Handbook - International Bridge Press Association

without fear that the bidding will get out of hand, because
the responses need not take into account the
possibility of no short suit.) Other negative inferences
may be available, depending on the rest of your responding
method.
After the initial strangeness has worn off, you will
find that the CONFI conventions are not particularly
hard to remember. To be sure, it is possible to complexity
both CONFI and SUPERCONFI in order to
achieve greater accuracy. (I use the form described in
these articles because I believe there is a point of
diminishing returns in the complexification of any
artificial convention.) I doubt you will be attracted to
such a procedure. The simple form is fun, effective,
and, I venture to guess, superior to however you are
now bidding quasi-balanced hands that have slam
prospects.
THE 1976 PRECISION AWARD
Jeff Rubens (USA)
In the 1976 December issue of The Bridge World Jeff
Rubens published his article about new transfer implementations.
There was very close voting for this Award and
honourable mentions go to the following entries: 'Putting
Three Diamonds to Work', by Terence Reese;
'Using Two Hearts and Two Diamonds as two-way
opening bids', by Alan Sontag; and 'Introducing the
Sliver', by George Rosenkranz.
Three-Level Transfer Responses
By Jeff Rubens, New York
I
n 1964 I was intrigued by the relay system used by
Rene Bacherich and Claude Deruy in the world
Olympiad. They used relay and transfer responses: a
relay-a one-step nondescriptive bid requesting information;
a transfer-a higher bid showing length in the
next-highest-ranking suit. Since then I have studied
possible new uses of transfer bids, and have found
many situations in which they gain, including:
a) after a notrump rebid by opener;
b) two-level jump responses to an opening bid;
c) two-level responses by a passed hand;
d) two-level responses over a takeout double;
106 IBPA Handbook 2010
e) very high (e.g., double jump) responses to an
opening bid;
f) three-level single-jump responses to an opening
bid.
Here, I discuss the last case. It is in this area that
transfers show the clearest (though not necessarily
the greatest) gain over currently standard methods,
require the least displacement of other bidding machinery,
and depend least on the particular system
used.
Strong Jump Responses
The standard single-jump new-suit response to an
opening suit one-bid, strength-showing, is sometimes
called a "jump shift," or a "forcing takeout," but for
uniformity of terminology, we will call it a strong jump
response (SJR). The traditional minimum requirement
for an SJR was 19 HCP, or the equivalent based on
support or playing strength. Nowadays, most experts
use an SJR minimum of 16 or 17 points, however
counted, if the values are slam-suitable.
There is seldom room for responder to describe a
two-suited hand after an SJR; indeed, it is often difficult
for him to show a second suit at all. Accordingly,
the more sensible bidders decree that an SJR should
be based on one of three hand types: (a) support for
partner with a strong side suit; (b) one-suiter with a
very strong long suit; (c) good suit in a balanced or
near-balanced hand suitable for a notrump rebid.
Even when restricted, an SJR, particularly when
made at the three level, often crowds the auction.
Suppose you open one heart with
♠ J x x K Q 10 x x Q x x ♣ A J,
partner jumps to three diamonds, you rebid three
hearts or four diamonds depending on system, and
partner bids four hearts. You have a minimum opening,
but you have four important cards-the heart kingqueen,
diamond queen, club ace. If responder has
♠ K x A J x A K J 10 x x ♣x x,
you are cold for six notrump from his side, and other
slam contracts are also desirable. Unfortunately,
partner may have jump-shifted with something like
♠x x x A J x A K J 10 x ♣ K Q,
in which case if you steer the partnership to any contract
above four hearts you are in trouble.
Obviously, it would have been nice if partner's
supporting bid could have come at the three-level.
You would show slam interest and a specific control
with a cue-bid of four clubs. Partner would sign off with
the second hand, but would get the partnership
started towards the right spot with the first hand. My
suggestion: