whereagles Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Actually, there are many schemes one can use here, such as 1D (1H) ...X = any balanced hand1S = nat 4+1NT = clubs2C = good raise of diams2D = trash raiseetc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartA Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 You dont need to many gadget, nothing is easier, just agree 1nt doesnt promiss a stop and the rest will be clear and easy. yes if you dont want to agree on that you have a problem and start laying. I don't have a problem at all. I will have problem when I bid NT while opps can take the first 5 or more tricks. I lied about the length of ♣ this time by one card, and I don't think it is a bigger problem than lying about stopper. I accept the reality that no bidding system is perfect. There are always counter-example to show a bidding is "bad". Besides, if I would know pd's hand is limited, I don't have to bid at all (I have to bid PASS). I am forced to bid because there is pontential for game, and 3NT is a very likely one. If my pd jumps to 3NT after my 1NT and opps get the first 5 or more tricks, I am the one to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junyi_zhu Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 wow, im surprised im the only 2S bidder here. Is it really so bad to raise partner in a sure 7 card fit with Ace doubleton and a prime hand? I think 2C is sick with 4-3 in the minors and is a GROSS distortion. 1N is a very reasonable call, and good easily be the winner I think 1NT and 2S are close, 1NT describes the shape well, however, when you hold xxxx in opps' suit, you often belong to suits, even if partner has a stopper, he might notbe able to duck it, xxx facing Kxx, partner may duck it and cut the communication, xxxx facing Kx, partner has to win K on the first trick and opps still probably have their communication. but change xxxx to Txxx or even 9xxx, the situation may change dramatically, because opps may be blocked in the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I lied about the length of ♣ this time by one card, and I don't think it is a bigger problem than lying about stopper. If you're lying about one card, sure. But you're lying about two. 1♦ followed by 2♣ promises 9 cards in the minors. You have seven. If I bid 2♠ and that only promises three, then I'm only lying about 1 card. If I rebid 2♦ and that can be a 5 card suit if I have heart length and no heart strength (eg 2452 distribution) then I'm only lying about one card. I wouldn't want a partner who lied by two cards over lying by one at the same level. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Funny that. Here I would regard anyone who plays that as an easy mark. In Poland no one plays it as well. Think of the wasted hands you can show. I think you are a bit biased. If I am right, Mike Lawrence said x shows 4 and 1s shows 5 is the majority in expert circle. From the logic perspective, isnt it findig the spade fit the most important thing in contested auction? Isnt it a lot helpful if u know pd have 4 or 5+spade if you need to make the decision at the three level? We all dont mind to raise to 2 with 3card in contested auction, but 3 level is another story. I agree that playing x denies spade has its merit, but definitely not so much as u claimed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I think 2c here goes a bit far. I would painfully bid 1N. I dont think the chance that pd raise to 3N is much. I dont have much worry other this. SO i will go with 1N. 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.