Sit?

[diana_eva]

TM, IMPs, all good players, including CHO

 

[hv=pc=n&s=ST96H986543DJ42CT&w=SJ542HA2DQT973CA4&n=SKQ73HKJTDAK8C872&e=SA8HQ7D65CKQJ9653&k=s&d=w&v=o&a=1D1ND2DD2H3HP3SP3NPPDP?]399|300[/hv]

 

No agreements on what partner's transfer completed to 2♥ shows.

[helene_t]

Yes, sit. Partner knows I am broke and he based his decision on that. ♦J is a great card, it means we can probably finesse twice if I lead it.

 

I will ask what the 3♥ bid means but it probably won't affect my decision. Won't affect the lead either, unless it turns out they had a misunderstanding so probably neither of them have a heart stopper.

[rmnka447]

Pass.

 

They doubled 1 NT, so the transfer to ♥ is forced on any hand where you're unwilling to play 1 NTx and have a decided preference to play in ♥. It promises nothing else.

 

Once they voluntarily bid 3 NT, partner should know you've got to be virtually without points. So partner's double must be made with some reasonable expectation of beating 3 NT in his own hand. If partner didn't want to let them play 3 NT, then a raise to 4 ♥ could have been made or some other suit bid. It wouldn't be unusual for partner to hold something like ♠ AJx ♥ xxx ♦ Ax ♣ KQJ10x where 3 NT always goes down unless they can score 8 ♦ tricks and a ♣ off the top.

 

As a rule, it's almost never right to save partner when partner does something unusual. Trust partner! They may have a really good reason for doing what they are doing.

 

Finally, if 3 NTx doesn't work out, it's not your problem. You didn't make the double and never promised anything with your bidding. It's much better to discuss the double than try to explain going for a number in 4 ♥ when 3 NT can't make.

[neilkaz]

I would pass and think it clear. What would an X of their 3♥ stopper ask mean on this auction?

[wank]

running would be terrible - you've not been asked your opinion. you should be swapping +300 for -500 or some such.

[diana_eva]

OK thanks seems unanimous. I passed and didn't even consider running at the table.

 

I lead a heart, but the suit blocks and I have no entry to cash out. Partner had KJT, opps were Ax / Qx

 

That didn't matter in the end, because opps had long clubs and made without losing the lead, but I wondered whether I should have foreseen the danger and done something.

[wank]

unless your partner had a strong side suit like kqjtx with outside entries (doesn't sound like it from what you said), he doubled for no reason. this is a common bbo trait.

[Jinksy]

Am I the only one who thinks 2♦ as an xfer is a really bad approach here? Undiscussed I would have just thought it was a retreat to diamonds unless we'd specifically agreed both 'exit transfers if they double our 1N opening' and 'system on when we overcall bid 1N as an overcall'. And exit transfers IMO are uniquely bad as a runout over 1N doubled. You let them show about 4x as many hand types, half without rescuing you from the wriggle, just so you can hide the better defined hand.

 

Anyway, pass :P

 

Also, I would think P's X asks for a diamond lead.

[diana_eva]

Am I the only one who thinks 2♦ as an xfer is a really bad approach here? Undiscussed I would have just thought it was a retreat to diamonds unless we'd specifically agreed both 'exit transfers if they double our 1N opening' and 'system on when we overcall bid 1N as an overcall'. And exit transfers IMO are uniquely bad as a runout over 1N doubled. You let them show about 4x as many hand types, half without rescuing you from the wriggle, just so you can hide the better defined hand.

 

Anyway, pass :P

 

Also, I would think P's X asks for a diamond lead.

 

Well this was a random partner (star, but random). With opps opening 1D and no agreements on what XX or a direct 2H by me would mean, it seemed that 2D as a transfer was the most practical call that would avoid a misunderstanding.

Helene also hinted that she would lead a diamond. I thought X was asking for "our suit" there, confirming the heart fit and entries.

[Jinksy]

I dislike exit xfers as a convention, but my main complaint is that I wouldn't dream of pulling 2D to 2H! Undiscussed after a double it seems like it would obviously be weak and natural.

[jogs]

Am I the only one who thinks 2♦ as an xfer is a really bad approach here? Undiscussed I would have just thought it was a retreat to diamonds unless we'd specifically agreed both 'exit transfers if they double our 1N opening' and 'system on when we overcall bid 1N as an overcall'. And exit transfers IMO are uniquely bad as a runout over 1N doubled. You let them show about 4x as many hand types, half without rescuing you from the wriggle, just so you can hide the better defined hand.

 

Anyway, pass :P

 

Also, I would think P's X asks for a diamond lead.

 

That's what I thought. Aren't we always leading a heart? The double should ask for a lead of another suit.

[helene_t]

North's 2♥ bid is strange, btw. If you don't have any agreements about the distinction between pass, rdbl and 2♥ it serves nu purpose, and he runs the risk that 2♦ wasn't meant as a transfer.

[lycier]

OK thanks seems unanimous. I passed and didn't even consider running at the table.

 

I lead a heart, but the suit blocks and I have no entry to cash out. Partner had KJT, opps were Ax / Qx

 

That didn't matter in the end, because opps had long clubs and made without losing the lead, but I wondered whether I should have foreseen the danger and done something.

North's 2♥ bid is strange, btw. If you don't have any agreements about the distinction between pass, rdbl and 2♥ it serves nu purpose, and he runs the risk that 2♦ wasn't meant as a transfer.

 

I disagree.

Here there are some basic agreements for sure because North is a bbo star.

BBO star player must be expert ,as a expert, after 2♦ - X - 2♥,the exact meanings of 2♥ should be exact 3-card ♥ support with exact better defensive cards in ♦.Even final double is not necessarily best,it showed cooperative double at least. Actually these are common sense of expert approach.

I can't get that hand, would you post that hand ? (of course delete usenames of hand.)

Let's better to understand BBO star - expert.

[sfi]

but I wondered whether I should have foreseen the danger and done something.

 

It sounds like partner should have foreseen the danger and done nothing.

[diana_eva]

North's 2♥ bid is strange, btw. If you don't have any agreements about the distinction between pass, rdbl and 2♥ it serves nu purpose, and he runs the risk that 2♦ wasn't meant as a transfer.

 

I thought 2H shows a heart fit - and it did, but I mentioned it wasn't discussed because we were both just guessing.

 

I also thought X asks for a heart lead, not an unusual lead. I think that is what partner meant too.

 

Overall it was a good game and a good partner. I didn't post this as a star bashing topic, I genuinely wanted to know whether there were some meta-agreements at high level, like "this is a cooperative X so you can pull it if unsure" or some such.

[Jinksy]

Overall it was a good game and a good partner. I didn't post this as a star bashing topic, I genuinely wanted to know whether there were some meta-agreements at high level, like "this is a cooperative X so you can pull it if unsure" or some such.

 

Sure. My comment was mostly diana-bashing :P I would have just bid 2♥, then facepalmed in disbelief if (when?) my P bid 2♠ over it.

[diana_eva]

Sure. My comment was mostly diana-bashing :P I would have just bid 2♥, then facepalmed in disbelief if (when?) my P bid 2♠ over it.

 

He probably wd have looked at your acol profile and conclude you don't play transfers anyway :P

[gszes]

Is this a lightner type x or is it merely a practical application of make your normal lead and we will set it? At MP I would be much more inclined to use the latter approach because it will get us more MP more often but at imps the potential pay out from using the lightner type x is huge even if not as common where we will reap more small rewards for passing 3n and getting a heart lead and sometimes reap monster rewards when we can get p to make the unusual lead that will set 3n. I am for the lightner type x at IMPS asking for an unusual lead and

I would lead the

 

club T

 

P did not super accept our transfer and did not xx 2d so these leads seem wrong and surely p would not bid this way with long good spades so thank goodness I have a club to lead.

Hoping to find p with Qxx QJ Axx KQJ9x or some such. P may also have a hand type that can stand a club lead xxx KQJx QJx AKx and still be able to make a timely heart switch.

 

The above reflects my meta thinking but playing with a partner w/o prior discussion is it best to think everyone plays this way or merely go with the idea that occurs with greater frequency?? Intriguing problem. Note that there is no thought given to pulling the x since p should realize we are broke.

[Jinksy]

I'm curious if I'm in the minority here. Straw poll - how many people think:

 

a) 2♦ is an xfer here undiscussed with a competent pickup partner,

b) 2♦ should be an xfer here after discussion

 

?

[helene_t]

a) no, undiscussed I would assume system on after our overcall but off after their double (regardless of whether partner opened or overcalled)

 

b) no, playing strong notrump I prefer system on after double but off after our overcall (regardless of whether they double or not)

[Zelandakh]

They doubled 1 NT, so the transfer to ♥ is forced on any hand where you're unwilling to play 1 NTx and have a decided preference to play in ♥. It promises nothing else.

Ignoring the matter of East's double, there are different methods here after West's double. The most common is arguably that 2M shows a 3 card suit and passing shows a doubleton but it used to be that most books I saw recommended completing the transfer with a doubleton and passing to be more encouraging, the problem being that an auction such as 1NT - 2♦ - (X); P - XX; 2♥ is not terribly difficult to double when it is right to do so. So while it might promise very little, or even nothing at all, for a given partnership, for another it might be quite different. It is worth considering the idea that sometimes there are more potential methods available than you might personally be aware of.

[NickRW]

I'm curious if I'm in the minority here. Straw poll - how many people think:

 

a) 2♦ is an xfer here undiscussed with a competent pickup partner,

b) 2♦ should be an xfer here after discussion

 

?

 

a) I would assume that we play (after our 1N overcall is Xed) the same as we've agreed for the run out over 1N-(X). Given that this is weak NT land here, run outs of 1Nx is one of the few things that does get discussed with a pickup (f2f anyway, have no idea what crimes against bridge are the norm on BBO). Xfer type run outs are common in the clubs I've played in.

 

b) xfers are reasonable if agreed - lead comes up to the strong(er) hand.

[gszes]

I'm curious if I'm in the minority here. Straw poll - how many people think:

 

a) 2♦ is an xfer here undiscussed with a competent pickup partner,

b) 2♦ should be an xfer here after discussion

 

?

 

if lho is balanced and p is balanced and rho is balanced the odds of needing 2d natural border on nonexistence. In the case where we are known to be broke (like here) playing a transfer system is much more likely to lead to success I would use 2c = nat 2d = transfer 2h = transfer 2s = spades + another suit and limit myself to those options. I would not expect a casual partner to play 2c = natural nor 2s = spades + another but i would have great confidence in 2d and 2h both being transfers.

[nullve]

We can think of this as a LoTT problem, eiher by using

 

1) Larry Cohen's special LoTT rule which says that the total number of tricks when (exactly) one side is playing notrump is 7 + the number of trumps held by the other side; or

2) "regular" LoTT and the fact that suit contracts on 8-card or better fits tend to produce at least 1 trick more than notrump

 

Using 1): We have 9 hearts at most, since partner didn't superaccept, so there are at most 16 total tricks. Then if 3NX makes, we are going at least 3 down in 4♥X, again a terrible result, so passing 3NX is our only hope.

 

Using 2): We have no reason to think opps have more than an 8-card fit, hence (by LoTT) no reason to think there would be more than 17 total tricks had opps chosen to play in that suit, hence (by the mentioned fact about 8-card fits) neither any reason to think there are more than 16 total tricks now that opps have chosen to play in notrump. So passing 3NX is again clear.