[rduran1216]

kxxx x kx aq109xx


2h ?

[Fluffy]

I always bid 3♣ with this, and shut up after. Might miss good thin 4♠.

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-16, 03:30, said:

I always bid 3♣ with this, and shut up after. Might miss good thin 4♠.

Same here.

In The Netherlands quite a few play a transfer defense to weak twos and multis. I think this is horrible, but my previous partner insisted on playing it. The advantage is obviously that you get to bid twice with strong hands.

My former partner would bid 2NT (transfer to clubs) followed by 3♠ on these hands 8 days a week. ("Isn't it great that I can show two suits?") It usually meant that I ended up declaring 4♣ doubled.

Rik

[CSGibson]

3♣. not doubling is close (ie, small change would make me double), but clear (I think doubling is wrong on this hand, not just "not my preference")

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-16, 03:48, said:

Same here.

In The Netherlands quite a few play a transfer defense to weak twos and multis. I think this is horrible, but my previous partner insisted on playing it. The advantage is obviously that you get to bid twice with strong hands.

My former partner would bid 2NT (transfer to clubs) followed by 3♠ on these hands 8 days a week. ("Isn't it great that I can show two suits?") It usually meant that I ended up declaring 4♣ doubled.

Rik

The really horrible part of that toy is the urge to use it too often

[Alik1974]

3♣, although some would prefer to Dbl, especially in MPs. Dbl isn't so bad, because if opps have a ♥ fit, we rate to have one too (it could be ♦). If they don't, there is always a chance that partner passes.

[gwnn]

Alik1974, on 2013-February-16, 13:56, said:

3♣, although some would prefer to Dbl, especially in MPs. Dbl isn't so bad, because if opps have a ♥ fit, we rate to have one too (it could be ♦). If they don't, there is always a chance that partner passes.

The problem with x is not that we might not have a fit but that we might potentially not find it (playing in diamonds instead of clubs).

[jdeegan]

The North American term for this situation (as most of you know) is "equal level conversion" (ELC). Reverse the club and diamond suits and one can bid 3♦ over pard's 3♣ response to my TO double w/o showing a ton of high cards. With 4-6 in the black suits and moderate HCP, I think almost everyone would bid 3♣.

[dake50]

I have a 2-suiter takeout over preempts: 3D= S+C (expect clubs longer).
I'll try that.
X: 3-suits or bal.
3C: S+D (expect D>S).
3D: S+C (expect C>S).
2S: 5+S.
2NT: H-stop(s).
3H: stop ask.
above 3D: 1-suiter.
Not only do I inform partner which quacks are working,
but I inform the offensive/defensive fit if they bid on.

[FrancesHinden]

dake50, on 2013-February-17, 04:46, said:

I have a 2-suiter takeout over preempts: 3D= S+C (expect clubs longer).
I'll try that.
X: 3-suits or bal.
3C: S+D (expect D>S).
3D: S+C (expect C>S).
2S: 5+S.
2NT: H-stop(s).
3H: stop ask.
above 3D: 1-suiter.
Not only do I inform partner which quacks are working,
but I inform the offensive/defensive fit if they bid on.

You helpfully tell partner that you have clubs and spades with longer clubs. Unfortunately, you can no longer play in 3C. You also seem to have no suitable bid if your hand were Kxx xx Kx AQ109xx which is a major loss.

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-February-17, 05:38, said:

You helpfully tell partner that you have clubs and spades with longer clubs. Unfortunately, you can no longer play in 3C. You also seem to have no suitable bid if your hand were Kxx xx Kx AQ109xx which is a major loss.

Yes, your first two sentences sum up why a top/bottom 3D is not a good idea.

Curious though, about the next part. I don't see anything in Dake's structure prohibiting a mundane 2C overcall

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-17, 10:42, said:

Curious though, about the next part. I don't see anything in Dake's structure prohibiting a mundane 2C overcall

The TD perhaps?

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-18, 08:42, said:

The TD perhaps?

oops