Help
mikeh, on Dec 10 2007, 01:27 PM, said:
joshs, on Dec 7 2007, 02:57 PM, said:
Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....
I understand the thinking, but if you want to use 3♠ as shape-asking, I suggest that you revamp your responses to J2N altogether rather than develop a shape ask that only applies when opener has a balanced minimum.
I would be afraid that using 3♠ as shape asking is going to bump cuebidding too high. You are, in shape-asking, going to cater to as many as 9 possible shapes (5332s, 5422s, and 6322s). Even with nesting responses, you are going to be at the 5-level before you can begin to differentiate between QJxxxx xx Axx Ax and Qxxxx AKx Ax xxx, and I suspect that it would be relatively easy to construct sequences where you are simply too high, especially on different slam-interested responding hands.
Frankly, if you are going to all this trouble out of concern about shape, switch methods to using 2♣ responses to 1Major as artificial gf, with relay responses (I can send you a very good scheme
)More pragmatically, my view is that using 3♠ as a request that opener evaluate his slam-suitability in context is far easier than asking for shape and then hoping to find out whether he likes or dislikes his hand. The key is the 'in context'.
The point was:
what is the advantage of using 3S as "how do you like your hand?" compared to using 3N as "how do you like your hand?" and if 3S is "how do you like your hand, what is 3N". Also, since the space issues are different over hearts and over spades, is it worth it to be optimal over spades, if you can't do the same thing over hearts.
I think there are a number of structures suggested in this thread:
a. 3S how do you like your hand
3N natural
b. 3S trump Q bid
3N how do you like your hand
c. 3S Do you have extra shape anywhere (3N=some 5332, 4CDH=natural, 4S=6Spades)
3N how do you like your hand
and so on.
I was playing a, but I like both b and c better but note that these schemes don't work over hearts since you have 1 less step available.
Note: A lot more definition can be given in the various sequences if you allow run ons. For instance in one partnership, I have jumps to 4M available over 2N and over 3D
One was used to show a 7222 dog min
The other to show a 6322 dog min including the trump Q (which loses value after a 10 card fit comes to light)
And then I can later show 6322 min without the trump Q...
There really is lots of space in the sequences.