I used to think that transfers were unsound because they give opps much more options. They can pass and bid next time (for example showing a weaker hand than direct action), they can double the tranfer (showing length in that suit in a safe way) or they can cuebid the suit transfered to (showing a weak distributional takeout, or some two-suiter, or whaterever they like). They can play a direct 2NT as Lebensohl and a delayed as scrambling. Or w/e.
But I am not sure if it matters that much in practice - few pairs have worked out a detailed defense against the runout transfers.
We had a nice auction:
(1NT)-x-(2
♥*)-x
(2
♠)-4
♥
Having a 4-6 reds 15-count and partner having a balanced 6-count with five hearts, we found a game which nobody else found. But this was just a single incident, playing maybe 300 sesions at a club where almost everyone plays weak NT and runout transfers.
So I think it matters very little what you play as long as you know how to bid a weak hand with a 5-card suit, and as long as opps artificial doubles of your strong NT don't mess up your constructive auctions.
Quote
If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX, responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble.
Does this mean that pass
only contains the hands that are willing to sit for 1NT redoubled? That sounds inefficient. Playing redouble as business and pass as a puppet to 2
♣ gives you the exact same options but put a bit more pressure on opps. The point of playing pass as a puppet to redouble is that responder doesn't have to pass the redouble - he can also bid a suit which will show different 2-suited hands.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket