Transfer advances of a takeout double.
#1
Posted 2016-December-23, 15:10
Hi,
Can anyone give me some information about using transfers to advance partner's takeout double, assuming that this treatment is in use at all?
Jerome.
#3
Posted 2016-December-23, 17:50
#4
Posted 2016-December-23, 17:54
(A) You have the well-defined hand hidden.
(B) The opening lead (of the bid suit) comes through the hand that is likely to have high cards in the suit.
#5
Posted 2016-December-23, 18:18
Seems like a good way to wrongside contracts for no tangible gain.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#6
Posted 2016-December-24, 04:28
#7
Posted 2016-December-24, 04:43
I take the view that right-siding the contract takes second priority to finding the right contract.
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mstr-mnding) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.
"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"
"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
#8
Posted 2016-December-24, 06:21
The loss of a 1S reponse if opponents open 1H and partner doubles would seem to be a big price to pay.
#9
Posted 2016-December-24, 08:18
This method has several advantages. Responder can bid on to show extra values or a second suit, or a stop. So, for example, after the auction above, following 2H and a 2S bid from the doubler responder can bid 2NT to show about 11, balanced with spades and a stop. 3NT would show a stronger hand, 3H would be similar but without a stop.
Overall this method should give many advantages and I would like to report that it produced a lot or great scores, unfortunately I can't recall ever actually using it. Either responder was not strong enough (although it doesn't require a particularly strong hand, maybe 8+) or third hand made a nuisance of himself by bidding something annoying.
In summary in theory it has several advantages and perhaps deserves to be played more widely. However it does need detailed discussion between partners in order to agree the precise meaning of continuations.
#10
Posted 2016-December-24, 08:44
Tramticket, on 2016-December-24, 06:21, said:
Playing the transfers starting with 1♠ would be kind of bonkers.
Anyway I have never played this, but I do play (and quite like) transfer responses when they double.
Probably the more transfers you play the better.
#11
Posted 2016-December-24, 09:54
#12
Posted 2016-December-24, 11:38
1eyedjack, on 2016-December-24, 04:43, said:
Well, OK, please provide an example.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#13
Posted 2016-December-24, 12:41
GrahamJson, on 2016-December-24, 08:18, said:
This method has several advantages. Responder can bid on to show extra values or a second suit, or a stop. So, for example, after the auction above, following 2H and a 2S bid from the doubler responder can bid 2NT to show about 11, balanced with spades and a stop. 3NT would show a stronger hand, 3H would be similar but without a stop.
Overall this method should give many advantages and I would like to report that it produced a lot or great scores, unfortunately I can't recall ever actually using it. Either responder was not strong enough (although it doesn't require a particularly strong hand, maybe 8+) or third hand made a nuisance of himself by bidding something annoying.
In summary in theory it has several advantages and perhaps deserves to be played more widely. However it does need detailed discussion between partners in order to agree the precise meaning of continuations.
This sounds reasonable. But if the opening was (say) 1D? How would you advance with 4-4 in the majors and a few values?
#14
Posted 2016-December-24, 15:35
#15
Posted 2016-December-24, 15:46
msjennifer, on 2016-December-24, 09:54, said:
The WBF doesn't forbid much, and almost nothing constructive that isn't an opening bid. Having lots of alerts doesn't need to slow the game down - most time is spent on trying to work out what to do rather than querying the opponents' system. Besides, ruling that a pair with lots of alerts is wasting time would be an odd decision, to say the least.
#16
Posted 2016-December-25, 14:07
Bidding the next higher suit shows weakness and not shape.
#17
Posted 2016-December-30, 06:32
GrahamJson, on 2016-December-24, 15:35, said:
Nor can those that play the cue as forcing to suit agreement, which is a very popular method.