Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How do you play this sequence?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
David Goldfarb
Feb 9, 2012, 3:36:59 AM2/9/12
to
Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
about this sequence:
2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
(3H is a transfer to spades.)
How does the group feel this ought to be played?
--
David Goldfarb |"Federal Espresso: When you absolutely, positively,
goldf...@gmail.com | have to stay up all night."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Diane Reamy
about this sequence:
2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
(3H is a transfer to spades.)
How does the group feel this ought to be played?
--
David Goldfarb |"Federal Espresso: When you absolutely, positively,
goldf...@gmail.com | have to stay up all night."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Diane Reamy
Henry Lockwood
Feb 9, 2012, 4:24:37 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 8:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> --
> David Goldfarb |"Federal Espresso: When you absolutely, positively,
> goldfar...@gmail.com | have to stay up all night."
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> --
> David Goldfarb |"Federal Espresso: When you absolutely, positively,
> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Diane Reamy
It's either Josephine or pick-a-slam (6H or 6NT). I'm pretty certain
it should be forcing!
HenryL
Frances
Feb 9, 2012, 6:16:20 AM2/9/12
to
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> about this sequence:
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
If you have no way to set spades as trumps, it's probably grand slam
force asking for top spade honours.
As I have a way of making spades trumps, I play it in the (probably
somewhat old-fashioned) traditional way. 2NT-5NT says "I am forcing
to 6NT and inviting 7NT if you are maximum", so 2NT-3H-3S-5NT says "I
am forcing to small slam, happy to play in 6NT, and interested in 7S/
7NT if you are maximum, and by the way I have 5 sapdes so look at your
spade holding"
The alternative meaning is choice of slam, offering 6S or 6NT.
Personally I don't like this, because I think it's very rare to have a
hand that knows it wants to play exactly at the 6-level without
investigating alternative levels. However, I think that would be a
very popular meaning particularly in the ACBL where 5NT seems always
to be 'choice of slams'.
Dave Flower
Feb 9, 2012, 7:47:10 AM2/9/12
to
a grand slam force would be useful.
My feeling is that it is a grand slam invitation with 5 spades
Dave Flower
Lorne
Feb 9, 2012, 9:16:23 AM2/9/12
to
"David Goldfarb" wrote in message news:Lz4AL...@kithrup.com...
Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
about this sequence:
2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
(3H is a transfer to spades.)
How does the group feel this ought to be played?
..................
I do not think you can answer the question without knowing what 4N means, or
whether you have an alternative to 3H that shows spades. Asking you to bid
a grand with 2 top spades is possible, but pointless if 4N is RKCB in which
case it could be choose between 6N and 6S. If 4N is a non forcing invite
with 5 spades then it makes more sense for 5N to be a grand slam try.
Another possibility is to choose between the 6 or 7 levels in spades or NT.
Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
about this sequence:
2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
(3H is a transfer to spades.)
How does the group feel this ought to be played?
I do not think you can answer the question without knowing what 4N means, or
whether you have an alternative to 3H that shows spades. Asking you to bid
a grand with 2 top spades is possible, but pointless if 4N is RKCB in which
case it could be choose between 6N and 6S. If 4N is a non forcing invite
with 5 spades then it makes more sense for 5N to be a grand slam try.
Another possibility is to choose between the 6 or 7 levels in spades or NT.
derek
Feb 9, 2012, 9:18:15 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 4:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Looks like a Grand Slam force to me. I see Dave Flower says it's
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
"extremely difficlult to construct a plausible hand where 5NT as a
grand slam force would be useful." That may be, but I'm not good
enough to work things out like that at the table, and since we have no
specific agreements (and apparently neither did you), I'd have to
assume that's what it is.
Frances
Feb 9, 2012, 10:27:07 AM2/9/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
AQJ10xxx
-
AK10xxx
-
QJ109xxxx
Ax
Axx
-
2NT P ?
(possibly 2NT-3H-3S-5C if you agree that is exclusion)
It's not difficult to construct hands, although they are going to be
very rare.
Whether they are more or less rare than the '6 or 7' invitational hand
is difficult to say.
blackshoe
Feb 9, 2012, 10:40:13 AM2/9/12
to goldf...@gmail.com
When I saw the OP, the first thing that occurred to me was "either 'pick a slam' or quantitative, forcing to 6NT, inviting 7, with five spades". Josephine didn't occur to me at all.
Andrew
Feb 9, 2012, 6:35:23 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 12:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Pick-a-slam. The alternative is quantitative invite to 7.
> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> about this sequence:
>
> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Andrew
Feb 9, 2012, 6:45:41 PM2/9/12
to
imagine a hand opposite a strong NT good enough to use GSF (maybe:
QJxxxxxx, --, --, AKQJx). And even if I did want to, I can Texas and
then bid 5NT to show that hand.
IMO, the most useful treatment is pick-a-slam. This lets you choose
between 6m (if opener has a long minor) 6M or 6NT.
David Goldfarb
Feb 9, 2012, 7:20:49 PM2/9/12
to
In article <f6026887-79e7-4fb7...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
I held a semi-balanced 14-count with KQTxx in spades. I meant it as
pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Hello, this is Leslie Down with the daily home
goldf...@gmail.com | astrology report.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | TAURUS: Contemplate domestic turmoil.
| AQUARIUS: Abandon hope for future plans." -- TMBG
pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Hello, this is Leslie Down with the daily home
goldf...@gmail.com | astrology report.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | TAURUS: Contemplate domestic turmoil.
| AQUARIUS: Abandon hope for future plans." -- TMBG
Adam Beneschan
Feb 9, 2012, 7:59:05 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 4:20 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <f6026887-79e7-4fb7-be32-1547babc0...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
want to be in 6NT if partner has two spades but strongly prefer 6S
over 6NT if he has three. With most such hands, if 6NT is good enough
to bid opposite a doubleton, then it should be good enough opposite
three and good enough to make it not worthwhile to look for a 5-3
fit. Since 5NT could have been taken as a grand slam invite without
discussion (and that's how I would have taken it), I think you should
have just used Stayman and then bid 6NT if he doesn't have four spades
(yeah, I know, what if opener bids 3H with 4=4 in the majors).
-- Adam
> In article <f6026887-79e7-4fb7-be32-1547babc0...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 3:35 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 12:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >> > Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> > about this sequence:
>
> >> > 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> >> > (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> >> > How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> >> Pick-a-slam. The alternative is quantitative invite to 7.
>
> >The possibility of GSF would not occur to me. It is difficult to
> >imagine a hand opposite a strong NT good enough to use GSF (maybe:
> >QJxxxxxx, --, --, AKQJx). And even if I did want to, I can Texas and
> >then bid 5NT to show that hand.
>
> >IMO, the most useful treatment is pick-a-slam. This lets you choose
> >between 6m (if opener has a long minor) 6M or 6NT.
>
> I held a semi-balanced 14-count with KQTxx in spades. I meant it as
> pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
> with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
> to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
It's hard for me to imagine a hand with this spade holding where you
>
>
>
>
> Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 3:35 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 12:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >> > Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> > about this sequence:
>
> >> > 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> >> > (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> >> > How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> >> Pick-a-slam. The alternative is quantitative invite to 7.
>
> >The possibility of GSF would not occur to me. It is difficult to
> >imagine a hand opposite a strong NT good enough to use GSF (maybe:
> >QJxxxxxx, --, --, AKQJx). And even if I did want to, I can Texas and
> >then bid 5NT to show that hand.
>
> >IMO, the most useful treatment is pick-a-slam. This lets you choose
> >between 6m (if opener has a long minor) 6M or 6NT.
>
> I held a semi-balanced 14-count with KQTxx in spades. I meant it as
> pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
> with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
> to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
want to be in 6NT if partner has two spades but strongly prefer 6S
over 6NT if he has three. With most such hands, if 6NT is good enough
to bid opposite a doubleton, then it should be good enough opposite
three and good enough to make it not worthwhile to look for a 5-3
fit. Since 5NT could have been taken as a grand slam invite without
discussion (and that's how I would have taken it), I think you should
have just used Stayman and then bid 6NT if he doesn't have four spades
(yeah, I know, what if opener bids 3H with 4=4 in the majors).
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Feb 10, 2012, 6:49:11 PM2/10/12
to
David Goldfarb:
going on in David's auction?
--
Mark Brader "He'll spend at least part of his life
Toronto in prison, or parliament, or both."
m...@vex.net --Peter Moylan
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
>> about this sequence:
>> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Frances Hinden:
>> about this sequence:
>> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
> That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
> forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
going on in David's auction?
--
Mark Brader "He'll spend at least part of his life
Toronto in prison, or parliament, or both."
m...@vex.net --Peter Moylan
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Adam Beneschan
Feb 10, 2012, 7:53:39 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 3:49 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> David Goldfarb:
>
> >> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> about this sequence:
> >> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> >> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> >> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> Frances Hinden:
>
> > That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> > forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> > then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> > agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
>
> I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
> going on in David's auction?
No. Over a natural notrump opener, a Texas transfer sets trumps, a
> David Goldfarb:
>
> >> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> about this sequence:
> >> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> >> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> >> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> Frances Hinden:
>
> > That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> > forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> > then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> > agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
>
> I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
> going on in David's auction?
Jacoby transfer (which only promises five) doesn't. That's pretty
standard. In any case, it generally follows the same principle as a
4NT rebid: a Jacoby transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, Texas
followed by 4NT sets trumps and asks for key cards with the suit as
trumps.
-- Adam
TWOferBRIDGE
Feb 11, 2012, 1:46:59 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 9, 6:20 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <f6026887-79e7-4fb7-be32-1547babc0...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <f6026887-79e7-4fb7-be32-1547babc0...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 3:35 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 12:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >> > Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> > about this sequence:
>
> >> > 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> >> > (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> >> > How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> >> Pick-a-slam. The alternative is quantitative invite to 7.
>
> >The possibility of GSF would not occur to me. It is difficult to
> >imagine a hand opposite a strong NT good enough to use GSF (maybe:
> >QJxxxxxx, --, --, AKQJx). And even if I did want to, I can Texas and
> >then bid 5NT to show that hand.
>
> >IMO, the most useful treatment is pick-a-slam. This lets you choose
> >between 6m (if opener has a long minor) 6M or 6NT.
>
> I held a semi-balanced 14-count with KQTxx in spades. I meant it as
> pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
> with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
> to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
>
> --
> David Goldfarb |"Hello, this is Leslie Down with the daily home
> goldfar...@gmail.com | astrology report.
> >On Feb 9, 3:35 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 12:36 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >> > Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> >> > about this sequence:
>
> >> > 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>
> >> > (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>
> >> > How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> >> Pick-a-slam. The alternative is quantitative invite to 7.
>
> >The possibility of GSF would not occur to me. It is difficult to
> >imagine a hand opposite a strong NT good enough to use GSF (maybe:
> >QJxxxxxx, --, --, AKQJx). And even if I did want to, I can Texas and
> >then bid 5NT to show that hand.
>
> >IMO, the most useful treatment is pick-a-slam. This lets you choose
> >between 6m (if opener has a long minor) 6M or 6NT.
>
> I held a semi-balanced 14-count with KQTxx in spades. I meant it as
> pick-a-slam between 6S and 6NT. Partner took it as inviting 7, and
> with 21 HCP and 3 spades bid 7NT. It made, but wasn't good enough
> to be worth bidding. (6N was the best spot.)
>
> --
> David Goldfarb |"Hello, this is Leslie Down with the daily home
> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | TAURUS: Contemplate domestic turmoil.
> | AQUARIUS: Abandon hope for future plans." -- TMBG
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
There is a distinction based on "suit agreement" whether 5NT
is a Grand Slam Force or just Choice of Small Slam .
A) NO suit agreement = choice of small slam
B) Suit agreement = GSF ; forces 6.. invite to 7.
The problem here had NO suit agreement.
- - Don - -
ps.
One way for suit agreement would be a Super-Accept:
2NT - 3H!
4S - 5NT = GSF
Possible another way could be a Texas Transfer
if you play Texas over 2NT:
2NT - 4H!
4S - 5NT = GSF , since Texas "forces suit agreement"
[ I'm just "logically" guessing here ] .
derek
Feb 11, 2012, 7:33:51 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 10, 8:53 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 3:49 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Goldfarb:
>
> > >> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> > >> about this sequence:
> > >> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> > >> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> > >> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> > Frances Hinden:
>
> > > That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> > > forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> > > then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> > > agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
>
> > I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
> > going on in David's auction?
>
> No. Over a natural notrump opener, a Texas transfer sets trumps, a
> Jacoby transfer (which only promises five) doesn't.
Sure, but a transfer and then 5N has clearly set trumps. In fact, most
> On Feb 10, 3:49 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Goldfarb:
>
> > >> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
> > >> about this sequence:
> > >> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
> > >> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
> > >> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
>
> > Frances Hinden:
>
> > > That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
> > > forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
> > > then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
> > > agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
>
> > I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
> > going on in David's auction?
>
> No. Over a natural notrump opener, a Texas transfer sets trumps, a
> Jacoby transfer (which only promises five) doesn't.
people I know who play Texas transfers explicitly _don't_ use them for
slam-going hands.
blackshoe
Feb 11, 2012, 10:48:21 PM2/11/12
to
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:33:51 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:
> Sure, but a transfer and then 5N has clearly set trumps. In fact, most
> people I know who play Texas transfers explicitly _don't_ use them for
> slam-going hands.
Why, if two (or three) level transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, should the same transfer followed by 5NT "clearly set trumps"?
> Sure, but a transfer and then 5N has clearly set trumps. In fact, most
> people I know who play Texas transfers explicitly _don't_ use them for
> slam-going hands.
My first thought at the beginning of all this was that I see no reason, given that transfer-then 4NT is analogous to just jumping to 4NT, that transfer-then 5NT shouldn't be analogous to just jumping to 5NT, i.e., showing five cards in the major, values for at least 6NT, and asking opener to pick the final contract (and not by passing!)
AFAIK, many people, if not most, who play Texas, play Texas-then 4NT as RKCB for responder's major, and Texas-then five of a suit as exclusion (if they play exclusion).
Mark Brader
Feb 12, 2012, 3:30:16 AM2/12/12
to
David Goldfarb:
>>>> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
>>>> about this sequence:
>>>> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>>>> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>>>> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Frances Hinden:
>>> That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
>>> forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
>>> then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
>>> agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
Mark Brader:
>>>> Playing in the Regional last week, my partner and I had a disagreement
>>>> about this sequence:
>>>> 2NT-3H; 3S-5NT.
>>>> (3H is a transfer to spades.)
>>>> How does the group feel this ought to be played?
Frances Hinden:
>>> That depends on the rest of your agreements. If you have a way of
>>> forcing spades to be trumps (e.g. by a (South African) Texas Transfer)
>>> then you don't need to play this as grand slam force, because you can
>>> agree spades and then jump to 5NT.
>> I'm confused. Isn't "agree spades and then jump to 5NT" exactly what's
>> going on in David's auction?
Adam Beneschan:
>> going on in David's auction?
> No. Over a natural notrump opener, a Texas transfer sets trumps, a
> Jacoby transfer (which only promises five) doesn't. That's pretty
> standard.
Sure, if the responder continues with a notrump bid or a new suit.
> Jacoby transfer (which only promises five) doesn't. That's pretty
> standard.
That's not what's happening here.
> In any case, it generally follows the same principle as a
> 4NT rebid: a Jacoby transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, Texas
> followed by 4NT sets trumps and asks for key cards with the suit as
> trumps.
for hands that have just enough to make game.
Anyway, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to play it the way you
(Adam) say, only that the way Frances described it was confusing.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Big programs are a bug."
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
derek
Feb 12, 2012, 8:39:35 AM2/12/12
to
On Feb 11, 11:48 pm, blackshoe <blacks...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:33:51 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:
> > Sure, but a transfer and then 5N has clearly set trumps. In fact, most
> > people I know who play Texas transfers explicitly _don't_ use them for
> > slam-going hands.
>
> Why, if two (or three) level transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, should the same transfer followed by 5NT "clearly set trumps"?
>
> My first thought at the beginning of all this was that I see no reason, given that transfer-then 4NT is analogous to just jumping to 4NT
Except that it isn't. Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions.
> On Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:33:51 PM UTC-5, derek wrote:
> > Sure, but a transfer and then 5N has clearly set trumps. In fact, most
> > people I know who play Texas transfers explicitly _don't_ use them for
> > slam-going hands.
>
> Why, if two (or three) level transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, should the same transfer followed by 5NT "clearly set trumps"?
>
> My first thought at the beginning of all this was that I see no reason, given that transfer-then 4NT is analogous to just jumping to 4NT
blackshoe
Feb 12, 2012, 11:35:13 AM2/12/12
to
Why isn't it?
Stu Goodgold
Feb 12, 2012, 2:39:46 PM2/12/12
to
Most often a Texas xfer is used with a weakish hand. But obviously 1N-4D;4H-4N is not a weakish hand, and it would be a waste not to assign a meaning. As is common with other conventions, you can show both weak/limited versus very strong hands with the same bid (as long as it is forcing). Minor suit xfers work that way as well. I'm with Adam on this one and thought it was common knowledge that 4N after a Texas xfer is RKCB.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
0 new messages