twcho Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 You played with your regular pd. The following auction arose: (imp, Nil)We No Ea So-- -- -- 1♣-- -- 1♦ 1N-- 2♥? Is 2♥ a transfer? Though regular partnership, but it is impossible to discuss all bidding situation. Any general guideline to follow in order to determine a bid's meaning? Some may quote that if a bid can be natural, then it should be natural if undiscussed. But on the other hand, over strongish NT opening, transfer is the norm. So which should take the priority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't see the advantage of playing transfers here. Besides, the general rule about transfers is:- Transfers never apply in undiscussed situations. I suppose 2♦ is t/o, based on the general rule that a cue-bid is not natural in undiscussed situations unless common sense clearly says it must be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 > the general rule about transfers is:> - Transfers never apply in undiscussed situations. Great rule! Gotta put this one in my system notes :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 This reminds me of a bidding problem faced by a pro playing with a lump of goo. The system parameters were odd. The auction may be technically off but on as to principle. The Lump-of-Goo ("LOG") opened 1♣, artificial, showing 11-15 HCP, any shape. Her LHO overcalled 1♦. The pro doubled, although the practical bid would have been 1NT (bid notrump first). The RHO redoubled, and the LOG bid 1NT. This is odd, as the LOG never bids 1NT. This was passed to RHO, who preempted 3♦. This was passed to the pro, who bid 3NT in the dark, smelling a rat but with no clue where to go. This was doubled fiercely by LOG's RHO. LOG now bid 4♥. What is this? As a clue, the pro held something like ♠x ♥KJxxx ♦Axx ♣xxxx. LOG held something like ♠AKxxxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AK. For the record, the end contract of 5♣ failed, notrump fails, but one game contract makes. I have heard that Rodwell gave 100% fault to the pro, because the excentricities of the LOG were well known and predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfruit Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 LOG held something like ♠AKxxxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AKxx. Seems like you added 2 additional cards for LOG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 True that -- fixed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.