On May 6, 10:58=A0pm, shuster <shuster...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 9:11=A0pm, David Babcock <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > There have been threads here about whether pass-then-pull should be a
> > strong action (as in BWS) or a weak action.
>
> 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 mearly intended to compete to
> the next level. =A0What if partner doubles slowly? =A0If your pull was
> part of a slam try, there won't be a problem demonstrating that to a
> director or a committee. =A0But if your pull is a minimum competitve
> hand, you will have a difficult time justifying your planned action.
>
> The Rodwell treatment described below is probably the best approach.
> I am unaware of any articles describing it in action.
>
> Michael
Both ways have a problem with a slow bid. Have you ever tried to
convince a committee that you always intended to pull. And did you
break tempo before you passed to suggest that double would work better
than bidding by partner. Dont think that is a real consideration as
to what is the best method
Nick France
|
