[mikeh]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 10 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

So 1♥ 'works' if opener is 1354 or 1444.. and even then only if opener would not rebid 1N: a lot of players, these days, will rebid 1N on these patterns.

(Reitterating that I would have responded 1♠ on the actual hand, not 1♥)
It also works when opener rebids his minor. For example 1363 or 1462, 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ is forcing and could get you very high with no fit if opener has the wrong shape. 1♦ 1♥ 2♥ is much nicer. So I think it has more upside than you give credit for.

While 1♠ then 2♥ is usually played as forcing (after a 2♦ rebid), one doesn't need to do so, if one is prepared, for example, to play 2N as forcing... but that is a digression and not really responsive since it implies specialized and unorthodox treatments.

However, altho 2♥ is forcing, I don't think that it creates a gf.. thus, responder can pass 2♠ or 3♣, and can bid a non-forcing 3♥ over 2N.. so while the hand is minimum, if opener rebid 2♦, I don't see a lot of problems with 1♠ then 2♥ with this hand... please... note... I said a 'lot' of problems.. I am not saying that this treatment is free of all problems.. but it is surely less problematic than responding 1♥

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

It also works when opener has 4 spades.

"Works" is shorthand for "works better than responding 1♠ works", which I thought was obvious from the context.

I think it's a poor definition for "works" in this context. When they're equally good, saying that 1♥ doesn't "work," because it's not better, has an inappropriate negative connotation.

[JLOL]

LOL

[mikeh]

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

It also works when opener has 4 spades.

"Works" is shorthand for "works better than responding 1♠ works", which I thought was obvious from the context.

I think it's a poor definition for "works" in this context. When they're equally good, saying that 1♥ doesn't "work," because it's not better, has an inappropriate negative connotation.

well.....

I put 'works' in quotations... that might have been a 'clue'.

As for suggesting that my comment meant that 1♥ is only 'not better' than 1♠... all I can say is......LOL

[helene_t]

Silly semantic discussions are confined to the water cooler.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Feb 10 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 10 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 10 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

It also works when opener has 4 spades.

"Works" is shorthand for "works better than responding 1♠ works", which I thought was obvious from the context.

I think it's a poor definition for "works" in this context. When they're equally good, saying that 1♥ doesn't "work," because it's not better, has an inappropriate negative connotation.

well.....

I put 'works' in quotations... that might have been a 'clue'.

As for suggesting that my comment meant that 1♥ is only 'not better' than 1♠... all I can say is......LOL

I agree that a closer reading of your comment would have indicated what you meant by "works"; however, I wasn't suggesting at all that your comment meant that 1♥ is only "not better" than 1♠.

What I was clarifying is that to the extent that 1♥ is being defended (and I reiterate that like Josh, I'm not advocating a 1♥ response), it's relevant to point out not only those circumstances in which 1♥ is a gain, but also those circumstances in which 1♥ is a push. That's all.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

Silly semantic discussions are confined to the water cooler.

No they aren't. Perhaps you mean that silly semantic discussions should be confined to the water cooler?

(Sorry.)

[Lobowolf]

gnasher, on Feb 10 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 11:26 PM, said:

Silly semantic discussions are confined to the water cooler.

No they aren't. Perhaps you mean that silly semantic discussions should be confined to the water cooler?

(Sorry.)

Ahhh, that's just semantics*


* = "merely pertaining to the meanings of the words used in the communication." I mean, really...how utterly irrelevant.

[InTime]

H_KARLUK, on Feb 10 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ A8432 ♥ KJT95 ♦ 5 ♣ T8

1♦   P   1♠   P
2♣   P   ?

Your technical analyses please.
Thanks

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 3♥
4♥
Well, 2♥ will be 4th suit forcing to game. Thus, 3♥ will be nothing other than 5-5 in the majors invitational.
Regards