We play Acol, Stayman and Transfers with a 2♠ after partner's 1NT being a transfer to a long minor. That seems to leave 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣redundant. Is there any good alternative use for this sequence?
Page 1 of 1
Alternative use for a redundant bid? 1NT - 2C - 2X 3C vs 1NT- 2S - 3C - P
#2
Posted 2015-December-16, 05:33
It's not redundant.
Really old school is a 1426 5 count type - to play, but will play 2♥ if partner has 4
You can play it as similar shape but invitational or forcing or you can use it as some sort of other club hand (what is 1N-3♣ ?).
Really old school is a 1426 5 count type - to play, but will play 2♥ if partner has 4
You can play it as similar shape but invitational or forcing or you can use it as some sort of other club hand (what is 1N-3♣ ?).
#3
Posted 2015-December-16, 05:37
it's strong with clubs and a major that partner didn't bid.
#4
Posted 2015-December-17, 09:30
I agree with wank. We play:
1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Spades and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing
1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Hearts and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing
Along with this, we play 4-way transfers (2NT is a transfer to 3♦), so to show an invitational hand (9 HCPs or 8 HCPs with a 5-card suit), we start with a 2♣ bid, then rebid 2NT. This sequence does not promise any 4-card Major.
1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Spades and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing
1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣/♦ shows 4 Hearts and 5 ♣/♦ game-forcing
Along with this, we play 4-way transfers (2NT is a transfer to 3♦), so to show an invitational hand (9 HCPs or 8 HCPs with a 5-card suit), we start with a 2♣ bid, then rebid 2NT. This sequence does not promise any 4-card Major.
#5
Posted 2015-December-17, 10:03
It used to be be extended stayman asking for three card majors
#6
Posted 2015-December-18, 11:51
#7
Posted 2015-December-18, 11:52
When 2♠ is used as a weak transfer response to either minor, it is standard that Stayman followed by 3♣ or 3♦ is natural and forcing, showing 4 cards in an unbid major and 5+ cards in the minor suit bid.
Page 1 of 1