You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I nominate this for best article title award in 2019.
May 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I might add as comment query 2: if it had gone (opps pass throughout)

1-2
2-2

would you intend to develop the auction by rebidding or bidding 4 or some other action?
May 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hat tip to Mr. Fleet: Some of these auctions can be dedicated to showing very good as opposed to “normal” holdings, e.g.:

1-1/1-2/2-3 with very good ; 1-1/1-2/2-2 not so much.

1-1/Z-2/2-3 = normal suit, inv values; 1-1/Z-2N (relay to 3)/3-3 = very good suit, inv values. (Many have other uses for the 2N–>3-3 sequence.)

X-Y/Z-3Z = GF+ with very good Z; X-Y/Z-2 then Z support = GF+ with normal Z.

X-Y/Z-3Y = SI, very good one-suiter; X-Y/Z-2/bid-3!Y = GF+, not-so-good one-suiter (One can always catch up after using 2.)
May 17, 2019
Scott Needham edited this comment May 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've worked out a solution that I like, thought I'd take it for a test ride.

The other problem implicated in this issue (and omitted from the OP) is that I've always used 1N-2/2-3 to show 4-4 majors. Obviously incompatible with using that sequence to show the 6-3M varieties. So how about this:

1N-2/2-2 shows 4 or natural 2N invite: Lots of room to get to the right spot.
1N-2/2-2N = the problem 6-3M. Now opener can deny fit, cue, etc.
1N-2/2-3 = same for 6-3M
1N-2/2-3 = responder's 4-4 majors
May 11, 2019
Scott Needham edited this comment May 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't really give it up: It just caters to a different set of layouts, 3M-3OM-5-2 comes to mind.
May 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have mentioned that this is in a 4Way Transfer context as well. So the issue is: Which way to go?

My tendency is to give up the 5cd Stayman toy in favor of the 4Way Transfer toy on these 6m-3-3-1s – long m is the primary feature of the hand – but to do so gives up any chance of finding the 8cd major fit. It does not seem a good move, after, e.g., 1N-2 ()/3 (fit)-3X (short) to allow O's 3M to show a 5cd major. Perhaps 4M could do so, but then we lose a level and it is much too late to figure out whether R's 4N is now asking in m or M or to play. That seems unplayable.

OTOH, an auction like 1N-2/2-3m or 1N-2/2M-3m is clear, I suppose, but we've lost R's ability to show shortness at the 3 level. On game-before-slam principles, O's 3-level calls could be the 4cd major (not fond of this: why advertise?) or stoppers or weak suit, to give R some idea how 3N might play. Regardless, R's 4m over 3N or any other 3-level call by O should indicate slammish values, but we don't know O's degree of fit either (O's new suits are cues, and 4N by O over 4m is intended to play.) Perhaps a jump to the 4 level when available should show shortness and slammish. Perhaps I've persuaded myself: This option does no worse than put us back into a pre-4Way context.

Please, no suggestions to play strong 1C. I've recently agreed to learn one with a partner who has played it for 15 years or more – and that is a whole other story. (For real, now, how can someone who plays a huge number of totally arbitrary
sequences mostly unrelated to natural bidding and requiring mucho rote memorization claim that tricked-out 2/1 is hard to remember?)
May 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO, the convention understanding not detailed sufficiently by the p'ship is SupXs. Moese is right to put the auction into this context.
May 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You've said that this hand, with AKQxxx, qualifies for this sequence in your p'ship. It might even be canonical. So how can 3 be wrong?

And if not AKQ, then there is some kind of entry, right? So, to me, E seems to be gambling big time, mainly hoping for a lead to set up the 9th trick. Hoping for 7cd , AKQJxx, AKQTxx and a 3-3 break without a or lead, or a or honor onside if are good for 6 tricks. Too much of a trifecta by a long shot.

I'd pass 3.
April 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems an odd XYZ: Responder's second round jumps as slammish seems a much more versatile treatment. I would expect 1D-1H/1S-2C/2D-3H.
April 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would not 3 over 2NT suggest forward-going ? and 3 = ?

EDIT: Ooooooops. If 2 is fixed as a raise, so that 3 next is LR, I think I'm overbidding (yes, again) by bidding 3 as opener on my second turn.: How do you like me now?
April 21, 2019
Scott Needham edited this comment April 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3S–>3N,
3,4N = 5S-4H

I like Muppetish things, but few want to do even this small amount to memory tweaking.
April 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks so much. Truly, I appreciate the work.
April 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please see above. 4-3-3-3M 13 opposite 12 5M-3-3-2 after 1M-3N? I'm begging here.
April 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FBOW, code and tax law are two things I have long ago decided to ignore. Can someone please tell me whether, on the auction 1M-3N, the 12 HCP 5M-3-3-2 is more likely to make 4M or 3NT opposite a 13 HCP 4-3-3-3M? My ill-defined intuition is that 4M makes more often with min opposite min (or perhaps “makes more often than the combined results across all ranges”), 3N being more likely as the combined HCP rise. Those weak doubletons have to matter.
April 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AKQxx AQxxx xx x? Seriously?
AKQxx AKQx xx xx?
AKQxx AKQx xxx x?

These all look like respectable “standard” jump shifts to me, and some would differ on the first.
March 25, 2019
Scott Needham edited this comment March 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Related questions: What is the weakest 5-5 that opens 2C? 5-4-3-1? 5-4-2-2?
March 25, 2019
Scott Needham edited this comment March 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ummmmm, I think we call this Birthright?
March 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Granted, poor choice of words: No short. Clearly, though, S's hand is better for play in than in if this is a FPS and N passes. How do you play the pass by N? Does it suggest 5 with clear preference for and Double with more general defense?
March 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intended as a value bid, constructive raise. 4 would've shown shortness.
March 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I have miscounted the list. Corrected to “8.”
March 22, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top