BBO Discussion Forums: Responding to Michaels - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Responding to Michaels

#1 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2012-October-10, 00:31

Why should 4♠ be limited to 12- total points? What am I supposed to do with a slightly stronger hand, like the one here? 3♠ (instead of 4♠) was explained as 3+S and 12- total points.
0

#2 User is offline   cloa513 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,530
  • Joined: 2008-December-02

Posted 2012-October-10, 04:00

Why should 4♠ be limited to 12- total points? What am I supposed to do with a slightly stronger hand, like the one here? 3♠ (instead of 4♠) was explained as 3+S and 12- total points.
[/quote]
Why does it matter- more TP is not needed to reach a better contract- you need controls to get slam(those diamond HCP aren't worth much though the major's HCP are gold) ? Can you cue? What does 2NT (if natural then it should be conventional asking to clarify the strength of the hand) mean?
Give your hand just the Q of spades instead of Jack and then if North's void was in clubs then assuming he held the J of Diamonds then slam would be good- only minor changes whereas an extra K of clubs is of limited value.
0

#3 User is offline   georgi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 1,317
  • Joined: 2007-December-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 2012-October-24, 06:24

View PostBbradley62, on 2012-October-10, 00:31, said:

Why should 4♠ be limited to 12- total points? What am I supposed to do with a slightly stronger hand, like the one here? 3♠ (instead of 4♠) was explained as 3+S and 12- total points.


3♣ ( or cuebiding opening ) would show the points to force up.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users