BillPatch Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Agree with Timo. As S I'd bid 3♦, but I shouldn't have had the chance. N's 2♦ is a crime, IMO (and I'm hopelessly timorous in constructive auctions).While I no longer consider N's 2♦ in such a positive light, surely his final pass after partner encourages is far worse, and is the proximate cause of missing game for a bottom score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 I understand the 2♦ rebid while not agreeing with it. Now for something a little off-topic ... Maybe Responder's 2NT should be a one-round force on this auction. Opener's continuations need to be discussed, but a forcing-one-round 2NT would certainly help Responder out here. Ok, I gotta ask. The Jo in Jodepp is for Johnny? Not that it is any of my business! I like 2NT to show a hand suitable for NT. I realize this is a very unusual approach :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zillahandp Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 3d, which is more enc. than 4d which would besecond choice, ax anything over 4d so could be a good bounce but AK mean wont get the chance agiainst decent opps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodepp Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Ok, I gotta ask. The Jo in Jodepp is for Johnny? Not that it is any of my business! I like 2NT to show a hand suitable for NT. I realize this is a very unusual approach :) yes, I'm a Johnny Depp fan :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodepp Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Playing 2NT as natural is what I prefer but I could understand why someone would want to play it as a one-round force, on the theory that some people never want to play 2NT, period... so it might as well mean something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Playing 2NT as natural is what I prefer but I could understand why someone would want to play it as a one-round force, on the theory that some people never want to play 2NT, period... so it might as well mean something else. I was sort of joking, sort of not, about a natural 2NT being an unusual approach. When I look over results, and decide which are due error and which are due to not having the right convention available, the error list swamps the convention list. With the partner I had for tis hand, we don't play 2/1, we don't play Bergen, we don't play a lot of stuff. We do pay Flannery, he likes it, although I prefer a weak 2D. The hand was from a two session event, 48 boards. There was not a single hand where the result depended at all on whether we were or were not playing these conventions. There definitely were some where better judgment would have helped, and even some where decent judgment happily did help. I am not knocking conventions, they are useful or they would not exist. But I think that those of us who play from time to time with this person or that should not expect conventions to save us from our bad choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 I understand the 2♦ rebid while not agreeing with it. Now for something a little off-topic ... Maybe Responder's 2NT should be a one-round force on this auction. Opener's continuations need to be discussed, but a forcing-one-round 2NT would certainly help Responder out here.Yes. Kokish has popularized the treatment of the natural 2NT one-round force on this and similar auctions where partner has implied 6 or more in a minor at he 2 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yes. Kokish has popularized the treatment of the natural 2NT one-round force on this and similar auctions where partner has implied 6 or more in a minor at he 2 level. I assume that "natural" is a key part of that sentence. The idea would be that after 1m-1M-2m-2NT (natural) it is likely that whenever the strength for 3NT is not there it is reasonably likely 3m will be a good contract. This makes some sense. With the hand that I had, reproduced below, I am not so sure I would think of 2NT as "natural". [hv=pc=n&s=st8532hak9dj843c3&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dd1sp2dp]133|200|mathchpoints[/hv] I guess it depends on how stretchable "natural" is. In the actual hand 3NT makes, but so does 6D. I have thought a little more about what 3H over my actual choice of 3D should be, with or without the double by the opponents. Maybe it is best to play it as sort of a "last train" attempt at 3NT. The message being something like "There are two suits we haven't mentioned. If I was sure NT was right I would bid it. I am not sure it is right, but it might be." It seems to me that there is simply not room to reliably sort out club and heart stoppers, and anyway, unless they can run five tricks, we might be fine with one suit unstopped. So a general suggestion that maybe 3NT is right seems useful. If partner had bid 3H (which he didn't) and if we had that understanding (which we don't) what would I have done? Well, clearly I would bid 6D. Joking. No, I can't say I am sure what I would have dome, but we would have been playing in either 5D or 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 While I suggested that the forcing natural 2NT might be used on this auction, neither I nor Kokes would recommend it for this particular hand. A 2NT forcing rebid was being considered to try to solve this problem, and I just wanted to say that that Kokes Koached teams had a 2NT forcing rebid available, and the method is published. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts