1♣:2♣ (inverted)
2♥:3♦
3♠
How do the 2/1 experts play this?
Page 1 of 1
what is 3S here?
#1
Posted 2009-August-31, 21:23
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.”
Bridge should be fun!
Bridge should be fun!
#3
Posted 2009-September-01, 07:17
yes, looking for help.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#4
Posted 2009-September-01, 08:04
Same concept, but just to be precise...
If the call is a notrump probe, it shows something in spades and seeks help. Thus, it is a showing bid. This is contrasted with a pure asking bid, which might be deemed a "denial" type of call. Whereas this call does deny enough to bid 3NT, it contextually must also show something.
I think this is relevant when determining what 3♠ means if it turms out that partner was actually slammish. In that event, the call should be construed, IMO, as a control-showing cue. In a different auction, for example, where the bid was purely asking, then it makes more sense, IMO, in a slam-going sequence for the call to be a "denial cue" for slam purposes, if for no other reason than consistency. It is difficult to switch tacks mid-auction.
If the call is a notrump probe, it shows something in spades and seeks help. Thus, it is a showing bid. This is contrasted with a pure asking bid, which might be deemed a "denial" type of call. Whereas this call does deny enough to bid 3NT, it contextually must also show something.
I think this is relevant when determining what 3♠ means if it turms out that partner was actually slammish. In that event, the call should be construed, IMO, as a control-showing cue. In a different auction, for example, where the bid was purely asking, then it makes more sense, IMO, in a slam-going sequence for the call to be a "denial cue" for slam purposes, if for no other reason than consistency. It is difficult to switch tacks mid-auction.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#5
Posted 2009-September-01, 11:00
Jlall, on Sep 1 2009, 06:35 AM, said:
Looking for half stop since partner has denied a full stop.
Would it be a good idea to play this as transfer to 3NT?
and bid it with eg ♠Ax(x)?
It would say: "I have a balanced hand and want to play 3NT, but maybe it is better if you play it. Even if you have no Spade stop I think that 3NT is the best contract"
Bridge Single Dummy Program: https://github.com/k...eDummy/releases
#6
Posted 2009-September-01, 16:22
Jlall, on Aug 31 2009, 11:35 PM, said:
Looking for half stop since partner has denied a full stop.
Agreed and wishing someone would write a new book on INVM so I can ask a few partners to read it.
#7
Posted 2009-September-01, 18:26
neilkaz, on Sep 1 2009, 03:22 PM, said:
Jlall, on Aug 31 2009, 11:35 PM, said:
Looking for half stop since partner has denied a full stop.
Agreed and wishing someone would write a new book on INVM so I can ask a few partners to read it.
You could start with some key points here
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.”
Bridge should be fun!
Bridge should be fun!
Page 1 of 1

Help
