[1eyedjack]

Scoring: IMP

N...E...S...W
1♠..P..P..2♥
2♠..??

---

Do you agree with East's initial Pass?
Do you agree with West's protective 2♥?
Most significantly, do you have a method to show 2 ranges of raise to 3♥ with the East hand now?
I think it is normal for double here to be penalties, but would be interested to know if you disagree.
I was thinking that perhaps showing split ranges of raises to 3♥ is more useful than having a natural 2N available in this sequence, because West's 2♥ is a wide ranging bid, so perhaps we should be playing (by East)
2N = Clubs
3♣ = Diamonds
3♦ = Raise with some values
3♥ = weak raise
Is that in fact the standard among good players?

[655321]

1) I don't object to East's initial pass, but I prefer double.

2) Disagree with West's 2♥. West has a flattish 9 count with length in the opponent's suit. Pass seems normal to me.

3) I guess you could play something fancy here, but it will be very low frequency, and won't gain you much. Often (not here) you will have a cue bid available to distinguish raises below game. I would just play exactly the same methods you normally play after an overcall.

I also play double of 2♠ as penalties in the actual auction.

[rogerclee]

1) I would x with the East hand.
2) I would pass with the West hand.
3) I prefer x here is responsive. I am not sure what is standard.

I think your idea of abandoning a 2NT bid for transfers is fine, but I have never heard of it being used in this position. It is fairly common (but not even close to standard) to play 2NT is the "good raise" in situations like this though. This seems easier to remember than transfers.

[gnasher]

I agree with East's pass and with West's 2♥. If one member of the partnership is to intervene, it seems right that it should be the one in the balancing seat who has some playing strength rather than the one in direct seat who has not.

Over 2♠, I think you should play the same methods as after (1♠) 2♥ (2♠). In that sequence I usually play double as takeout, 2NT as a good raise and new suits natural and non-forcing. However, your transfer scheme seems better in both sequences.

[rbforster]

1. Pass with East
2. Pass with West (length in their suit, few points, and partner would have doubled with a decent hand and shortness). They are Vul and in a likely 5-1 fit from West's balancing seat.
3. X is penalty by a hand that could have doubled for takeout but passed.
4. You might want a natural 2N to show 13-14 balanced with stoppers. If partner bids on stuff like this in balancing, my hand is only good for an invitation anyway so why do I need two ranges? I can't have much better a hand or I'd have bid 1NT directly over 1♠.

[1eyedjack]

Rob F, on Jul 13 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

4. You might want a natural 2N to show 13-14 balanced with stoppers.

Yes, whenever you give up a natural bid in favour of some conventional meaning, you lose out on those hands that would have preferred to make the natural bid. In all such cases, if you give up the natural meaning you do so not in ignorance of that possible downside, but because you rate the benefits to exceed the costs in the long term. Certainly, partner could have a hand suitable for a natural 2N. The relevant question is whether giving up the chance to show that hand outweighs giving up the chance to show the split range raise.

Rob F, on Jul 13 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

If partner bids on stuff like this in balancing, my hand is only good for an invitation anyway so why do I need two ranges?

Because partner could also bid 2♥ on a hand that is considerably stronger.