On May 7, 6:00 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Cavendish teams (IMP), vul vs not.
> South deals.
> South holds.
> x
> AK10x
> KQ10x
> AJxx
> The system includes 4 card majors but not with this hand:
> 1D (2S) pass pass
> dbl pass 3C pass
> ?
>
> Under each of these four scenarios, is it bad judgment or bad luck?
>
> A. You, South, bid but pass was the winner.
> B. You, South, pass but bidding was the winner.
> C. Your partner, South, bid but pass was the winner.
> D. Your partner, South, passed but bidding was the winner.
>
> Charles
To the many respondents who wished to know what 2nt would have meant
in this auction, and tried to promote the use of good/bad or
lebensohl, might I mention that the use of artificial 2nt bids in
competition BY A PASSED HAND is a pretty controversial one.
Consider this auction:
(2h) p (p) dbl
(p) ?
There is in my opinion a strong case to be made for 2nt as natural
here: balancer does not have to own the earth, and a balanced 10-12
count without 4 spades is certainly a reasonable sort of hand to pass
over 2h. Otherwise, if responder has a hand like
Qxx
AKxx
Qxx
xxx
he is really stuck. He doesn't (or shouldn't) want to bid 3nt
opposite a balancing double and choosing any suit would be a sheer
guess. Even a hand like
Qx
AKxx
Qxx
xxxx
is much better described by bidding 2nt than by bidding 3c, even if 3c
shows values.
In the auction at hand, what would responder do over 2s with
QTxx
Qx
Axx
xxxx
Surely this wouldn't be anything other than an automatic pass over
2s. It could, I suppose, be argued whether pass, 3c, 3d, or 2nt would
be a better description of this hand over a balancing double, but
surely a natural 2nt couldn't be considered wrong.
In order to make sure that even people like Eric understand, let me
add that I am not opposed to playing 2nt as an artificial range
clarifier here - 2nt shows bad, 3-level bid shows good. I do think it
is worth discussing whether such bids BY A PASSED HAND in competition,
where the pass by its very nature is going to cover some of the bad
hands that responder might hold, may well turn out to be redundant.
Thus, if responder bids 3d or 3h after the balancing double, then by
definitiion he is already showing a hand too weak to compete via a
raise or negative double. That is going to eliminate a bunch of the 9
and 10 point hands, which means that the use of 2nt as a range
clarifier is going to separate 0-6 and 7-8/7-9 point hands.
In general, I would argue that the more unbid suits at the 3-level
below the opening bid, the more useful it is. So an auction like
1h (2s) p (p)
dbl (p) ?
Good bad 2nt would be quite useful, whereas in an auction like
1c (2d) p (p)
dbl (p) ?
Good bad 2nt would be quite un-useful as the failure to bid 2M or make
a negative double has already limited responder's hand pretty well.
Henrysun909
|
