Help
FrancesHinden, on Jul 22 2007, 03:35 AM, said:
foo, on Jul 21 2007, 10:54 AM, said:
As for what hands (1N)-X shows, one thing I don't like is when pd does this with powerful shapely hands. Powerful shapely hands often mean We have a Game, or even a slam. Particularly over Weak or Mini AKA Kamikaze NTs.
Such hands should usually bid, not penalty X.
The implication is that penalty X's are made with more or less flat hands of the appropriate strength for the auction.
How strong is that? Well the lower bound is a ~ a strong NT...
Such hands should usually bid, not penalty X.
The implication is that penalty X's are made with more or less flat hands of the appropriate strength for the auction.
How strong is that? Well the lower bound is a ~ a strong NT...
But suppose you have
AKx.AKQxxx.x.KQx (21 HCP)
or
Axx.KJT9xx.x.xxx ( 8 HCP)
Surely you can't overcall 2H over a 1N opening on both of them?
If one of them is a 3H bid, what do you do with
x.KQJT9xx.xxxx.x (6 HCP, 6 losers, 6 expected tricks)
or
AKx.AKQxxxx.x.Ax (20 HCP)
??
It's just I've never actually heard of the idea before that double is restricted to (semi-) balanced hands and all shapely hands bid.
Yes, I would bid, not X, with all 4 of your example hands if I take a forward going call. What I would bid depends on pd, system, opponents, and conditions of contest.
Over a strong NT, I'm giving up on slam with the 20+ HCP hands and just getting Us to 3N or 4M by the best route I have systemically available.
Over a Kamikaze NT, there's a serious possibility that We have a slam with your 1st and 4th examples. In addition, your 4th example contains a self sufficient trump suit so I know what strain We are playing.
Your 2nd and 3rd examples are 2H (or the systemic equivalent), 3H, or even pass calls depending on circumstances. I have some pd's who would not appreciate a preempt with your 3rd example Red @ IMPs. I also have some that would consider the 2nd a dangerous 2H call under some conditions.
The vast majority of circumstances I would consider the 3rd example a clear 3H call and the 2nd example a clear (minimum) 2H (or the systemic equivalent) call.
However, the main point stands. I'm not making a call that suggests I want to defend with any of your examples since I want Us to Declare. Not defend.