Alternative use for a redundant bid?

[Liversidge]

We play Acol, Stayman and Transfers with a 2♠ after partner's 1NT being a transfer to a long minor. That seems to leave 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣redundant. Is there any good alternative use for this sequence?

[Cyberyeti]

It's not redundant.

 

Really old school is a 1426 5 count type - to play, but will play 2♥ if partner has 4

 

You can play it as similar shape but invitational or forcing or you can use it as some sort of other club hand (what is 1N-3♣ ?).

[wank]

it's strong with clubs and a major that partner didn't bid.

[dlks]

I agree with wank. We play:

1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Spades and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Hearts and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing

 

Along with this, we play 4-way transfers (2NT is a transfer to 3♦), so to show an invitational hand (9 HCPs or 8 HCPs with a 5-card suit), we start with a 2♣ bid, then rebid 2NT. This sequence does not promise any 4-card Major.

[zillahandp]

It used to be be extended stayman asking for three card majors

[Caitlynne]

We play Acol, Stayman and Transfers with a 2♠ after partner's 1NT being a transfer to a long minor. That seems to leave 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣redundant. Is there any good alternative use for this sequence?

[Caitlynne]

When 2♠ is used as a weak transfer response to either minor, it is standard that Stayman followed by 3♣ or 3♦ is natural and forcing, showing 4 cards in an unbid major and 5+ cards in the minor suit bid.