.

[mw64ahw]

I play 2 very different versions of TW

The first version uses 1♣ - 1♠ as GI/GF with opener then shaping out. 2M are always promised unless long Clubs. This approach established strength early.

I also play a version which plays transfers/relays up the line, with strength usually determined later. It also uses 1C-1S & 1C-1D-1H-1S to show certain types of hand.

I have tested a number of approaches given this is the most frequent bid. I do have a preference for a 3+ unbalanced ♦ given this almost guarantees 2M in the 1♣ opening and reduces overloading in that bid.

Happy to share notes on these.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 03:18, said:

I am finally ready to add transfers over one club openings. However, the options feel overwhelming. Any recommendations or links to prior ideas, appreciated.
The basic framework is: 2/1, 5 card majors, strong NT, one club=2+ (clubs or balanced), one diamond=5+ and unbalanced.
Thank you in advance.

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2025-November-22, 17:32, said:

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

[mw64ahw]

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 17:59, said:

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

It's easier to play one system rather than two.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-November-22, 17:32, said:

What do you plan to open with 4=4=4=1? I suggest 1D is 5+ except 4441

For me 1♦ is 5(+) unless 4=4=4=1 or 1=4=4=4 (open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣ over 1♠), and never balanced (not 5♦332).

mike777, on 2025-November-22, 17:59, said:

Definitely

I was also wondering:
1NT=15-17 Vul and 4th seat, 14-16 otherwise?

And

In third and fourth seat opening 1D with 4 and balanced hand or no?

I think these are complications that might be slightly better than the alternative but might also be slightly worse. I would not include them in your system. It rarely comes up and likely won't matter when it comes up. Spend your time and effort somewhere else, and if you notice that this is a system gap during play only bring it up after.

[mw64ahw]

2♦ as 4441 10~16?

[mike777]

Thank you so much for all the responses. Very helpful, extremely so.

I am really looking hard at my options for transfers over one club. Of course, whatever we adopt, no doubt, will change as we practice it.

I already notice a few issues with the follow up auctions to one diamond openings in our practice deals. Particularly the transfer rebids by opener when stronger and long D.

Mw64ahw ty for your kind offer to look at your notes. I would love to. One concern is decoding your codes.

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2025-November-23, 05:46, said:

I already notice a few issues with the follow up auctions to one diamond openings in our practice deals. Particularly the transfer rebids by opener when stronger and long D.

On 1♦-1M you can rebid 2♣ and then bid again to show these hands. Alternatively, the jump bids can be allocated to dealing with hands like this. There is a lot of room for customization here, though I've not seen a set of complete notes explaining what goes where. Personally I prefer a Gazzilli approach which uses these sequences differently.

[awm]

I think Mgoetze's structure is a good one (linked above). In general you need to make two decisions about your methods after 1♣:

1. What does accept of the transfer show? I think the better approach is that it shows a weak notrump (with 1NT rebid showing a stronger notrump) but I've also seen people play that it shows exactly three-card support.
2. What does 1♣-Pass-1♠ show? It seems popular to play this as kind of a noise that could be almost any hand without a four-card major, but I believe that the Mgoetze approach (where it shows a specific minor) is better, since it's not unusual for opponents to come in with 2M in fourth chair after this response.

[mw64ahw]

awm, on 2025-November-24, 03:31, said:

I think Mgoetze's structure is a good one (linked above). In general you need to make two decisions about your methods after 1♣:

1. What does accept of the transfer show? I think the better approach is that it shows a weak notrump (with 1NT rebid showing a stronger notrump) but I've also seen people play that it shows exactly three-card support.

Even with 4?, which is what I play so partner can Pass
1♣ - 1R - 2M then shows extras & 3 (unbalanced) or 4

[awm]

mw64ahw, on 2025-November-24, 07:03, said:

Even with 4?, which is what I play so partner can Pass
1♣ - 1R - 2M then shows extras & 3 (unbalanced) or 4

Obviously you can do what you want, but I wouldn't recommend rebidding 1M on four. The issue is that this forces partner to give out some extra information on routine hands, and some sequences also become more awkward because of the four-card support possibility (i.e. partner bids 2-way checkback and 2M shows three so I guess jump to 3M shows four? But now you've lost a whole level, plus given opponents the chance to double checkback for the lead).

[mw64ahw]

I don't think I've encountered an issue yet if both ops have passed. I do end up playing in 1M on occasion with 0+&5. If ops. compete then it's a different story. With x4(50) I can offer the minor or play in NT or show 45xx/55xx The direct raise is 4/3 unbalanced with extras and game orientated hands can enquire further. No need for checkback.