TRANSFER TAXONOMY

Introduction

Transfer bids, in the form of the familiar Jacoby Transfer responses to 1NT and 2NT opening bids, have been around since I joined the ACBL in 1950. The beginning of what I will call modern transfer theory was a series of articles in 1980 and 1981 on "The Useful Space Principle" by Jeff Rubens of The Bridge World, espousing the use of transfers in responding to partner's overcall. In 1981, my 3D and the MAFIA Club made a minor contribution by adding conditional transfer responses to takeout doubles and conditional transfer overcalls; and in 1986 Brian Senior joined the fray with the publication of his The Transfer Principle. Since these pioneering efforts, references to various transfer schemes are becoming more and more common. One can sense the momentum building, but no new transfer scheme has yet achieved popular acceptance in the tournament world, perhaps because no scheme has been available for classifying the various possible transfer structures and referring to them in a concise manner. This article proposes such a scheme for describing the taxonomy of transfer bids.

The Five Basic Types of Transfers

Our classification scheme will be based on the number of suits to which transfers apply. Transfers to notrump are a possibility, so notrump counts as a suit. This gives us five basic types: T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. These can be further subdivided into absolute and conditional transfers, depending on whether partner is required to accept the transfer or may choose whether to accept or not depending upon his holding in the transfer suit. Traditional Jacoby Transfers are absolute, since partner is known to have at least two card support, but in other contexts where partner may have a singleton or void in the transfer suit, conditional transfers may be more useful. We add A or C to the transfer type designator to make this distinction. Thus Jacoby Transfers are T2A.

One-Suited Transfers (T1)

The most common example is the lebensohl 2NT after partner's 1NT opening has been overcalled, which requires Opener to rebid 3C, but does not guarantee any specific holding in the club suit. Such one-suited transfers are usually referred to as "puppets", rather than transfers, since the term "transfer" usually implies some useful holding in the transfer suit. The lebensohl 2NT would thus be classified as T1A.

Two-Suited Transfers (T2)

Jacoby Transfers (T2A) are the common example here. A possible example where a T2C scheme could be considered is in defending against an opponent's two-suited bid such as the Unusual Notrump. Another example is the use of 3C and 3D as "two-under preempts" in hearts and spades. These would be classified as T2+C since partner is given the discretion to accept the transfer directly or to bid the in-between suit. We add the "+" to show that the transfer is to one suit higher than usual; for some exotic scheme in which the transfer shows the suit below the suit actually bid, a "-" could be appended.

Three-Suited Transfers (T3)

The example I am most familiar was referred to in the Introduction: my use of T3C in responding to partner's takeout double. For example, after 1H/Dbl/P, 1S transfers to clubs, 2C transfers to 2D, and 2D transfers to spades, while 1NT is natural, and 2H is a cue-bid showing a good hand with no 5+card suit.

Note: This approach gives up the natural response in the cheapest suit in order to keep the response structure simple and easy to remember. Rubens and Senior take exception to this approach, believing that the cheapest natural bid is too valuable to give up; they start their transfers with the cue-bid of Opener's suit (a transfer to the next higher suit). In my view, the price they pay is more onerous than the loss of a natural bid in the cheapest suit. With their approach, Doubler's partner is often able to show two suits only when strong enough to venture to the 3-level. They lose the strength-showing implications of the order in which two suits are shown: cheapest first = minimum while cheapest last = maximum.

Four-Suited Transfers (T4)

Four-suit transfers after a 1NT opening are becoming quite popular, but most players do not use the simple T4A structure (S->C, C->D, D->H, H->S) I prefer. Instead, they give up a natural 2NT response in favor of a two-tiered approach: the usual T2A Jacoby Transfers for the majors, and a T2+C scheme for the minors (2S->C, 2NT->D). This allows Responder to learn the extent of Opener's fit for the minor, but gives up the natural 2NT response, while gaining the use of a 3C response for any desired nefarious purpose.

Five-Suited Transfers (T5)

This is the ultimate transfer structure, with NT->C, C->D, D->H, H->S, and S->NT. The choice between T5 and T4 schemes obviously depends on which partner should become declarer in a NT contract. T5 would thus not be a good choice after a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening, but might well be preferred after a hyper-modern 10-12 HCP 1NT. T5C becomes an overwhelming favorite when considering a transfer scheme in response to a strong 2C opening. I have had excellent results with my preferred structure, which uses 2D as waiting but not hopeless (an ace, a king and a queen, or three queens); 2H as a super-negative (anything weaker than a 2D response); and all higher bids as T5C showing at least mild interest in slam, with 2S showing a balanced hand and the suit transfers (2NT, 3C, 3D, 3H) guaranteeing Qxxxx or better. Many players think a positive suit response should show a 5+card suit headed by two of the top three honors, but our research has shown that this is so rare opposite a strong 2C, that it is better to relax the suit quality standard; slam will rarely be on unless Opener has a fit for Responder's suit. Note that these are definitely conditional transfers. Opener will only accept the 2S transer when balanced, triggering the usual NT response structure based on Stayman and whatever transfer structure you prefer after a 2NT opening. When unbalanced, Opener will refuse the transfer and start the search for a suit fit. Similarly, Opener will only accept a suit transfer when holding 3+card support; lacking such support, Opener will make a natural rebid and the auction will continue naturally.

Handling Interference

Naturally, the opponents have their own ox to gore, and will often be in there bidding either to make or to disrupt your auction. Before adopting any transfer scheme, you will need to establish some sort of rule defining at what level transfers are turned off in favor of natural bidding. The default rule in the absence of prior agreement, should almost certainly be that all transfers are off over interference. See the article on sterbensohl on the Outer Space page for an example of a T5A scheme when opponents intervene after a 1NT opening. You will also need to decide whether to use double or redouble as a transfer to the cheapest suit, and if so, at what level is this turned off in favor of a punitive double or redouble. I suggest adding a preceding X to the notation scheme to indicate that doubles or redoubles are transfers. Thus XT5C->3S would describe a 5-suit conditional transfer scheme which uses a double or redouble as a transfer to the cheapest suit and which applies when the last interfering bid was no higher than 3S.

Future Directions

This article lays the groundwork for what I expect will be a number of future articles in the Outer Space series targeting the use of a variety of transfer bids to improve on traditional bidding methods. Those articles are not likely to appear in the immediate future, however, since my current focus is on completing work on the Web Book. Meanwhile, the field is wide open for all of the budding theoreticians out there. If you come up with a new and wonderful use of transfer bids, please let me know about them. My email address can be found on the Home Page.