[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2015-December-07, 19:45, said:

They doubled 1 NT, so the transfer to ♥ is forced on any hand where you're unwilling to play 1 NTx and have a decided preference to play in ♥. It promises nothing else.

Ignoring the matter of East's double, there are different methods here after West's double. The most common is arguably that 2M shows a 3 card suit and passing shows a doubleton but it used to be that most books I saw recommended completing the transfer with a doubleton and passing to be more encouraging, the problem being that an auction such as 1NT - 2♦ - (X); P - XX; 2♥ is not terribly difficult to double when it is right to do so. So while it might promise very little, or even nothing at all, for a given partnership, for another it might be quite different. It is worth considering the idea that sometimes there are more potential methods available than you might personally be aware of.

[NickRW]

Jinksy, on 2015-December-10, 03:56, said:

I'm curious if I'm in the minority here. Straw poll - how many people think:

a) 2♦ is an xfer here undiscussed with a competent pickup partner,
b) 2♦ should be an xfer here after discussion

?

a) I would assume that we play (after our 1N overcall is Xed) the same as we've agreed for the run out over 1N-(X). Given that this is weak NT land here, run outs of 1Nx is one of the few things that does get discussed with a pickup (f2f anyway, have no idea what crimes against bridge are the norm on BBO). Xfer type run outs are common in the clubs I've played in.

b) xfers are reasonable if agreed - lead comes up to the strong(er) hand.

[gszes]

Jinksy, on 2015-December-10, 03:56, said:

I'm curious if I'm in the minority here. Straw poll - how many people think:

a) 2♦ is an xfer here undiscussed with a competent pickup partner,
b) 2♦ should be an xfer here after discussion

?

if lho is balanced and p is balanced and rho is balanced the odds of needing 2d natural border on nonexistence. In the case where we are known to be broke (like here) playing a transfer system is much more likely to lead to success I would use 2c = nat 2d = transfer 2h = transfer 2s = spades + another suit and limit myself to those options. I would not expect a casual partner to play 2c = natural nor 2s = spades + another but i would have great confidence in 2d and 2h both being transfers.

[nullve]

We can think of this as a LoTT problem, eiher by using

1) Larry Cohen's special LoTT rule which says that the total number of tricks when (exactly) one side is playing notrump is 7 + the number of trumps held by the other side; or
2) "regular" LoTT and the fact that suit contracts on 8-card or better fits tend to produce at least 1 trick more than notrump

Using 1): We have 9 hearts at most, since partner didn't superaccept, so there are at most 16 total tricks. Then if 3NX makes, we are going at least 3 down in 4♥X, again a terrible result, so passing 3NX is our only hope.

Using 2): We have no reason to think opps have more than an 8-card fit, hence (by LoTT) no reason to think there would be more than 17 total tricks had opps chosen to play in that suit, hence (by the mentioned fact about 8-card fits) neither any reason to think there are more than 16 total tricks now that opps have chosen to play in notrump. So passing 3NX is again clear.