| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Texas Transfers |
|
| |
Suppose partner opens 1NT and your hand dictates that you want to play in 4♥. You have various options. You can always transfer with 2♦ and then bid 4♥. You could also bid 4♥ directly, but it is normally better for the 1NT opener to be declarer and so we have Texas transfers which immediately transfer opener to 4♥/♠. Transferring immediately to the 4 level is normally a sign off, i.e. not interested in slam. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
There are two different versions of these Texas transfers: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Scheme A (South African Texas ) |
Scheme B ( Texas Transfers) |
| |
|
|
|
| 4♣ |
transfer to 4♥ |
4♦ |
transfer to 4♥ |
| 4♦ |
transfer to 4♠ |
4♥ |
transfer to 4♠ |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Which is to be preferred? Presumably scheme B as this is more efficient and leaves 4♣ available for another use such as Gerber. One drawback with scheme B is that opener may forget and pass a 4♥ bid! Assuming that readers will not forget, which scheme is best? I personally prefer South African Texas but I will explain Texas Transfers here as they are more widely used. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
So why do we want these Texas transfers when we can always go via Jacoby? Consider these two sequences: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Sequence 1 |
1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠ |
| |
Sequence 2 |
1NT - 4♥ - 4♠ |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
What is the difference? Both show 6+ ♠'s and a game going hand. Sequence 1 is mildly slam interested whereas sequence 2 is not, it may even be pre-emptive in nature. If opener is max and likes ♠'s then he may bid on in sequence 1 but not in sequence 2.. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Example 1 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| West |
East |
West |
|
East |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♠ |
A109 |
♠ |
KQJ762 |
1NT |
|
4♥ |
(1) |
(1) Texas transfer for ♠'s. |
| ♥ |
QJ84 |
♥ |
K103 |
4♠ |
(2) |
pass |
|
|
| ♦ |
KQJ8 |
♦ |
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ♣ |
A8 |
♣ |
J4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
West is max and likes his hand for ♠'s, but he is not allowed to do anything |
|
| |
more than bid 4♠ at (2). |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Example 2 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| East |
West |
|
East |
|
The hand is worth game and a Texas transfer is correct as you don't want partner to look for slam which he may do if you go via the Jacoby Transfer Route . |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| ♠ |
5 |
1NT |
|
4♦ |
|
| ♥ |
KQJ652 |
4♥ |
|
pass |
|
|
| ♦ |
Q105 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ♣ |
765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
A Texas transfer may be used with a very weak distributional hand: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Example 3 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Dealer: |
♠ |
J3 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
| West |
♥ |
AK93 |
1NT |
pass |
4♥ |
pass |
| Love all |
♦ |
9432 |
4♠ |
pass |
pass |
pass |
| |
♣ |
AQ3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ♠ |
A109 |
 |
♠ |
Q876542 |
| ♥ |
QJ84 |
♥ |
5 |
| ♦ |
KQJ8 |
♦ |
765 |
| ♣ |
K8 |
♣ |
97 |
|
|
| |
| |
♠ |
K |
| |
♥ |
10762 |
| |
♦ |
A10 |
| |
♣ |
J106542 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
4♠ may make, but even one down is an excellent score against N-S's ♥ or ♣ partscore or game. If East hand simply transferred with 2♥ at (1) then North would have had an easy double of West's 2♠ response. Neither North nor South can really say anything at the 4 level. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
As we have seen, a Texas transfer is a weak bid or else a reasonable hand without slam interest. It is possible to have continuations by responder after the completion of a Texas transfer, and some players do play that 4NT (or Kickback) is RKCB. This would then free the 4♣ bid in a Jacoby transfer sequence for another use (some sort of slam try or perhaps a splinter). Quite playable and up to you. |
|
| |
New suits at the 5 level by responder can also be bid. These are probably best played as Exclusion Blackwood, asking for key cards outside the exclusion suit which would be a void. But you could play this equally well after a Jacoby transfer. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Pattaya Bridge Club - |
www.pattayabridge.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
