On May 8, 10:46 pm, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
A lot depends upon partner****p agreement. Almost everything can be
played or not be played, it depends on the agreed ranges between
partners for every taken action.
Boris
|
