Tim wrote:
> 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
That's a reasonable alternative to what I normally play:
X = takeout (for hearts and diamonds)
1S = natural
Everything else presumes that they bid 1C - 1S, so 2S is also natural
(in my preferred methods).
The key is that partner would know whether or not it's natural, because
you would discuss it before the round starts.
|
