Your call

[Keeper1]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj8hqtxxxdajxxxxc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1S x to you

 

What do you do?

[jillybean]

2♠

[aguahombre]

Capp 2C xfer after 1S X. Shows diamonds. Not a clue whether I will ever show my heart suit.

 

Will see what happens.

[pooltuna]

Capp 2C xfer after 1S X. Shows diamonds. Not a clue whether I will ever show my heart suit.

 

Will see what happens.

failing to have that in your arsenal just bid a NON forcing 2♦

[helene_t]

2♦ wtp. Of course it would be nice to have gadget to show two suits in this situation. But 2♦ nonforcing is my prefered treatment.

 

If 2♦ is forcing I suppose I must bid the same as I would without the intervention, i.e. 1NT.

[jjbrr]

2♦. If partner can rebid 2♠ we'll probably end up in game.

[ArtK78]

2♦. If partner can rebid 2♠ we'll probably end up in game.

Wow. Partner opens 1♠ on AQ98xx xx x AQTx. It goes 1♠ - (x) - 2♦ - (P). Now partner chooses not to pass out 2♦ on his singleton diamond with some diamond length implied on his left and, instead, bids 2♠. This is going to get us to GAME?

 

There must be something about partnership bidding that I do not understand.

 

I will say that the direct 2♠ raise by Jilly could inspire the opening bidder holding the hand that I suggested to try for game. But it doesn't take too much to make a game opposite a raise - Kxx of spades and the club K are enough. And it sure seems like the three level is safe opposite a spade raise. But, then again, Jx is not a spade raise.

 

There are a number of 1♠ opening hands which could produce game opposite Jx QTxxx AJxxxx ---. But most of them include a fit in a red suit and a very good spade suit. There is no reason to assume either of these exist, and if partner pulls 2♦ to 2♠ you can pretty much dismiss the possibility of a diamond fit.

[jjbrr]

Is partner allowed any other hands on this auction or is that the only one?

[ArtK78]

Is partner allowed any other hands on this auction or is that the only one?

I am just trying to come up with a hand that is reasonbly consistent with the auction.

 

There is a takeout double, so it is safe to assume that the doubler has hearts. So, opener is likely to be short in hearts.

 

Partner pulls a non-forcing 2♦ to 2♠. Since the 2♦ bid strongly implies no spade fit, opener will not pull without diamond shortness and length in spades.

 

What hand do you propose that is consistent with the auction?

[jdonn]

2♦ seems easy. Nice to be playing transfers here of course. Jilly you shouldn't bid 2♠, you don't have 3+ spades.

[mikeh]

I will bid 2♦, either directly if not playing transfers or, as I prefer, via 2♣.

 

This hand raises a temptation to bid again if he accepts the transfer...either 2♥ or 2♠, but I think I need to reject those temptations. There is little chance, on the auction, that we belong in hearts, and while I like my hand, I don't think I want to get very high in spades unless he has at least 6 of them. It would be a shame to get from a making 2♦ to a failing 2 or 3 spades. I admit to not being clear what I show by a transfer to diamonds then spades....I suspect it should be constructive with Hx in spades and better diamonds than I hold. It can't be a real raise unless I have at least limit values, because the auction might be at the 3-level before I get to show spades.

 

If he rejects the transfer, he is very likely stiff or void in diamonds and my hand may not be worth much. OTOH, if that is the case, and they lead clubs, we may do very well indeed. So I am tempted to raise 2♠ to 3♠, and would do so red at imps, but not otherwise.

[Finch]

I admit to not being clear what I show by a transfer to diamonds then spades....I suspect it should be constructive with Hx in spades and better diamonds than I hold. It can't be a real raise unless I have at least limit values, because the auction might be at the 3-level before I get to show spades.

Mike, don't take this personally, but this is symptomatic of people who agree conventions without discussing them. How can you decide to play something artificial, such as transfers after a double, and then not have discussed the most basic of continuations such as what responder's next bid means?

 

FWIW I agree that a transfer followed by preference to the major should be constructive with a doubleton. But I discussed this before I agreed to play transfers here.

[jdonn]

I have always transferred then bid partner's suit to show a real raise with values elsewhere. It needn't be a limit raise. Even though the possibility of never showing the support exists, with a hand like xxx xxxx AQJx xx it seems important to me to get the lead in case LHO is going to bid regardless.

[karlson]

I think this is where transfer advances to overcalls and transfers over 1M-x should differ strongly, but many people don't formally make the distinction. I think that 2c...2s should show josh's hand here -- yes, it may be at the three level before you get to show spades, but if opener doesn't show a diamond fit, then it might be just as well. With constructive values and no real spade fit, you could start with xx perhaps, and partner is extremely likely to be on lead, so the lead-direct is worth a lot. On the other hand on a sequence like (1c)-1s-(p) I think 2c (showing diamonds) followed by 2s is really much better to play as constructive values with decent diamonds and Hx in spades. In that case it is more likely to be your hand, and you arguably have a wider range for the 1s bidder to sort out.

 

As for the actual hand, I don't understand why I wouldn't try to get both suits in and bid 2c...2h.

[whereagles]

yuck.

 

maybe I pass and cue later...

[mikeh]

I admit to not being clear what I show by a transfer to diamonds then spades....I suspect it should be constructive with Hx in spades and better diamonds than I hold. It can't be a real raise unless I have at least limit values, because the auction might be at the 3-level before I get to show spades.

Mike, don't take this personally, but this is symptomatic of people who agree conventions without discussing them. How can you decide to play something artificial, such as transfers after a double, and then not have discussed the most basic of continuations such as what responder's next bid means?

 

FWIW I agree that a transfer followed by preference to the major should be constructive with a doubleton. But I discussed this before I agreed to play transfers here.

I know it sounds odd, Frances, but the reality is that for the past several years I have not been in a partnership that spends a lot of time discussing sequences that have not yet arisen...unlike earlier partnerships and unlike the partnerships in which, I gather, you play. You are, of course, correct in that one should discuss all followups, especially the common ones, but perhaps because I don't play much anymore, I have never had the auction arise. Since I do have an agreement, even in my relatively casual partnerships, that a transfer advance of a major suit overcall followed by a preference back to the overcall shows a constructive hand with a decent suit and xx (usually Hx) in partner's major, I would expect those partners to work it out at the table.

 

As for taking it personally.... I do...but not in a bad way <_< You are absolutely right, and if I ever decide to try to play seriously again, it's exactly the sort of detail I would insist upon discussing.

[Jlall]

+1 to the josh style, especially at MP.

[awm]

I like the mikeh style where transfer+correct shows doubleton and constructive values. This is a common hand type which can really be quite difficult to bid otherwise.

 

I'm not very into lead-directional bids, especially when it means I'm taking up less space and failing to show my fit right away. Perhaps these bids help you on hands like the example where you have very pure values in the suit transferred to, and partner doesn't have an easy sequence lead or anything, and letting the opponents in a level cheaper by not raising doesn't cost. But these types of "pure" situations are quite rare, whereas the "constructive correction" hands come up a lot.

 

And there's no reason that when the rare "pure" hand comes up you can't use the transfer anyway and just understate your degree of support. After all, if partner doesn't have at least a mild fit for the suit where all your values are (or substantial extras) you probably didn't have a game anyway.

[aguahombre]

One other point, Francis: not knowing what you are going to do next, depending on how the auction proceeds --is not equivalent to not having discussed what follow-up bids mean.

[the hog]

2D or 2C t/f to Ds if it exists.

[Vampyr]

As for the actual hand, I don't understand why I wouldn't try to get both suits in and bid 2c...2h.

This is how I would bid it. I have some safety with ♠Jx, particularly if playing 5-card majors (not specified in OP). I would be less comfortable with my black suits reversed.

[Finch]

One other point, Francis: not knowing what you are going to do next, depending on how the auction proceeds --is not equivalent to not having discussed what follow-up bids mean.

My name is spelled Frances, as in my user id.

 

And I don't think I ever said or implied it was.

If I was playing transfers, I would bid 2C on this hand, but I haven't decided yet what I'm going to do next round.

[ggwhiz]

What's wrong with pass? Is everyone alergic to the green card?

 

I have a much better chance of knowing where to go (or not) on my NEXT bid.

[cherdanno]

What's wrong with pass? Is everyone alergic to the green card?

 

I have a much better chance of knowing where to go (or not) on my NEXT bid.

Yes I am allergic to pass when I have a decent 6520 hand opposite a partner who opened the bidding.

[Jlall]

What's wrong with pass? Is everyone alergic to the green card?

 

I have a much better chance of knowing where to go (or not) on my NEXT bid.

huh