BBO Discussion Forums: This 2D Should Be... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

This 2D Should Be...

Poll: this 2D should be? (39 member(s) have cast votes)

this 2D should be?

  1. Natural (21 votes [53.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.85%

  2. Hearts (16 votes [41.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.03%

  3. Something interesting (2 votes [5.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.13%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 User is offline   rogerclee 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,214
  • Joined: 2007-December-16
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 2008-January-28, 19:10

Without discussion, I think 2D an xfer is better, since xx forces 2C for a minor runout (is this "expert standard"?)

With discussion, I think either DONT runouts or some other runout structure I play are both okay. This mostly refers to weak NT openings but could be adapted to this situation.

DONT runouts (and most structures(?) where you can play 1NTx):
Advantage: Can play 1NTx (but can't play 1NTxx, dubious that this is a disadvantage, since I have never declared 1NTxx in my entire life).
Disadvantage: Two-suited runouts are ambiguous, potentially getting doubled and not knowing if we should run to the second suit.

Other runout structures that have P force xx:
Advantage: Both suits are known immediately when partner bids. Also, it is potentially better to defend 2Y doubled than declare 1NTx, depending on colors.
Disadvantage: Can't play 1NTx. This is a bigger disadvantage than one might believe without being in these situations a lot.

I don't strongly believe that one is better than the other, and I'm not sure there is a vast expert consensus on this.
0

#22 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-January-29, 10:22

Hannie, on Jan 28 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

I believe I play transfers with the guy who just posted that natural is clearly better.

It sucks to play inferior methods, doesn't it?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#23 User is offline   Apollo81 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,162
  • Joined: 2006-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 2008-January-29, 10:28

There is a simple reason why it should be a transfer if undiscussed. If you make this bid with hearts and partner passes, you can correct to 2♥ if they double 2♦.
0

#24 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2008-January-29, 11:52

The best use of 2♦ is imo natural. But with pickup partners, I'd take it as transfer
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#25 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2008-January-29, 11:53

Apollo81, on Jan 29 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

There is a simple reason why it should be a transfer if undiscussed. If you make this bid with hearts and partner passes, you can correct to 2♥ if they double 2♦.

if only that were so easy :)

1♣-1NT-X-2♦
2♥-3♦-x-3♠(4-5 in the majors...)
x-3NT-x-swish
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#26 User is offline   Apollo81 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,162
  • Joined: 2006-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 2008-January-29, 12:55

gwnn, on Jan 29 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 29 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

There is a simple reason why it should be a transfer if undiscussed.  If you make this bid with hearts and partner passes, you can correct to 2♥ if they double 2♦.

if only that were so easy :)

1♣-1NT-X-2♦
2♥-3♦-x-3♠(4-5 in the majors...)
x-3NT-x-swish

Well obv partner didn't think any further than "they bid hearts so pard must not have hearts"

pretty silly
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users