benlessard Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Weve played this evening 1D = 4H+ or any shapes semi-p)1H = 4S+ (weak or GF)1S = no M weak or GF1Nt = 6 clubs weak or GF2C = 6D weak or GF opener accept the 1M transfer with 3 cards and 20pts or less and its not forcing. 3 times weve stopped at 1M and 1 time we stopped at 1Nt 20 vs 3 pts and only 1 of the contract was untouchable. Being at 2M or 2NT would mean 3 or even 4 minus scores intead of all plusses. Ive mostly played 1C--1D(H)--1H as F1 but im thinking that its better to play it NF Idem for 1C--1H(s)---1S. My previous view was that you cant expect to buy the hand at 1M often but once both opp passes on round 1 the chance that they want to compete is greatly diminished. Any1 agree ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 I think this looks very good but I have just one concern:If opener is distributional might he accept the transfer only to find that despite responder's weakness you have a good fit in another suit, perhaps enough for game? At matchpoints even if not enough for game you could lose heavily. In classical precision you could stop low anyway, because a simple rebid by opener following a 1D negative was a non-forcing rebid. Presumably the alternative schemes with which you are comparing this method have progressed beyond that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted April 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 I think this looks very good but I have just one concern:If opener is distributional might he accept the transfer only to find that despite responder's weakness you have a good fit in another suit, perhaps enough for game? At matchpoints even if not enough for game you could lose heavily. In classical precision you could stop low anyway, because a simple rebid by opener following a 1D negative was a non-forcing rebid. Presumably the alternative schemes with which you are comparing this method have progressed beyond that. Our 1M opening are 12-14 or 18-22 so if opener has 18-22 range hes having clubs or a balanced hands. Its an imps system. My POV was that it was impossible to find all M fit after 1C openings (53-44-35) in an intelligent manner. So if decided to sacrifice a hand range and i think when responder is 5-8 is a good range to sacrifice since its a frequent and ennoying range you ll probably make 1Nt anyway. The hand that are annoying are when responder is 5S INV and opener is 35(14) 15-17 and game is there because of the fit and stiff. The sequence im not sure is 1C--1D--1H(at least 3H)---1S (any INV)----1Nt (minimum not 54 in M/not 6C) MAY not be balanced here i was planning to play 2C = 5C2D = 5D2H = 6 of them2S = 6 of them but i may want to sacrifice the ability to stop in 2C. 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.