Not so confident now

[Flem72]

A confident assertion I made in another thread about a particular type of sequence started me to thinking. Having scanned some of the occasions when I've made the bids, I now think I may have gotten away with a significant breach of 2/1 structure simply b/c, in the context, the implications didn't matter. Now, I'm considerably more mushy.

 

It has to do with auctions of the type 1H-2C/2H-2S in 2/1. If We were to continue 1H-2C/2H-2S/2N-4D, 1H-2C/2H-2S/2N-4H, or 1H-2C/2H-2S/3D-4H, what would most 2/1 players think R's hand should look like? To put a finer point on it: Would most advanced/expert 2/1 players expect Hx or xxx H support or are these auctions allowed to show 4-3-1-5? If the latter is allowed, isn't the auction slam invitational opposite O's announced minimumish hand? The structural principle at issue: Is R required to announce primary support for O's major at the 2nd turn or may s/he bid out pattern in this traditional way?

 

(This thought is ill-formed enough -- consider 1S-2D/2S-3C/3N-4S: Is 1H-2C/2H-2S, the only R's reverse possible at the two level, a lone ranger for the question? -- that I will now announce: EDIT LIKELY. So set me straight.)

 

edit: O's 2H rebid = generic min, does not claim 6

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[TWO4BRIDGE]

You said :

1H - 2C/2H

2S

 

Did you mean:

1H - 2C/2D

2S

 

??

[Flem72]

You said :

1H - 2C/2H

2S

 

Did you mean:

1H - 2C/2D

2S

 

??

 

Sorry, notation is probably idiosyncratic:

 

1H-2C/2H-2S/2N-4D, for example, =

 

1H-2C

2H-2S

2N-4D.

 

SN