This 2D Should Be...

[gwnn]

1♣-1NT-X-2♦

[Finch]

natural. and so should be 2♣ on the same start to the auction.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

for me it is natural, but the meaning depends

on your partnership agreements.

 

In my opinion 2D should mean the same as in

the sequence

 

1NT - (X (1)) - 2D - ...

 

(1) penalty

 

If 2D in this sequence is transfer, ... ok, not my

prefered meaning, but than it should also be

transfer in the other sequence.

May not be optimal, but easy to remenber.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Natural but I think most people at the local club play it as transfer. One of the reason why I prefer not to play transfers with pick-up partners. There are just too many situations where one wonders if systems is on or not.

[lilboyman]

Hi,

 

for me it is natural, but the meaning depends

on your partnership agreements.

 

In my opinion 2D should mean the same as in

the sequence

 

1NT - (X (1)) - 2D - ...

 

(1) penalty

 

If 2D in this sequence is transfer, ... ok, not my

prefered meaning, but than it should also be

transfer in the other sequence.

May not be optimal, but easy to remenber.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Curious as to why 2D as transfer is not preferred.

[helene_t]

Curious as to why 2D as transfer is not preferred.

If you play transfers and you want to be able to play in 2♣ you need to play redbl as transfer to clubs, so you cannot use redbl for other purposes.

 

Also, LHO can double you transfer, or cuebid 2♥.

 

I cannot see any advantage of playing transfers here. Transfers are nice when you have a slamish 2-suiter. Not likely on this auction.

[firmit]

For me this sequence is also the same as 1NT-(X)-2D. Thus, we have a "runaway"-system -> something interesting.

[jtfanclub]

When I play on BBO, in the little text box I put...

 

Systems ON when we overcall NT.

Systems OFF when they X or bid over our NT.

 

because this seems to be the area where I get into a misunderstanding with pickup partners.

[P_Marlowe]

Curious as to why 2D as transfer is not preferred.

If you play transfers and you want to be able to play in 2♣ you need to play redbl as transfer to clubs, so you cannot use redbl for other purposes.

 

Also, LHO can double you transfer, or cuebid 2♥.

 

I cannot see any advantage of playing transfers here. Transfers are nice when you have a slamish 2-suiter. Not likely on this auction.

The advantage of playing transfer in this situation

would be, that you right side the contract.

 

Everyone has to decide for its own, which point

is more relevant.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts B) XX = to run to either minor.

[Finch]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts B) XX = to run to either minor.

It's odd how geography affects things.

 

Basically, round here 99.9% of people do not play transfers after 1NT is doubled. The majority play everything as natural, the minority play some form of conventional run-outs. (After a weak NT opening and penalty double the same applies, but the majority/minority are swapped.)

[pclayton]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts B) XX = to run to either minor.

Same here. I'm surprised at the votes for natural if we have a xx available as a runout.

[mikeh]

When sitting down with a new partner, there are a handful of things I always ask, which are not readily prompted by the (ACBL) convention card. One of them is: what do we play if they make a penalty double of our 1N, whether it be an opening or an overcall?

 

I do not think that there is a 'right' answer to this. Almost any agreement is better than no agreement. If we have had no discussion, then the default should be natural: why assume we play a convention when we haven't talked about it?

 

Now, if you know that partner usually plays a convention, and that he knows that you know, then you can 'guess'. Side issue: say that you are uncertain but decide that passing 2♦ is simply too risky: do you alert and then bid 2♥ or do you say nothing and bid 2♥, and does your choice of action (alert/non-alert) change partner's situation, assuming he intended 2♦ as natural?

[Finch]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts B) XX = to run to either minor.

Same here. I'm surprised at the votes for natural if we have a xx available as a runout.

Some of like to use xx as 'you have made a mistake'

 

Some of the others like to use xx as part of a conventional run-out scheme, allowing them to show both single-suiters and two-suiters after the double.

[bid_em_up]

Transfer to hearts.

[bid_em_up]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts B) XX = to run to either minor.

Same here. I'm surprised at the votes for natural if we have a xx available as a runout.

Some of like to use xx as 'you have made a mistake'

 

Some of the others like to use xx as part of a conventional run-out scheme, allowing them to show both single-suiters and two-suiters after the double.

Why not combine it all?

 

Runout structure:

 

Pass forces XX, no 5 card suit, either intending to play 1N xx'd (unlikely after NT overcall, but entirely possible over 1N opening) or intending to run to cheapest 4 card suit after XX, will usually have at least two 4 card suits.

2C = Stayman

2D = transfer hearts

2H = transfer spades

XX forces 2C which is either then going to be passed or corrected to 2D (5+ card minor suit).

 

If playing 4 way transfers over 1N, they would be off. No sense playing the three level when the 2 level will suffice. This frees up the 2S and 2N bids for other uses (ie, 2S = 5C/4D, 2N = 5D/4C, or some other assigned meaning).

 

This lets you "right side" the major suit contracts in most cases, along with 2C (if that is the 5 card minor) and still allows you to escape into 2m.

 

jmoo.

[jdonn]

Why not combine it all?

 

Runout structure:

 

Pass forces XX

I think that is the quite major problem right there. Too many hands just want to stay in 1NT doubled even though they aren't at all confident it will make.

 

 

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts :P XX = to run to either minor.

Same here. I'm surprised at the votes for natural if we have a xx available as a runout.

Some of like to use xx as 'you have made a mistake'

Do your opponents make that many mistakes on this auction? I don't mean mistake in the sense 1NT makes, I mean mistake in the sense that you are so sure 1NT makes (and that the opponents have nowhere better to go) that it makes sense to redouble to play?

 

It's true that this seems to be very dependant on location.

[cherdano]

I don't know what is standard but it seems quite clear to me that natural is superior. If you use XX as artificial it seems clearly superior to have 2 ways to run, as opponents typically know what they are doing when doubling here, and you almost never want to transfer and bid again (invite game??). If you use XX as natural (quite useful given the IMP table for 1NXX= and 1NXX-1) then you obviously need 2m as natural.

[han]

I believe I play transfers with the guy who just posted that natural is clearly better.

[pclayton]

Hearts and that would be standard and obvious with anyone I know, regardless of previous posts :rolleyes: XX = to run to either minor.

Same here. I'm surprised at the votes for natural if we have a xx available as a runout.

Some of like to use xx as 'you have made a mistake'

 

Some of the others like to use xx as part of a conventional run-out scheme, allowing them to show both single-suiters and two-suiters after the double.

I can't ever remember having a penalty xx in this sequence. LHO has 11, pard has 15, RHO has 9 - doesn't leave a lot for us,and those are all minimums. I think a doubled 1N overcall is a lot different than a doubled (for penalty) 1N opening.

[rogerclee]

Without discussion, I think 2D an xfer is better, since xx forces 2C for a minor runout (is this "expert standard"?)

 

With discussion, I think either DONT runouts or some other runout structure I play are both okay. This mostly refers to weak NT openings but could be adapted to this situation.

 

DONT runouts (and most structures(?) where you can play 1NTx):

Advantage: Can play 1NTx (but can't play 1NTxx, dubious that this is a disadvantage, since I have never declared 1NTxx in my entire life).

Disadvantage: Two-suited runouts are ambiguous, potentially getting doubled and not knowing if we should run to the second suit.

 

Other runout structures that have P force xx:

Advantage: Both suits are known immediately when partner bids. Also, it is potentially better to defend 2Y doubled than declare 1NTx, depending on colors.

Disadvantage: Can't play 1NTx. This is a bigger disadvantage than one might believe without being in these situations a lot.

 

I don't strongly believe that one is better than the other, and I'm not sure there is a vast expert consensus on this.

[cherdano]

I believe I play transfers with the guy who just posted that natural is clearly better.

It sucks to play inferior methods, doesn't it?

[Apollo81]

There is a simple reason why it should be a transfer if undiscussed. If you make this bid with hearts and partner passes, you can correct to 2♥ if they double 2♦.

[Free]

The best use of 2♦ is imo natural. But with pickup partners, I'd take it as transfer

[gwnn]

There is a simple reason why it should be a transfer if undiscussed. If you make this bid with hearts and partner passes, you can correct to 2♥ if they double 2♦.

if only that were so easy :)

 

1♣-1NT-X-2♦

2♥-3♦-x-3♠(4-5 in the majors...)

x-3NT-x-swish