Tartan Twos

[TimG]

Edit: Sorry I got the name wrong.

 

Recent discussions have me wondering about this method:

 

2♣ = strong with clubs or weak with diamonds;

2♦ = strong with diamonds or weak with hearts;

2♥ = strong with hearts or weak with spades;

2♠ = strong with spades or weak with clubs;

 

and possible defenses.

 

Does anyone face this or similar and have a devised defense?

[helene_t]

No, Tartan twos is something with two-suiters.

 

As for the openings you describe, I think you can just play the same defense as against other transfer preempts.

[TimG]

I could easily have remembered incorrectly, but this thread reinforced my thinking that Tartan Twos were strong with the suit named or weak with the next higher suit.

 

Sorry if I have called the method by the incorrect name. Still, I'm interested in defenses.

[helene_t]

No. Tartan twos are described here: http://www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/Tartan-twos.htm

[Ant590]

Meta-defences are what you need here.

 

For instance, if a bid has a variety of options, and only one of them is weak (and not stupidly unlikely), treat the bid as this weak hand. So use the defence you have to a transfer preempt.

[goodwintr]

Tartan Two-bids, as has been pointed out, are strong (Acol-style) with the suit bid, or weak 5-5 with that suit and another. Various other options have been tried: for example, in the original version (Kelsey?) 2H could also be a strong balanced hand. As far as I know, Tartan Twos were only 2H and 2S, not 2m.

 

Since a Tartan Two is based on a real suit, it would seem reasonable to defend it as if it were a weak two-bid in that suit -- takeout doubles, etc. You might get in trouble if opener happens to be strong, but he is usually weak, and even if he is strong he might not have a lot of defense.

 

The two-bids Tim mentioned in the OP are Ira Rubin's two-way two-bids, strong in the suit named or weak in the next suit up. These were published almost 50 years ago, and Rubin has played them with various partners (including Soloway) over the years, including in several world championships.

[TimG]

No. Tartan twos are described here: http://www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/Tartan-twos.htm

The defense listed on that page is: "It's generally best to sit back and then double them at the three level!" Much as I'd like to submit that defense to ACBL's C&C Committee, I'm quite confident that it would be rejected!

 

Does anyone have a more detailed defense? :)

[gnasher]

As others have said, against the methods in the original post you should just play the same defence as to transfer preempts. The ACBL's defence is fine, but there's also a case for playing double as takeout of their suit and a cue-bid as a two-suiter.

 

The defense listed on that page is: "It's generally best to sit back and then double them at the three level!" Much as I'd like to submit that defense to ACBL's C&C Committee, I'm quite confident that it would be rejected!

Are you asking how to defend against Tartans as described in the link that Helene provided? I'm surprised that you care. Even in the UK, where you'd expect some residual loyalty to the method, I think I've encountered them only once in the past five years. I can't imagine anyone in the ACBL wanting to play them.

 

However, since you ask, the obvious defence is one of these:

 

(1) Pretend that it's a weak two

2M (pass) 2NT dbl = takeout

Pass followed by double of their second suit is takeout.

 

(2) Double = takeout, as against a weak two

- 2NT = natural with tricks

- Pass and double = strong balanced, suggesting defending