M J Bridge
As with Stayman everyone (I exaggerate only slightly) plays transfers over 1NT.
However, these common features mask an infinity of differences.
Many pairs play only red-
When transfers were first introduced it was in the American game where the strong no trump held sway. It was not desirable to play a weak take-
From this historical situation have arisen two common misconceptions:-
i) that transfers are a kind of weak take-
ii) that the purpose of transfers is to ensure that the strong hand becomes declarer.
These are, indeed, two important aspects of transfer bids, but they fall far short of the whole story.
The principle strength of transfer bids is their versatility.
With a weak hand you can transfer and then pass -
So, the idea that a transfer is little more than a form of weak take-
As for transferring the declarer play to the stronger hand, this is little more than a side bonus. (Apart from anything else, the argument about the strong hand declaring is persuasive when responder is extremely weak, but when responder holds anything in the way of values the disparity is much less pronounced facing a weak no trump.)
Another common by-
Note that when you adopt any transfer system you will lose your weak take-
Your system might incorporate a weak take-
Putting your system together
There are almost as many variations on transfer responses to 1NT as there are bridge partnerships. Most of them, if fully understood by both members of the partnership, work well and there is little to choose between them.
Red suit transfers are probably the most common implementation of the concept in everyday club play.
In this section, as we encounter transfer bids for the first time, I shall recommend what I call ‘simple four-
Following that there will be a complete page of examples showing how four-
There is much to be said for mastering this versatility before trying more advanced variations.
|Overcaller's rebid and beyond|
|Responder's rebid and beyond|
|The continuing auction|