neilkaz Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 The blame here goes to North for jumping to RKCB rather than bidding a probing and forcing 3♥. A few posts here state that responder's 2♠ was constructive, but not everyone playing 2/1 plays constructive raises and Art specifically stated that he doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 This shouldn't be a problem. Now that we have been taught that U/U can be used by the opening bidder --- Whence this sarcasm? If you think it's a bad idea in the original auction, could you say why, and what use you'd prefer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Whence this sarcasm? If you think it's a bad idea in the original auction, could you say why, and what use you'd prefer?1) no upside versus just bidding the hearts.2) It gives the opponents tools.3) Bidding a Minor could be used for Control bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Playing 2/1 .... a 2S bid is 8, 9 hcp exact . Bidding 1NTF with this 7 hcp hand ( 9 LTC ) is not too far-fetched ...probably borderline with the A x doubleton .Wow - I thought the contructive 8-10 raise (including a point or two for the doubleton) was narrow. 2♠ is such a versatile response. It would be a shame to restrict it to such a narrow set of hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 1) no upside versus just bidding the hearts. It would show a stronger distributional rather than just min distributional hand, like UCBs. Take away the black kings from the OP north, for eg, and I'd still like to be able to bid 3Hs for competitive reasons (especially if I were playing 4cMs). 2) It gives the opponents tools.3) Bidding a Minor could be used for Control bidding. True, but the same could be said of UCBs. I don't mean to insist that it's a good agreement, but you seem to be claiming it's obviously ludicrous, which requires stronger arguments than you've given, IMO. Letting opener use it has the benefit of consistency - until this conversation it's honestly how I had always assumed we were playing after conversations agreement UoverU with irregular Ps, and I would guess many of them assumed the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 O.K. We also have been known to extend a concept to situations where others might not. Warning, however: to assume without discussion that a convention for responder is also used by Opener when there is no hint in any published material that is the case...is disaster-prone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 Thinking in the kenrexford box, it might make sense for 5♣ to be slammy with either major and 5♦ to show both majors. Over 5♣ Responder could relay with 5♦ for Opener's major. A bi-product of this would be to solve rmnka's problem on the actual hand. 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.