BBO Discussion Forums: Convention Disruption Thingy - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Convention Disruption Thingy

#21 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-September-08, 16:00

View Postaguahombre, on 2012-September-08, 11:06, said:

N/S are making the retransfer Case, not E/W. I looked again, and stand by my points. If you would like to insist on retransfers, fine. I don't like Convention disruption anyway.

I don't like Convention disruption either.

But more importantly: I am not insisting on 3♦ as a retransfer. I am not even talking about the pass of 3♦. I am talking about the 2NT bid. I am insisting that 2♦ was a transfer. And then West's 2NT bid is an infraction since it is suggested over the LA of 3♥.

Of course, NS were making the retransfer case. But could they even have started a discussion about 3♦ as a retransfer if 2♦ would not have been a transfer? Of course not. Already the term "retransfer" means that there has been a transfer before.

And West never raised his partner's "diamonds", but he bids 2NT. Why? Because his partner's "diamonds" were hearts.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
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