Food for thought

“Transfers partner?” This common enquiry when a new partnership is pending usually results in the rapid reply of “Yes” or “No”. If you like transfer bids, I suggest it is worth considering the reply: “Yes and no!”

Transfer responses to an opening 1NT were developed originally when the strong NT (16-18 hcp) was in vogue. The argument was that in a trump contract an opening lead up to the strong NT hand invariably created an extra trick, or tempo, for declarer, whatever the final level. This is less true for the weak-NT. Fewer tenace positions are likely to be present in opener’s hand.

Furthermore, as the defence proceeds, with a weaker hand being fully exposed, it is relatively easy to pin point declarer’s hcp, being strictly in the range 12-14. A direct weakness takeout may lose the advantage of placing the opening lead, but creates more of a counting problem for the defence. Declarer may have zero up to even 10 hcp on occasions.

Nevertheless, transfer sequences do solve many of the problems a responder can have with intermediate-strength hands of about 11 hcp. Red-suit transfer enthusiasts may also use the response 2S to elicit more useful information from partner, and/or head for a Minor suit contract. With a 5+-card major, responder simply transfers to that Major and rebids 2NT with a 5-card suit, but 3 of the Major with a 6-card suit. Non-transfer partnerships find it more difficult to deal with these relatively common situations.

Many players follow this latter scheme with stronger hands. After asking partner to transfer, they rebid 3NT with say 13+ hcp and a 5-card Major, or 4 of the Major with a 6-card suit. This can mean that the responses of 3H or 3S or 4H or 4S to 1NT never occur. Whenever there is an unused sequence a partnership should ponder. Can one have one’s cake, and eat it? In this case the answer may be “Yes”.

If responder, declines to use a transfer sequence then the hand can be credited with several tenaces that could gain from an opening lead. For example, holding:

S J 10 9 x x x

H K x

D A Q

C A 10 x

Opposite a weak NT opening, then a direct bid of 4S is liable to produce a safer contract than a transfer sequence. On the other hand with:

S A K x x x x

H x

D K Q J

C x x x

The NT bidder would be a more suitable declarer. A transfer sequence to 4S would be appropriate.

With the same distinction and 5-card Majors a forcing 3-level bid could be better with the first type of hand, a transfer bid followed by 3NT with the latter. Doesn’t that take the biscuit?!