[FrancesHinden]

rogerclee, on Jul 18 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

In all my partnerships that play 4-suit transfers, this is a slam try with shortness in the major. I don't see how this is extremely different from that method.

I think this is standard.

But this agreement is not 4-suit transfers. It seems totally different to me.

(Ken confused matters by calling 2S a 'transfer to clubs' when it wasn't)

By the way, I've never really seen the point, when playing 4-suit transfers, of playing that transfer-then-bid-a-major shows shortness. I've always played it as natural FG being the obvious way to show a minor-major two suiter and thought that was completely normal, until I came across BBO forums who think it is shortness.

[peachy]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jul 18 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

In all my partnerships that play 4-suit transfers, this is a slam try with shortness in the major. I don't see how this is extremely different from that method.

I think this is standard.

But this agreement is not 4-suit transfers. It seems totally different to me.

(Ken confused matters by calling 2S a 'transfer to clubs' when it wasn't)

By the way, I've never really seen the point, when playing 4-suit transfers, of playing that transfer-then-bid-a-major shows shortness. I've always played it as natural FG being the obvious way to show a minor-major two suiter and thought that was completely normal, until I came across BBO forums who think it is shortness.

I am one of those who thinks 1NT-2S*-3C[forced]-3M should be shortness even without agreements specifically saying so. The trump suit may be clubs or diamonds and responder will get that straightened out later which it is. For now, it is shortness and opener is expected to cue, or bid 3NT with wastage in the short suit. If the responder wanted to show interest in a major suit, he would have used Stayman.

[Double !]

Forever sticking in my minority point of view, I tend to agree with the position that 3M now shows a GF hand with a 4-card major. I haven't decided whether or not it better to bid the major that you don't have to permit opener to play the hand should opener have 4 or 5 in that major, or just to bid the hand naturally, to bid the major that you do have. The reason I prefer 3M to show a 4-cd major is that I like to play 2C followed by 3m as showing a weak 4-6 (yes, perhaps more of a match point treatment). Yes, I know this is not the current mainstream method, especially playing 4-suit Xfers with pre-acceptance but I just happen to prefer it.

But, there's something about the given bidding and agreements seems unclear to me. If 1NT - p - 2S is a relay to 3C which responder then either passes or corrects to 3D, how good a hand does the 3D bid show? A sign-off, forcing, what? At this point in the bidding, opener doesn't have a clue about which minor suit responder has. In fact, the failure to show diamonds would sort of imply a club suit, don't ya think?
And, what is the partnership agreement about the meaning of Stayman followed by 3m by responder?

DHL