On Apr 26, 1:29 am, Stephen Fischer
<stephendotfisc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Charles Brenner wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 1:23 am, Jan Veerbeek <jbveerb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> IMP's
> >> East/ all white
>
> >> Your hand:
> >> S A K 10 9 8 5 2
> >> H K J 6 5
> >> D 2
> >> C Q
>
> >> The bidding:
> >> West North East South
> >> -- --- 1C* pass
> >> 1H** ?
>
> >> 1C = 2+ card C, no 5-card major, 11-19 HCP
> >> 1H = Transfer Walsh, 4+card S and 6+ HCP
>
> >> Well, what will be Your action and why?
>
> >> Jan Veerbeek
>
> > 3S for me. I think 1S is outlandish -- why will partner think it shows
> > spades?
>
> > Charles
>
> Presumably because you discussed it before the round.
>
> A constructive 1S rather than a preemptive 2S for me.
Won't a simple and typical defense to the transfer response include a
new meaning for double (probably to show hearts) and 1S (probably some
sort of takeout) and leave the rest of the available bids with the
same meaning as after 1C-1S where 1S is natural? That being the case,
I would expect 2S would be natural and constructive.
Tim
|
