awm Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 Yes, this argument will run and run. Your approach seems bizarre to me. If you choose to bid 2♥ because you are willing to play there that feels natural to me. If you have to bid 2♥ because the convention says so in case partner wants to play there that feels artificial to me. You [and to be fair, several others] think the reverse. Suppose partner and I play a 2♦ opening as showing 5+♥, either weak or very strong. If I reply 2♥ to that, it says "I want to play here opposite the weak option." If responding to 2♦ multi with 2♥ is natural (a response which says "I want to play here opposite one of the weak options") surely the fact that we took the "spades" hand out of the 2♦ opening doesn't make my 2♥ response now artificial? The example of a transfer in response to 1NT is very much the same as this 2♦ opening. The only differences are due to negative inferences provided by opener's 1NT opening. 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.