Deal Of The Week: July 3, 2025

Forests and Trees

Can You See Both At The Same Time?

The idiom "can't see the forest for the trees," which means "not being able to see the big picture as you concentrate on the details," applies quite often to newer players. As I write this, we have a thriving, popular, fun game for new players at one of the club games I run, alongside a concurrent open game. Those in the new players game get the boards the open game players shuffled and dealt two weeks ago; in that time, I have looked at them, recorded the results, and added some notes so they can read some tips after each deal. From time to time I need to fill in and while I can usually comment about the right auction and the right way to play a hand in the notes, I can't predict the way things sometimes go off the rails in real life until I see it happen.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, what I'm seeing is a lot of tree-watching and forest-missing. And this is understandable; there's a lot to learn in this game, much of it very detail-oriented. Some of the things we're going to cover are not well-known even by open game players in the heat of battle, but experience tends to get players a general sense of most of them. But when I play in the newcomer game as a fill-in, I'm less shocked by the individual wrong bids and wrong plays (the trees) as by the overall strategies that make little sense when looked at as a forest. Here is a list of the main themes I've seen:

• Wasting honours by leading them: If you are declarer and see ♠A J 8 6 4 opposite ♠K T 5 2, there are many ways to play this suit, some better than others. You can cash the ace and king and hope to drop the missing queen, or you can take a finesse one way or the other. What I see from newer players is leading the jack or the ten, hoping to get the next player to put on the queen for you. "Cover an honour with an honour" is often right, but not a law that always must be followed. If I have ♠Q 3 and you lead the jack from the hand on my right, while dummy is on my left and visible, I am playing low, for there is clearly no advantage in covering. From 1955-1980, bridge writer Charles Goren used to publish annual updates of his Complete Book of Bridge, which contained many chapters on bidding that everyone perused and many chapters on cardplay that people ignored, for it was 800 pages and 14 pages on finessing put people to sleep, but 12 pages on when you can add points to a seven-point hand and treat it as a ten-point hand held us spellbound for hours. Pity, for Goren's instructions were simple and direct: he said "unless you are cashing winners, it is virtually impossible to win a trick with the card you have led to a trick." If the queen is missing, you can get around it by finessing the right way. Leading the jack is not going to help you find it. Save your middling cards for later and lead a low card once you decide which finesse to take.
  
  It actually goes considerably beyond the card combination above. One thing I saw several times was a card combination like this: ♠A J 8 6 4 opposite ♠K 5 2. If you are tempted to lead the J♠ to start this suit, dissuade yourself of that notion. One of two things will happen: if the second player has the queen, the jack will be covered and you will need to win the king; now the ten and nine are out against you and you have virtually no chance of winning the third round. If the second player does not have the queen, you lose to the queen if you run the jack, and if you play the king you are even worse off, for now you have one more winner against the queen, ten, and nine held by the opponents. The right play is low to the king, and low to the jack. Occasionally, if this is the trump suit and you suspect the opponents are looking to score a ruff and you don't need any ruffs yourself, you might try low to the king, low to the ace, hoping for a doubleton queen so you can pull them all. The only reasonable time to lead a middling honour as declarer is when you have the one behind it as well.
  
  The forest view: lead low when finessing and let the third card of the trick be the finessing card wherever possible. Covering an honour with an honour is not universal and you cannot rely on opponents to help you. Better to lose the finesse and have two top winners left in the suit than to induce the cover and use those two winners to knock out only one high card, leaving only one remaining winner.
  
  
• Realizing whose hand it is:
  
  Both sides have bid game here. Which side do you think is more serious about making game and which side do you think is sacrificing? As East you need to know this before you decide what to do next. If you think the side with spades is serious about making a game, probably you should be considering 5♥ as a sacrifice if you have extras. Partner, though, seems to have a hand fairly close to an opening bid here, with heart support, and if you have any extras at all, you certainly have bid 4♥ with the expectation of making it. At this vulnerability, your side cannot allow the opponents to steal the hand for 4♠ undoubled if you were expecting to make a game. Partner knew this, but did not know whether to bid on to 5♥ or double the 4♠ call, so the decision is yours. Partner's pass is forcing, since leaving the opponents in 4♠ is not an option you should ever consider.
  
  Sometimes you're going to double them and distribution will allow them to make 4♠. Sometimes you'll choose 5♥ and only ten tricks will be there. But not making a choice and letting them play 4♠ undoubled is almost never going to be good (even if you beat 4♠ you will usually do better bidding on or doubling), while choosing to double or bid on at least has a chance at a good score.
  
  This sort of thing happens quite often, and the general rule is to avoid doing nothing for fear of making a bad score worse, much in the same way a soccer goalkeeper always dives one way or another on a penalty kick, because few players shoot the ball down the middle. In matchpoints, there is a limit on how bad a score you can get: nobody ever gets less than 0% on a board, which in a 15-board game may affect your final score by about 3% compared to average. But if doing nothing ensures a bad score of 10-25% anyhow, why not take a risk and shoot for that 60-80% score that you'll get if you're right?! The potential gain is greater than the potential loss. Many such situations apply: auctions where the opponents may have gotten too high and if they make the contract we score poorly anyway, so why not double?, auctions where partner has pre-empted and they've doubled but you have good support for partner and the vulnerability is favourable; why not raise a level or two higher than expected, risking a bad score if they double, but a good score if it means they miss a slam?, or even cardplay situations where the only way to beat the contract is if partner has a certain card; play that suit before declarer finds a way around that loser! Pairs play has a strong element of go-for-broke. Those who chicken out, give up opportunities for good scores.
  
  (Just as an aside, this advice doesn't apply to teams, where there is no bottom score that cannot be eclipsed by something worse. This is coming to you from a player who redoubled a transfer bid once and confused partner, especially when the resulting score was 2800 away, costing the team about ten boards worth of steady gains in one blunder. In matchpoint pairs, this is not an issue. The best pairs player of all time, Barry Crane, was seen once at the printout of scores, partner reading off matchpoint scores and Crane writing them on his sheet. Top on a board was 12, and partners patter was something like "11, 12, zero, 11, 1, 12, 11, 10, 1 and a half, 12, 6...." At this Crane interrupted: "Check that score!")
  
  The forest view: pair game scoring rewards those who take risks and get lucky, and penalizes those who strive only to do what others did without trying to beat them. You must choose your gambles carefully, and sometimes you will be unlucky more than wrong, but when appropriate, go for it and take a chance! The best female European player of bridge's first fifty years, Rixi Markus, had a famous bit of advice: bid boldly, play safe.
  
  
• Knowing the scoring and how it affects your decisions: When I began playing, some players carried around with them a table of all possible scores. When bid-boxes began to be used, we discovered that the scores were on the back of the 35 bid cards (as well as the pass, double, and redouble cards for going down). Now we let the BridgeMate calculate the scores and while we all know the basic scores (140 for 3♥ making, 400 or 600 for 3NT depending on vulnerability, etc.), few of us can calculate out the score for 3♦ redoubled making six non-vulnerable. (I make it 1240. Confirmed!) Not knowing the intricate details of scoring is OK, but you should at least have a general idea of how the scoring works. I don't know the intricate scoring details of the vintage pinball machine at the local pub, or my 3-D Tetris clone that I waste away spare time on, but I still play them as best I can, knowing that the score will be a fair assessment of how well I have done.
  
  Bridge is different. We have two levels of scoring for each deal: the score for each hand, and the way this is converted into matchpoints (and later to percentages). For making contracts, there are four tiers: partscores (usually about 70 - 150, possibly more if there are overtricks involved), games (400 - 720 depending on vulnerability and overtricks), small slams (920 - 1440 plus a bit more for overtricks), and grand slams (1440 - 2220, again depending on vulnerability). These tiers are the targets that our bidding decisions shoot for, but against this there is possibility of the opponents getting into our auction and offering us something from the other table, the one that lists the costs for going down. This one is simple if nobody doubles, 50 per trick down non-vulnerable, and 100 per trick down vulnerable. If someone doubles you get double the score and more than that if you beat the contract by more than one. Since a partscore rarely scores more than 200 with overtricks, a score of 200 for down two vulnerable or down four non-vulnerable, or down less if doubled, is usually considered the "kiss of death" if nobody can make game.
  
  If your side is seriously considering game, 200 won't be enough compensation. This is where vulnerability is important and may affect your decisions considerably. Don't let being vulnerable dissuade you from bidding: if it is right, others will bid on as well and chickening out will lead to a bad score. Going back to the auction above, if you think that your side can make 9-11 tricks in hearts and the opponents can make 8-10 tricks in spades, you can make a table in your head of the best spot to be:
  
  

  They are vulnerable	They make 8 tricks in spades	They make 9 tricks in spades	They make 10 tricks in spades
  We make 9 tricks in hearts	Double +500 Pass +200 Bid 5♥ (-100)	Double +200 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (-100)	Double -790 Pass -620 Bid 5♥ (-100)
  We make 10 tricks in hearts	Double +500 Pass +200 Bid 5♥ (-50)	Double +200 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (-50)	Double -790 Pass -620 Bid 5♥ (-50)
  We make 11 tricks in hearts	Double +500 Pass +200 Bid 5♥ (+450)	Double +200 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (+450)	Double -790 Pass -620 Bid 5♥ (+450)

  
  The best result for our side is in boldface. Notice that passing never gets you the best score, and that the middle cell of the group favours doubling. Switch things the other way and it is a very different story:
  
  

  We are vulnerable	They make 8 tricks in spades	They make 9 tricks in spades	They make 10 tricks in spades
  We make 9 tricks in hearts	Double +200 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (-200)	Double +100 Pass +50 Bid 5♥ (-200)	Double -590 Pass -420 Bid 5♥ (-200)
  We make 10 tricks in hearts	Double +200 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (-100)	Double +100 Pass +50 Bid 5♥ (-100)	Double -590 Pass -420 Bid 5♥ (-100)
  We make 11 tricks in hearts	Double +500 Pass +100 Bid 5♥ (+650)	Double +200 Pass +50 Bid 5♥ (+650)	Double -590 Pass -420 Bid 5♥ (+650)

  
  We make less big scores in this chart, but the only one where the best call has changed is the cell where we make 5♥ and they go two down in 4♠. Passing is still universally bad, most other pairs will be in 5♥ or in 4♠ doubled, and you stand to lose against them. The point is that these numbers for going down depend on vulnerability and must be compared with the potential gain for making to give you the best chance at the right decision. It's not as simple as "we're vulnerable so we need to be careful" or the converse.
  
  The forest view: To know what to bid you need to know what you stand to gain or lose, and as we've seen from the charts above, the vulnerability of both sides is vitally important. 
  
  
• Conventions and follow-ups: Let's just take one commonly-played convention and test your knowledge on it. Jacoby Transfers over 1NT. Here's the quiz, jot down some answers and see how many you agree with me on:
  
  
  1. What is the general purpose of Jacoby Transfers? What do they gain?
  2. Which calls are Jacoby Transfers over a 1NT opener by partner?
  3. When can opener choose NOT to rebid the next suit up at the same level?
  4. If responder's rebid is 2NT, what should opener do next?
  5. If responder's rebid is a raise of the suit to the 3-level, what does this indicate?
  6. If responder's rebid is 3NT, what should opener do next?
  7. Are Jacoby Transfers on over a 1NT overcall by partner?
  8. If so, what does it mean when partner transfers into the opening bidder's suit?
  9. If responder's rebid is 4NT, what should opener do next?
  10. Are Jacoby Transfers still on if the opponent after the 1NT bidder makes a bid or a double?
  11. If responder's rebid is 5NT, what should opener do next?
  12. Which suit should I transfer to if I have 5-5 in the majors and partner opens 1NT?
  
  You should not even have to scroll down to peek at the answers to realize that many of these questions require partnership discussion and agreement. Almost every convention is similar: Stayman, Blackwood, Takeout Doubles, Weak Twos, they all have their follow-ups and methods for dealing with interference, and all must be discussed. Today's player seems to want to improvise first, then claim his improvised solution is obvious and any other approach is insane. True partnership communication seems to be a dying art.
  
  One can see why. A pair intent on working out agreements can end up with lots of discussion about auctions that won't come up that session, that month, that year, or even in some cases that decade! A better idea is to seek out differences in approach by playing the same hands against a computer program or robot tournament, and compare the results. Most deals there will be little to discuss, as both players do the same thing. On some deals the partners may have chosen different calls, and now there is something to discuss. Even if you agree to disagree (often the differences will be based on hand evaluation and not on system), you will learn about partner's bidding style. When you do find a genuine bidding misunderstanding to discuss, where one approach must be chosen over another, listen even when you are sure your way is better: you may find that the opposite is actually true!
  
  The forest view: conventions have more in them than you think. It's important to know more than just the very basics. Wikipedia has great articles on most conventions, going into the details quite well. It's equally important that both players agree on the details and follow-ups.
  
  
• Choosing the Right Opening Bid: I sense that the concept of the Short Club, or the Short Minor, is quite confusing for newer players, often resulting in a poor choice of opening bid. I hope this primer will help:
  
  
  In the beginning, cardplayers discovered the standard pack and created the game of Whist between two partnerships.
  
  And the game was without its current form and devoid of general interest, and darkness was the order of the day for most of its players, although the hint of strategy lay deep within its murky waters.
  
  And the whist players said, let there be a dummy hand upon each deal, and there was one.
  
  And they saw that this was good, that it allowed more of the strategies to come to the fore, when one could see two hands instead of just one, when each missing card was in only one place or another.
  
  And from this they devised the auction, and saw that it too was good, and they divided deals into the auction and the cardplay.
  
  The new game began to be called bridge, but it was not complete and many different forms were played in the various places where bridge was played.
  
  Eventually one form became dominant, combining new scoring rules with a new scoring table, and contract bridge was this new form, taking over the world.
  
  The new game cried out for leaders and teachers to teach its strategies with simple rules. Most important was the choice of opening bid.
  
  If not opening 1NT or something higher, said the disciples of the great experts, bid your longest suit. Rules were laid down on which suit among equal length suits to bid first.
  
  But there was a problem. Often a player's opening bid would be in a very weak four-card suit, causing trouble later. The great experts had foreseen this and instructed players to occasionally open 1♣ or 1♦ on a three-card suit rather than 1♥ or 1♠ on a weak four-card suit. The concept of a biddable suit (Qxxx or better) was invented, along with the rare short minor suit opening, when one had no biddable suit but the strength to open the bidding.
  
  Then players began playing newer systems requiring five-card suits for major suit openings, and this greatly increased both bidding accuracy, and the number of short minor suit opening bids that needed to be made. Some players even demanded that the opening bid of 1♦ promise four, which made possible the 1♣ opening bid on a two-card suit.
  
  
  The main problem I see in our games is that players begin at the bottom, 1♣, and go up, choosing the first opening bid that seems to be acceptable. But there are a great many hands where there is a choice, and a strategic one. Many hands where it is legal to open 1♣ have better alternatives. We shouldn't be looking to get a quick answer for the most important bid of the auction. Here is my plan for choosing an opening bid:
  
  
  1. Do I have enough to open the bidding?
  2. (If not, can I open with a pre-empt or a weak two?)
  3. Do I have enough to open 2♣, or 2NT, or 1NT?
  4. If not, it's one of a suit then. What is my longest suit?
  5. With two equal suits of five cards or more, the highest is the normal choice.
  6. With multiple suits of four cards, the highest minor suit is the choice.
  7. If I must open a three-card minor suit, pick the one I prefer led.
  8. Before choosing, check to see if there are normal sequences that may cause a difficult rebid; if so, consider another possible opening if there is one, such as opening 1♦ with longer clubs so that I have a rebid ready to go.
  
  The forest view: All bids, but opening bids especially, have requirements — but often you have choices. It's good to know the requirements, but better to see the big picture and make the best choice when there is one, rather than the first choice that satisfies the requirements without looking for something better.
  
  
• Segregation of Bidding and Play: In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand criticized modern philosophy, summarizing it as "nothing is anything," while classical philosophy taught that "everything is something." Too many bridge players seem to have the attitude that bidding is the process we go through to decide the proper level and denomination for a contract; if done correctly, the play will be trivial. We focus so very much as we learn the game on the rudiments of bidding and the intricacies of systems and conventions, and little on the cardplay that follows. The reality is that the bidding leaves forensic clues that can guide the play, for both sides. Everything is something!
  
  To newer players, it sounds like a lot of work to figure out how best to play a hand based on the opponent's bids in the auction, or sometimes even the lack of bids. It is, but so is walking, reading, writing, and we all can do it. It simply takes practice. Once you get into it, you'll begin to see the game in a new light and look for more clues to help you.
  
  Sometimes the clues will lead you astray. I see players shake their heads all the time when they take a finesse and my partner wins, after I have opened the bidding. When I look later I often see that the player was missing 16 points and three could easily be in the other hand. You'll have better luck if you play a little and find out where some of the high cards are, then deduce the rest from clues you got in the bidding. For example, a player who opened or overcalled 1NT and has already shown up with 16 points cannot have another ace or king. This sort of deduction will be far more likely to be true than a general assumption that one opponent will have most of the high cards and an early decision before the evidence is all in.
  
  Even if you don't make use of bidding clues in the cardplay very often, you should never get the idea that perfect bidding always leads to the right contract. Even the best bidders get to the wrong spot on occasion, and even a simple auction like 1NT - 3NT can go down five or six when the defender's cards are set up for it. Your comfort when this happens to you is that you are playing duplicate and it will happen elsewhere as well!
  
  The forest view: of the six divisions into which 500 or so sumo wrestlers are ranked in the Japanese sport, the third division from the bottom, containing the wrestlers about 300 guys from the top, is called Sandanme, which roughly translated means 'more to come.' As you learn bridge, remember that there is always more to come. It's natural to learn bidding rudiments first, and to trust that beginner cardplay versus beginner defense will even out. But this is Bridge 1.0 and there is a lot more to learn! If you think transfers are cool technology, wait until you learn about endplays, squeezes, and other cardplay coups that are rarely brought off at the table (but often in postgame talks and written articles!). Everything is something!
  
  

That's my little list of forest and trees issues I see happening in our super-cool ultra-friendly newcomers game. In two decades of directing I have never seen anything like this program, and I hope what I've written is viewed as helpful rather than critical. Playing live bridge is the best way to learn among many; without at least some live play, it is difficult to improve. I have such envy for the players in our newcomer game, learning the rudiments of the game as I did years ago (and still continue to do to this day). It is so wonderful that our game already has graduates that are playing in the open game, and getting occasional good results! Thanks for reading, and playing! Keep the trees in clear view, but have a look at the forest once in a while too.

Jacoby Transfer Answers — but first write your answers down and try to nail these without peeking!

1. What is the general purpose of Jacoby Transfers? What do they gain? The idea behind Jacoby Transfers is that most hands play better if the stronger hand is concealed and the weaker hand is dummy. This means the opening lead comes around to the stronger hand, rather than going through it. Nobody has a scientific way of quantifying the difference, but I have heard it claimed that it gains about a half a trick on average.
2. Which calls are Jacoby Transfers over a 1NT opener by partner? 2♦ and 2♥ only. Both are transfers to the next suit up. You'll hear about four suit transfers and transfers to minors, but these are not part of Jacoby Transfers. Higher-level bids are not Jacoby Transfers either (except for 3♦ and 3♥ over 2NT).
3. When can opener choose NOT to rebid the next suit up at the same level? Pass is never, ever, an option. The only things opener might rarely do, but only playing with a partner who you have discussed this with, are 1) jump a level (with four-card support and a maximum), or 2) bid a new suit (a natural call that shows also good support for the suit transferred into). Well over 95% of the time you simply complete the transfer. As the notrump opener, your hand is mostly known and you must let responder do most of the judging. Jumping a level or bidding a new suit is risky; partner may have zero points and five of the transferred into suit. Passing is even riskier, since partner may have a very strong hand and the transfer is an attempt to find the right strain for a slam.
4. If responder's rebid is 2NT, what should opener do next? Partner shows exactly five of the suit transferred into and invitational values (about 8-10). It is up to opener to select a game or partscore contract depending on opener's strength (minimum or maximum), and to also choose either partscore (passing 2NT or bidding 3 of the suit transferred into) or game (bidding 3NT or 4 of the suit transferred into) based on the 1NT bidder's holding in the suit transferred into: with two you choose notrump, with four or more you chose the suit, with three you usually select the suit unless you have three small and stoppers elsewhere. The 2NT rebid by responder, setting up four possible paths for opener to take, is a bid I call the Intersection Raise. It happens often, be sure you take the correct turn!
5. If responder's rebid is a raise of the suit to the 3-level, what does this indicate? Transferrer has six or more of the suit and invitational values (about 8-10). This is NOT an invitation to 3NT, it invites ONLY game in the suit transferred into. That 8-10 that partner shows may be made up of distributional points that will be little or no help in notrump.
6. If responder's rebid is 3NT, what should opener do next? Like the 2NT rebid, 3NT shows exactly five of the suit transferred into, but shows game-going values (11 or more, possibly a good ten). The only question is whether to play 3NT or 4 of the suit transferred into. Opener gets to decide, based on length in the suit transferred into: with two, pass 3NT, with four or more, bid four of the suit, with three, usually bid the suit but sometimes you will pass 3NT and hope it is best.
7. Are Jacoby Transfers on over a 1NT overcall by partner? This is a matter of partnership agreement and probably should be discussed. Most people will play 'all systems on,' except:
8. If so, what does it mean when partner transfers into the opening bidder's suit? This is a public test of your partnership agreements. If you haven't discussed this possibility, and few have, you have two options: 1) assume partner has some logical reason transferring you to the suit the opponent has opened. Maybe he wants to indicate a stopper, maybe he wants to indicate a strong hand, maybe he wants to prevent the opening bidder from pre-empting further at his second turn. You simply complete the transfer and find out. Or 2) partner has missed the opening bid and is about to drop you into a suit opened by an opponent. You should avoid this by bidding 2NT, or perhaps a side four-card suit. If you choose #1, you show trust in partner. If you are wrong and something bad happens, you can hardly be blamed. If you choose #2, you are assuming partner has erred and you will be blamed if wrong, as well as publicly showing that you have little faith when something unexpected happens. This is why I would choose #1 and complete the transfer.
9. If responder's rebid is 4NT, what should opener do next? Another one that should be discussed. My preferred answer is that this is similar to 1NT - 4NT: partner has 16-17 points and a balanced hand and is inviting 6NT if opener has 17 or a good 16. Transferring first and then bidding 4NT is similar, except that along the way responder has shown a five-card major, so 4NT is like 2NT but two levels higher: opener can pass 4NT or bid 6NT without a fit, or choose five or six of the suit transferred into with a fit, depending on strength. To ask for aces, partner can transfer first and then jump to 4♣ (Gerber). However, this is not the view that everyone has, and many players will simply respond as though 4NT were Blackwood. Thus, the need for partnership agreement.
10. Are Jacoby Transfers still on if the opponent after the 1NT bidder makes a bid or a double? Again a matter of partnership agreement, and also heavily dependent on the bid made and it's meaning. Over a double or a 2♣ overcall it is certainly possible to have everything still on, with a double of 2♣ as a Stayman inquiry. But if double shows a one-suited hand and you can redouble to say "yes, let's play 1NT, for I have 10 or more points and it must surely be a cakewalk," you may discover that the doubler has ♦AKQJ97432 and you're down two before you take a single trick! There are conventions designed to counter interference over 1NT but they tend to be based on natural overcalls, not the stuff seen today where a 2♦ overcall may show either hearts, or a spades-clubs two-suiter. The best you can do is have a few general rules (what does it mean if we double an artificial overcall? a natural overcall?) and try to land on your feet!
11. If responder's rebid is 5NT, what should opener do next? Again worth a discussion, since there are two possible meanings. 5NT could be like 1NT - 5NT, a grand slam try with responder having exactly five of the suit transferred into, partner wanting to play at least in six of the suit, possibly seven, and possibly 6NT or 7NT, depending on the opening 1NT bidder's shape and general strength. The other possible, but unlikely, interpretation is related to the old Culbertson-era jump to 5NT, known today as Grand Slam Force: it instructs partner to bid seven of the suit agreed upon with two of the three top honours (AK, AQ, or KQ) and bid six with only one of them (with none apparently you are supposed to pass 5NT and pray for the best....). The problem with this interpretation is the concept of 'suit agreed upon' when after a transfer, a suit has been more or less forced upon the opener. It would take a brave opener indeed to bid 7♥ after 1NT - 2♦, 2♥ - 5NT, holding only 15 points and a doubleton ♥KQ! I like my version better.
12. Which suit should I transfer to if I have 5-5 in the majors and partner opens 1NT? When the transferrer bids a new suit (repeating the suit used to make the transfer is not a re-transfer, it is a new, natural bid) after the transfer is completed, it shows a second five-card suit, but that doesn't mean you have to do it that way. Why not bid a Stayman 2♣ and see if partner can fit either major first? Then, over the expected 2♦ response, you rebid 2♥ or 2♠, whichever is a better suit, to paint the picture. Your unbid suit will look like it is only four cards long, but you have the added advantage of staying low and possibly finding a nine-card fit. If you do decide to show 5-5, it is probably best to transfer into spades and then bid 3♥, giving partner a choice. Transferring into hearts first and forcing partner to choose hearts over 3♠ by going to the four level, would show a strong hand.