ONEferBRID Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Our own KenRexford wrote a piece in HIS Cuebidding Blogspot ( http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/. )entitled: Impossible 2S Not So Impossible . Oct 15, 2010 . It wasn't very long, so here it is: " In the ACBL Bulletin, a problem hand was given. Something like xxxx-x-xx-AKJxxx after a 1H opening from partner. A large number of expert votes came in for a forcing 1NT, because focusing clubs even at the cost of burying spades seemed right. If we assume this to be reasonable theory, an exception to the general Walsh thinking, then why not expand this further? It seems that the "impossible" 2S is not so impossible. Why not, in theory, 1H-P-1NT-P-2H-P-2S with 4-0-3-6 pattern? Focus the clubs, but mention the spades. Could not partner have 4-6-3-0? If you take this out, then any 4-6 holding could be handled this way, and perhaps even 4-1-3-5 (perhaps passing 2D but converting 2H to 2S). I am not sure where this thinking leads me, but the thinking is nonetheless suggested. Namely, there is nothing "impossible" about the "impossible" 2S. " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Pavlicek has posted this ( earlier in rec.games.bridge ) as an alternative : 1H - 1NT!2H - 2S! = 5/5 in the minors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 In one partnership I have we actually don't play Impossible 2♠ anymore either. 1♥-2♠ is natural, invitational1♥-1♠; 2X-2♠ is an artificial GF1♥-1NT; 2X-2♠ is weak with spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Agree with kfay. I'd much rather have a bid for weak hand, long spades, than a weak 4x(6x). OK, you can use another sequence, but there aren't any spare bids ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 FWIW, the idea of using 2♠ as an artificial bid may still be superior to any natural meaning. But, it seemed to me humorous to call the call an "impossible" 2♠ when in fact it seemed that the premise was faulty. If one then assumes "if could be natural is natural," then the delayed 2♠ would seem to have this very meaning. I remain uncertain as to merits of anything these days, let alone in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 In one partnership I have we actually don't play Impossible 2♠ anymore either. 1♥-2♠ is natural, invitational1♥-1♠; 2X-2♠ is an artificial GF1♥-1NT; 2X-2♠ is weak with spades. This is what Meckwell play, except that 1H-2S is constructive and 1H-1S, 2L-3S is invitational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.