Super-accepting minor suit transfers

[Richard Lawson]

Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.

1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.

After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.

After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

This is the reverse of the way I've always played it. I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.

Meanwhile, if you have a 5-5 hand in the minors and partner opens 1NT, now you
have a way to show it: by transferring to diamonds by bidding 2NT and passing
partner's response, knowing that if partner denies a super-accept by bidding 3C
then you're in at least as good a fit in clubs, if not better.

I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, if I'm 4-4-3-2 with a
minimal no-trump and partner bids 2NT, I'm going to deny a super-accept by
bidding 3C, and now if partner has the weak 5-5 we've actually found a worse
fit. Also, the method of denying a super-accept by not bidding the transfer
suit leaves responder as declarer in the worst possible situation: with a weak
hand and bad support.

My partner says, though, that most of the people he plays with use the method
described above. I myself see a lot of downside without much upside, but maybe
there's something I'm just overlooking.

Does anyone else play the method I've just described? Why do you play it - what
are the tradeoffs as you see them?

Thanks. I like talking system stuff and am always open to new ideas, but at the
same time I like to understand the whys and wherefores of each new method.

-Richard

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.
This is the reverse of the way I've always played it.

I was surprised to find, upon moving to New York, that the "bid 'em if
you like 'em" style was very popular, even with some very good players.

Post by Richard Lawson
I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.

The auctions 1NT:2S,3C:pass and 1NT:2NT,3D:pass have the advantage of
being faster, less susceptible to upset by either the opponents or your
side. The "bid 'em if you like 'em" style uses these two auctions for
only those case where responder is so weak that he wants to quit after
opener shows a fitting maximum. Using 5 calls for the auction
1NT:2S,2NT:3C,pass (for which I prefer the faster and more natural
approach of 1NT:3C,pass) seems wrong.

Post by Richard Lawson
Meanwhile, if you have a 5-5 hand in the minors and partner opens 1NT, now you
have a way to show it: by transferring to diamonds by bidding 2NT and passing
partner's response, knowing that if partner denies a super-accept by bidding 3C
then you're in at least as good a fit in clubs, if not better.

The situation where responder has 5-5 minors, a hand too weak to try for
3NT, and wants to play in 3D only if partner has a maximum and 4
diamonds (3C otherwise) is not only very rare, but usually not worth
bothering with. This sounds more like an ad hoc rationalization for
bidding the way he wants to, rather than an actual argument. But he
looks for a rationalization because for some reason "bid 'em if you like
'em" makes him more comfortable. And that is the reason that I bid that
way when my partner indicates that that is his preference.

[Larry Lowell]

A better approach may be Four Suits Transfers.
(Book by same title available).

The NT opener accepts the transfer to the minor, unless he has
specifically Axx+ or Kxx+ then he bids the gap 2NT over 2S and 3C over
2NT. If responder has KQxxxx or AQxxxx he knows that there are 6
tricks usually for NT and decides if 3NT has a play and bids it on the
spot, or bids the minor suit if he just wants to play 3 of the minor
(probably has a 6-card suit missing 2 of the top 3 honors.

The 5-5 minor hands, weak or strong are shown by bidding 3C or 3D over
1NT.

Likewise, the 5-5 major hands are shown, weak or strong by 3H or 3S.

Larry Lowell
Knoxville, Tn, USA

[Tom]

Post by Larry Lowell
A better approach may be Four Suits Transfers.
(Book by same title available).
The NT opener accepts the transfer to the minor, unless he has
specifically Axx+ or Kxx+ then he bids the gap 2NT over 2S and 3C over
2NT. If responder has KQxxxx or AQxxxx he knows that there are 6
tricks usually for NT and decides if 3NT has a play and bids it on the
spot, or bids the minor suit if he just wants to play 3 of the minor
(probably has a 6-card suit missing 2 of the top 3 honors.

I think this method, called "Gap Transfers" in which opener bids the
gap strain with adequate support is effective. One question: if one
wants to play 3N opposite those minor suit holdings (KQxxxx or AQxxxx)
why should you require three card support with a primary honor. Why
not accept the transfer by bidding the gap with Ax or Kx ?

[Tyler Eaves]

Post by Tom

Post by Larry Lowell
A better approach may be Four Suits Transfers.
(Book by same title available).
The NT opener accepts the transfer to the minor, unless he has
specifically Axx+ or Kxx+ then he bids the gap 2NT over 2S and 3C
over 2NT. If responder has KQxxxx or AQxxxx he knows that there
are 6 tricks usually for NT and decides if 3NT has a play and bids
it on the spot, or bids the minor suit if he just wants to play 3
of the minor (probably has a 6-card suit missing 2 of the top 3
honors.

I think this method, called "Gap Transfers" in which opener bids the
gap strain with adequate support is effective. One question: if one
wants to play 3N opposite those minor suit holdings (KQxxxx or AQxxxx)
why should you require three card support with a primary honor. Why
not accept the transfer by bidding the gap with Ax or Kx ?

Because that increases the odds that one of the opps has Jxxx

[Sandy E. Barnes]

Post by Larry Lowell
A better approach may be Four Suits Transfers.
(Book by same title available).
The NT opener accepts the transfer to the minor, unless he has
specifically Axx+ or Kxx+ then he bids the gap 2NT over 2S and 3C over
2NT. If responder has KQxxxx or AQxxxx he knows that there are 6
tricks usually for NT and decides if 3NT has a play and bids it on the
spot, or bids the minor suit if he just wants to play 3 of the minor
(probably has a 6-card suit missing 2 of the top 3 honors.
The 5-5 minor hands, weak or strong are shown by bidding 3C or 3D over
1NT.
Likewise, the 5-5 major hands are shown, weak or strong by 3H or 3S.
Larry Lowell
Knoxville, Tn, USA

***
This works.
However, if you want to invite game in the majors, there is a weakness here.
I use 3D as 5-5 in the majors, either game, or slam, invitational. This
leaves 4D for 5-5 in the majors, either a sign-off or a slam force. 4-6
hands
in the majors are bid with a direct 3H or 3S call, bidding the shorter suit.
It is an issue of definition. I favor shape showing bids when possible. To
show a weak 5-5 in the majors, transfer to 2S, then rebid 3H. All
ranges of 5-5 hands are covered.

Sandy Barnes
***

[Bernard Danloy]

Post by Larry Lowell
A better approach may be Four Suits Transfers.
(Book by same title available).
The NT opener accepts the transfer to the minor, unless he has
specifically Axx+ or Kxx+ then he bids the gap 2NT over 2S and 3C over
2NT. If responder has KQxxxx or AQxxxx he knows that there are 6
tricks usually for NT and decides if 3NT has a play and bids it on the
spot, or bids the minor suit if he just wants to play 3 of the minor
(probably has a 6-card suit missing 2 of the top 3 honors.
The 5-5 minor hands, weak or strong are shown by bidding 3C or 3D over
1NT.
Likewise, the 5-5 major hands are shown, weak or strong by 3H or 3S.
Larry Lowell
Knoxville, Tn, USA

As you have seen, i am not in favour of minor transfers with a gap
in between.

But i am interested with the meaning of your direct 3C and 3H bids
( which implies that a slam invite always starts with a transfer ).

A question now : why choose a system which only allows the responder
to show a 5-5 when it is C-D or H-S ?

Isn't it possible to use a convention close to Michael ?
3C would show a 5-5, clubs and another unknown suit
3D would show a 5-5, diamonds and a major
3H would show a 5-5, both majors

After 3C and 3D, the opener who has only 2 cards in the suit bids
the next one and this gives the responder a possibility to correct.

Bernard

[Sid]

On 29 Sep 2006 11:39:32 -0700, Richard Lawson <***@msn.com> wrote:

: I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, if I'm 4-4-3-2 with a
: minimal no-trump and partner bids 2NT, I'm going to deny a super-accept by
: bidding 3C, and now if partner has the weak 5-5 we've actually found a worse
: fit. Also, the method of denying a super-accept by not bidding the transfer
: suit leaves responder as declarer in the worst possible situation: with a weak
: hand and bad support.
:
: My partner says, though, that most of the people he plays with use the method
: described above. I myself see a lot of downside without much upside, but maybe
: there's something I'm just overlooking.
:
: Does anyone else play the method I've just described? Why do you play it - what
: are the tradeoffs as you see them?


We play it that way, but bid the minor suit requested with Hxx. Not
Hxxx and max!

This takes care of the invitational hands where partner is AQxxxx and
in a minor and little else; and, as you stated, transfer with 2NT
then pass the response with both minors.

Now a small addendum:

1NT - 2S (transfer to C)
any - 3M

1NT - 2NT (transfer to D)
any - 3M

Both the above show shortage in the M but the first sequence denies 4
in the other major, the second g'tees. Essentially they are
3-suiters.

Sid

[Bernard Danloy]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.
This is the reverse of the way I've always played it. I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.
Meanwhile, if you have a 5-5 hand in the minors and partner opens 1NT, now you
have a way to show it: by transferring to diamonds by bidding 2NT and passing
partner's response, knowing that if partner denies a super-accept by bidding 3C
then you're in at least as good a fit in clubs, if not better.
I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, if I'm 4-4-3-2 with a
minimal no-trump and partner bids 2NT, I'm going to deny a super-accept by
bidding 3C, and now if partner has the weak 5-5 we've actually found a worse
fit. Also, the method of denying a super-accept by not bidding the transfer
suit leaves responder as declarer in the worst possible situation: with a weak
hand and bad support.
My partner says, though, that most of the people he plays with use the method
described above. I myself see a lot of downside without much upside, but maybe
there's something I'm just overlooking.
Does anyone else play the method I've just described? Why do you play it - what
are the tradeoffs as you see them?
Thanks. I like talking system stuff and am always open to new ideas, but at the
same time I like to understand the whys and wherefores of each new method.
-Richard

Many years ago, when i started playing in club tournaments, i faced partners
who invited me to play the minor transfers you mention in your article.

And they also explained to me the interest of using the intermediate bid for
a super-accept. But i have never seen any analysis of the frequency of such
situations. If i play 2.000 hands per year, the number of times i could
have used the superaccept is less than once per year.

And so i have decided a few years ago to forget any minor super-accept
and to use the free space another way.

First of all, i took 2NT as transfer to clubs ( as you do in Lebensohl or
Rubensohl )

Secondly, i combined the pure transfer to diamonds with an asking bid

Post by Richard Lawson
2 NT ( minimum opening )

1 NT - 2 S asking bid

Post by Richard Lawson
3 D ( maximum opening )

After the rebid, the responder can decide the final contract if he was
just afraid of a lack of points in the line for a game : he can pass on
2NT and bid 3NT over 3D.

And if the responder wanted a diamond transfer, he can pass on 3D ( the
transfer has been made ) or make a "delayed transfer" with another bid
of 3C over 2NT.

The question of the bid to use when you are close to slam is obviously
a matter of agreements between partners : should you use transfer bids
or should you prefer the direct bids of 3C and 3D over 1NT ?

I only want to say that i use now my 2S bid at least once a week and
that i am happy to avoid the combination of a 2NT bid after a Stayman :
the opener is not forced to give the opponents any useful information
( for the lead ) about his holdings in majors.

Bernard

[mghmaine]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.
This is the reverse of the way I've always played it. I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.
Meanwhile, if you have a 5-5 hand in the minors and partner opens 1NT, now you
have a way to show it: by transferring to diamonds by bidding 2NT and passing
partner's response, knowing that if partner denies a super-accept by bidding 3C
then you're in at least as good a fit in clubs, if not better.
I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, if I'm 4-4-3-2 with a
minimal no-trump and partner bids 2NT, I'm going to deny a super-accept by
bidding 3C, and now if partner has the weak 5-5 we've actually found a worse
fit. Also, the method of denying a super-accept by not bidding the transfer
suit leaves responder as declarer in the worst possible situation: with a weak
hand and bad support.
My partner says, though, that most of the people he plays with use the method
described above. I myself see a lot of downside without much upside, but maybe
there's something I'm just overlooking.
Does anyone else play the method I've just described? Why do you play it - what
are the tradeoffs as you see them?
Thanks. I like talking system stuff and am always open to new ideas, but at the
same time I like to understand the whys and wherefores of each new method.

++++++++++++
The way your partner suggests, called by many above "bid 'em if you like
'em," is superior. The problem is with the requirement for 4 and a maximum.
The super-accept problem revolves around when partner is invitational and is
concerned if his suit will run for 3NT. The model is if partner opens 1NT
and you have AQxxxx and out. If partner has the K you may well run 9
tricks, but if no fit you surely want to play in 3 minor. Let it be enough
for opener to have a high honor in the minor.

M. Hopkins

[Sandy E. Barnes]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.
This is the reverse of the way I've always played it. I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.
Meanwhile, if you have a 5-5 hand in the minors and partner opens 1NT, now you
have a way to show it: by transferring to diamonds by bidding 2NT and passing
partner's response, knowing that if partner denies a super-accept by bidding 3C
then you're in at least as good a fit in clubs, if not better.
I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, if I'm 4-4-3-2 with a
minimal no-trump and partner bids 2NT, I'm going to deny a super-accept by
bidding 3C, and now if partner has the weak 5-5 we've actually found a worse
fit. Also, the method of denying a super-accept by not bidding the transfer
suit leaves responder as declarer in the worst possible situation: with a weak
hand and bad support.
My partner says, though, that most of the people he plays with use the method
described above. I myself see a lot of downside without much upside, but maybe
there's something I'm just overlooking.
Does anyone else play the method I've just described? Why do you play it - what
are the tradeoffs as you see them?
Thanks. I like talking system stuff and am always open to new ideas, but at the
same time I like to understand the whys and wherefores of each new method.
-Richard

***
I play 4 suit transfers, but differently and without "super accepts", for
much for
the same reasons which you object to the new "style", little gain, and rare.
When
partner has transferred into a minor, he has a plan, and, when you do not
accept the transfer, you shoot the plan in the foot. In addition, if 2S is
available
for other work, it can be used for the more valuable task of bidding all
hands
5-5 in the minors or better. The base structure is as follows:

2S = 5-5 in minors. Opener either selects a suit or bids 2NT to show a
strong
raise in one or both minors (Responder bids 3C over 2NT to end the auction).
With a game invitation, responder bids shortness over Opener's selection.

MINOR SUIT TRANSFERS:
2NT is a transfer to 3C, a new suit by responder shows shortness and game
values.
3C transfer to 3D, and a new suit is shortness. With a higher suit and slam
interest,
that is 5-6 or 5-7 shape, you transfer to the longer minor suit and rebid at
the 4
level in the shorter but higher suit. Without a slam interest, ands with
the same
shapes, you transfer into the major and rebid 4 of the minor. To show
singletons
and a 6 card major suit, you transfer into the major suit and then relay
before
jumping in the short suit. After a major suit transfer, the relay becomes a
game
force, and always suggests some sort of slam interest or suit play interest.

On the surface, since this is a different approach, many will object to it
simply because it is different. Lawyers have proven that there is always a
loophole (something to complain about), but this works in practice. If
you are willing to give up "Garbage Stayman", all falls into place.

Sandy Barnes
***

[Gary Seckinger]

I had responded rather lengthily to this and it got lost in
googleville!
Probably wasn't worth the molecular structure it was written on anyway.

So, in brief:

Pros:
1) You know whether partner has 3 to an honor or 4 or more when he
accepts.
Can bid thin 3nt games based on long running suit, removes that part of
the guesswork.
2) Easy to remember.
3) Frees up responder's direct 3C for some other conventional (or
natural) use.

Cons:

1) The weak hand sometimes declares.
2) Lose the natural, invitational sequence 1nt-2nt except going
through stayman. This is more frequent than 6 cd diamond suits.

Note: I cannot agree more than Sandy Barne's statement:
"When
partner has transferred into a minor, he has a plan, and, when you do
not
accept the transfer, you shoot the plan in the foot."

The other night I transferred partner into 3D twice, but both times he
masterminded and bid 3NT. Once down spectacularly; the second time
making vs some very poor defense.
But if he had just accepted the transfer and made the contract of 3D
(they weren't hard) he would have garnered a 65% and 75%, respectively.

Gary

[raija d]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.
This is the reverse of the way I've always played it. I asked my new partner
for the rational behind this and his reasoning was thus: The "standard" way of
super-accepting doesn't really save any bidding room, so nothing is lost in
slam-going auctions.

(snip)

Post by Richard Lawson
-Richard

I don't think there is a "standard" way. I prefer *bid'em if you like'em*
pre-acceptance with Hxx or better in support for the minor partner is
transferring to. Most of the time the transferer has a weak hand with a
long minor so it is advantageous for our side to have 1NT opener as declarer
when he bids the suit.

If responder was looking for 3NT in case we have the minor suit fit to
provide tricks, he bids 3NT after hearing of fit. Just like
1NT-3D("invitational with six-card diamond suit")-3NT("Yes, I have diamond
fillers") except that it is responder who goes to 3NT after fit is
confirmed.

If responder does not Pass and does not bid 3NT, he is looking for slam.
Continuations are subject to agreements.

[Lorne]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

I do not think it matters much whether you break the transfer with support
or without support and you should do whatever you like best but I strongly
disagree with the definition of support needed. When you transfer to a
minor you have either:

1] a desire to play in 3m and it does not matter if opener shows support or
not; or

2] You have a long 1 loser suit and combined 22/23 points and want to punt
3N if the suit runs. Now you want opener to break whenever he has a top
honour in your suit; or

3] You intend to follow with 3M or 3NT or 4m and it does not matter if
partner has shown support earlier since they now have a good picture of your
hand and can tell what to do.

Hence only hand [2] matters when you break and it is essential to break on
Hxx regardless of min or max since that is the case when the minor will run
and you want to be in a thin 3NT. In fact a gambler may even break on Kx
hoping for AQJxxx opposite or if the J is missing the suit breaks well.

[Kieran Dyke]

Post by Lorne

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

I do not think it matters much whether you break the transfer with support
or without support and you should do whatever you like best but I strongly
disagree with the definition of support needed. When you transfer to a
1] a desire to play in 3m and it does not matter if opener shows support
or not; or
2] You have a long 1 loser suit and combined 22/23 points and want to punt
3N if the suit runs. Now you want opener to break whenever he has a top
honour in your suit; or
3] You intend to follow with 3M or 3NT or 4m and it does not matter if
partner has shown support earlier since they now have a good picture of
your hand and can tell what to do.
Hence only hand [2] matters when you break and it is essential to break on
Hxx regardless of min or max since that is the case when the minor will
run and you want to be in a thin 3NT. In fact a gambler may even break on
Kx hoping for AQJxxx opposite or if the J is missing the suit breaks well.

Sounds great, except:

AQJxxx should always be driving to game anyway opposite a strong notrump.

Often, to make a thin 3NT based on responder's long suit, it's not just
degree of fit which is relevant but honour profile outside. To make a thin
3NT, you will need aces and kings on the side. So, AKx,Axx,xxxx,Axx is a
fine superaccept of responder's diamond transfer, but KQJx,Qx,AKxx,Qxx is
not such a great hand.

And, of course, while 3NT may be a mild slam try after opener fails to
superaccept, after a superaccept the meaning is changed - it means that I'm
happy to bid this now that I've received good news.

And some hands may be a superdooperaccept - Axx,Axx,Axxx,Axx opposite a
transfer to diamonds is likely to be laydown for 3NT opposite Kxxxxx and
out.

Tiggrr

[m***@aol.com]

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

A virtue of bidding the suit if you like it occurs when responder has a weak hand and will choose to play in 3 of his minor even if you are encouriging.. It is when pard is weak that the opponents might want to enter but the direct bid only gives your right hand opponent the knowledge that your pard is weak in time to use it. If you playa method where the intermediate bid is encouraging then both opponents once pard signs off have an opportunity to enter.. I agree with the comments about 4 card support not beinga sensible requirement

[Lorne]

Post by Kieran Dyke

Post by Lorne

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

I do not think it matters much whether you break the transfer with
support or without support and you should do whatever you like best but I
strongly disagree with the definition of support needed. When you
1] a desire to play in 3m and it does not matter if opener shows support
or not; or
2] You have a long 1 loser suit and combined 22/23 points and want to
punt 3N if the suit runs. Now you want opener to break whenever he has a
top honour in your suit; or
3] You intend to follow with 3M or 3NT or 4m and it does not matter if
partner has shown support earlier since they now have a good picture of
your hand and can tell what to do.
Hence only hand [2] matters when you break and it is essential to break
on Hxx regardless of min or max since that is the case when the minor
will run and you want to be in a thin 3NT. In fact a gambler may even
break on Kx hoping for AQJxxx opposite or if the J is missing the suit
breaks well.

AQJxxx should always be driving to game anyway opposite a strong notrump.

I play weak NT when this applies to a 1 loser suit plus a K or something
outside, but even with a strong NT most of the time your 1-loser suit is
KQxxxx or AQxxxx which I think does not want to be in game without the
missing card. If you want to bid it anyway with AQJxxx then what I said
still applies to the other holdings.

[Slammer]

Post by Lorne

Post by Richard Lawson
Tonight I'm going to play with someone new as part of our club's "New Partner
Night". We've started exchanging emails about system, and he brought up a
treatment of super-accepting minor suit transfers over 1NT that I've never heard
of before.
1NT - 2S = Transfer to clubs
1NT - 2NT = Transfer to diamonds.
After 1NT - 2S, responder bids 3C with four or more clubs and a maximum notrump.
Otherwise, responder bids 2NT.
After 1NT - 2NT, responder bids 3D with four or more diamonds and a maximum
notrump. Otherwise, responder bids 3C.

I do not think it matters much whether you break the transfer with support
or without support and you should do whatever you like best but I strongly
disagree with the definition of support needed.

I couldn't agree more! Minor suit transfers should be geared to bid thin NT
games firstly and everything else secondly. One can judge to bid on once
slam interest is shown--no so when one only has limited space aka one bid to
show his intentions. Such is life without a strong club system!