[effervesce]

Playing against a forcing pass system non-vul/multiway club system vul, you hold as west

Scoring: IMP

---

.

South opens 1♥, either 5-9 not extreme shape or 10-15, 6+ clubs.

You and partner have agreed to use the suggested defence given by the opps for their fert bids, including this 1♥, and so you pass. LHO also passes. Partner bids 1NT, 12-15. South passes, and you bid 2♦, meaning it as a transfer.

Partner took it as a GF relay, and bid 2NT (4 spades, <4 hearts).
Since partner when super-accepting transfers has never in your partnership life ever bid 2NT, are you allowed to then see that partner responded as to a GF relay? Thus allowing you to bid 3♣ to determine partner's heart length.

Or would you do something else. I bid 3NT.

[rogerclee]

How would you have taken 2NT if partner had said "transfer" after you bid 2♦? This is basically what you have to pretend happened.

[effervesce]

rogerclee, on Apr 16 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

How would you have taken 2NT if partner had said "transfer" after you bid 2♦? This is basically what you have to pretend happened.

The problem is, for our normal uncontested auctions
Over a 1st/2nd seat 11-13 NT, a GF relay.
Over a 3rd/4th seat 14-16 1NT, transfer.

[kenrexford]

My head just exploded, and that's hard to do.

You are in a sequence where suggested defenses have been provided. However, the suggested defenses do not cover how to handle pass-out seat, apparently. As an initial point, it seems odd that "suggested defenses" would be required but that the "suggested defenses" are not required to cover anythign except the options for the person immediately over the bidder of the convention.

So, anyway, you end up in a situation where GP applies. You are playing a two-way approach, but partner cannot remember what your yourselves are playing. So, he somehow incorrectly explains to the opponents your agreements.

He then makes a call that has no meaning in your approach opposite a transfer, and that call is 2NT. This part cracks me up the most. You are competing against people playing Xango, you have two-way balancing 1NT advancement agreements, but you have no agreement as to a 2NT super-acceptance of a transfer, something Grandpa Jones has on his card.

Surreal.

So, now the question is what the field would do now. The field would ask to exchange their entry for another event. Seriously, no one could possibly know what to do over a convention they have never seen and a call from partner that is impossible. One could make up reasons for any number of calls. Heck -- maybe 3♣ makes sense (2NT as Lebensohl).

The decision you made -- 3NT -- seems right, though. You have advertised five hearts, whether partner knows this or not, and you have a balanced hand otherwise. Makes sense to me.

Let the committee rule however they want.

[effervesce]

I'll add that over a normal balancing seat 1NT, we play stayman/transfers. Also, we rarely have transfer auctions (only recently did we put transfers into our precision 1NT 3rd/4th seat). So, hey, its not so surprising we didnt have an agreement about a 2NT superaccept after transfers.

[TimG]

I expect that the suggested defense said something like: "in balancing seat, 1NT = 12-15, respond as you would over a normal balancing NT (or respond as you would over a normal 1NT opening bid)" And, this pair has been confused by that.

[helene_t]

rogerclee, on Apr 17 2008, 02:43 AM, said:

How would you have taken 2NT if partner had said "transfer" after you bid 2♦? This is basically what you have to pretend happened.

You are supposed to alert rather than announce transfers in response to overcalls. At least in ACBL.

I suppose p alerted your 2♦ call, opp asked, and p said "GF relay". In that case you probably have to bid as if p had super-accepted your transfer. Maybe it is defendable to bid 3NT now, after all you do have a balanced hand with a club stop. Besides, maybe you knew already that p might misinterpret 2♦ and would have guessed it by his 2NT bid alone.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Apr 17 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

You are supposed to alert rather than announce transfers in response to overcalls. At least in ACBL.

Given the variety of methods involved in these hands (and the subject line) I doubt this was in an ACBL event.

[effervesce]

This time, p's misunderstanding was a gain. 3NT and 4♥ are both lucky makes, though 4♥ is superior.

Scoring: IMP

---

[effervesce]

TimG, on Apr 17 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

I expect that the suggested defense said something like: "in balancing seat, 1NT = 12-15, respond as you would over a normal balancing NT (or respond as you would over a normal 1NT opening bid)" And, this pair has been confused by that.

It said 1NT = 12-15 for both the direct and balancing seat 1NT. An X in either seat is 16+ any.