[ajm218]

What are your agreements on these sequences?

A)
1♠ 2♥
2♠ 3♥

B)
1♠ 2♥
2♠ 4♥

C)
1♠ 2♥
3♠

D)
1♠ 2♥
3♠ 4♥

[Gerben42]

Quote

A) 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♥

Extras with very self-sufficient ♥, similar to the old fashioned SJS.

Quote

1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 4♥

Minimum GF with very long ♥

Quote

C) 1♠ 2♥ 3♠

15 - 18 with good 6+♠

Quote

D) 1♠ 2♥ 3♠ 4♥

Minimum without interest in a ♠ game or slam (singleton at most) and long ♥. 4m would be a cuebid.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Inv.
#2 to play
#3 slam interest, strong suit, sets "basically the suit as trumps",
i.e. if responder bids 4C, 4D this is a cue for spade, 3NT and
4H are offers to play the resp. contracts
#4 To play

I play 2/1 Lawrence style, i.e. 2/1 is gf, unless responder rebids
his suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

ajm218, on Jul 13 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

1♠ 2♥
2♠ 3♥

A good 6-card hearts and nothing else to bid. I think a 26(23) would bid 2NT if it has positional (half)stoppers in both minors.

1♠ 2♥
2♠ 4♥

Minimum GF response, 8-card or good 7-card.

1♠ 2♥
3♠

Solid or almost solid suit, significant extras. (Without significant extras, rebid 4♠)

1♠ 2♥
3♠ 4♥
Same as A).

[awm]

A: Game force with long/good hearts. Some hands with 6+♥ can bid 2NT here, but not all.

B: Essentially to play; minimum game force with 7+♥ not solid.

C: Setting trumps; self-sufficient spades and a good hand.

D: Cuebid, ♥ control, no minor suit control (see C).

[jdonn]

I disagree with 2♥ then 4♥ as generically a minimum. I think it should deny any outside controls. Otherwise I'll match up with Adam.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 14 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

I disagree with 2♥ then 4♥ as generically a minimum. I think it should deny any outside controls. Otherwise I'll match up with Adam.

In that case could the hearts be solid or are you still agreeing with that part?