> There is a very good practical reason to play pass-then-pull as a slam
> try and the direct bid as competitive... if you play it the other way,
> then you must pass-then-pull when you merely intended to compete to
> the next level. What if partner doubles slowly? If your pull was
> part of a slam try, there won't be a problem demonstrating that to a
> director or a committee. But if your pull is a minimum competitive
> hand, you will have a difficult time justifying your planned action.
The flip side is that with the strong pass-then-pull, you can't
complete it when pard bids rather than doubles -- and then maybe *you*
break tempo. It's kind of like with the Smith Echo, which Hamman
(among others) doesn't like because of the tempo issues -- do the
technical merits offset the tempo issues?
> The Rodwell treatment described below is probably the best approach.
> I am unaware of any articles describing it in action.
It is discussed briefly in the second part of a two-part article, "The
Modern Transfer", in the current issue of Australian Bridge. The
article points out that additional sequences are available this way,
but doesn't go into actual usage (for ex, how does a cue bid after
pass->double differ from an immediate cue bid?), and the issue of pass-
then-pull isn't mentioned at all. It doesn't seem to me that the
logic of the two possible pass-then-pull treatments should change
under the Rodwell method, but I wonder whether I'm missing something.
David
|
