rwbarton Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Suppose you play a fairly traditional Precision system including the agreement that over 1♣, 2♥ shows "6+ hearts, with 4 to 6 HCPs, mostly in the heart suit". Would you respond 2♥ on a hand like this, or wait and see what happens after 1♦? (Scoring is IMPs if relevant.) [hv=pc=n&n=s943ha98654d4c762&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c(16+%20unbal%20/%2017+%20bal)p]133|200[/hv] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well let's see, do I have 6+ hearts? Yes. Do I have 4 to 6 HCP? Yes. Are they mostly in the heart suit? Uhm, well, yes. So, uh.... WTP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well let's see, do I have 6+ hearts? Yes. Do I have 4 to 6 HCP? Yes. Are they mostly in the heart suit? Uhm, well, yes. So, uh.... WTP?The problem, I think, is that the description given for the bid is a guide to what it shows, not a definitive demarcation between hands which are bid that way and hands that aren't. For me, the hand has too much potential for playing elsewhere compared with its potential in hearts for this to be a sensible way to try to describe the hand, and I would rather bid 1♦. Make the heart suit KJ10xxx rather than Axxxxx and now I agree with WTP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I simply dont understand why people are not playing transfers at the 2 level over 1C, allow you to have 2 ranges/wider range (3-5) or GF for example.+ You are rightsiding all this for the modest cost of smaller preemption and needing 1nt to show clubs but getting 2S free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I simply dont understand why people are not playing transfers at the 2 level over 1C, allow you to have 2 ranges/wider range (3-5) or GF for example.+ You are rightsiding all this for the modest cost of smaller preemption and needing 1nt to show clubs but getting 2S free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I simply dont understand why people are not playing transfers at the 2 level over 1C, allow you to have 2 ranges/wider range (3-5) or GF for example.+ You are rightsiding all this for the modest cost of smaller preemption and needing 1nt to show clubs but getting 2S free.Doesn't that mean you have to sacrifice 2♦ as natural. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well let's see, do I have 6+ hearts? Yes. Do I have 4 to 6 HCP? Yes. Are they mostly in the heart suit? Uhm, well, yes. So, uh.... WTP? What he said... Equally important, if you start with 1♦ partner is never going to play you for this hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Doesn't that mean you have to sacrifice 2♦ as natural. 2C become a transfer to diamonds. (for us its 0-bad5 or GF) but you could play any range. Rightsiding here is just great and for game/slams its fun to see them lead in an mostly unknown hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Doesn't that mean you have to sacrifice 2♦ as natural. 2C become a transfer to diamonds. (for us its 0-bad5 or GF) but you could play any range. Rightsiding here is just great and for game/slams its fun to see them lead in an mostly unknown hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 For me, the hand has too much potential for playing elsewhere compared with its potential in hearts for this to be a sensible way to try to describe the hand, Oh, partner is not allowed to bid 2♠ over this? Maybe tell me more about the followups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Oh, partner is not allowed to bid 2♠ over this? Maybe tell me more about the followups.This hand is worth probably 2 tricks more in a spade contract than an average 2♥ bid, so it will be the case from time to time that partner passes 2♥ when we have 4♠ on. That said, 2♥ is probably the best description we can hope for. Even if partner rebids 1♠ over 1♣-1♦, we won't be in such a great position. Of course this depends a bit on the follow-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Well, I don't have this problem. 2M for me shows HHxxxx and out, and it's "3-6"; A9xxxx isn't two honours, and AKxxxx and out is a GF positive. But I don't know the answer to this, because (like everyone else is saying) the Ace and the spades are great for a spade contract, and this call is supposed to be "partner, I'm useless outside of hearts". If I was AJ so I could think of this, I don't know what I'd do; if I was AQ, I'd probably start 1♦ and hope I don't confuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think 1C-2H for 4-7 with six hearts is wasteful. I'd rather respond 1D (0-7) and then show hearts. 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.