[jillybean]

---

lead ♥3 tricks = 8

Other table

1N (10-12) 2D gf stayman
3N

lead ♠2 tricks = 10

+11imp

[ArtK78]

By playing 3NT from the weak hand at our table, the defense had problems getting their tricks. Somewhat lucky.

Could have easily worked the other way.

By the way, the 3NT bid at our table showed 3343 or 3334 distribution. If it was relevant, I could ask for the minor by bidding 4♣.

[lycier]

I think 3nt was a normal final contract,what else in no competition sequence?

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-28, 22:58, said:

By playing 3NT from the weak hand at our table, the defense had problems getting their tricks. Somewhat lucky.

Could have easily worked the other way.

By the way, the 3NT bid at our table showed 3343 or 3334 distribution. If it was relevant, I could ask for the minor by bidding 4♣.

This a a pretty terrible convention - it just leaks the maximum amount of information for no reason whatsoever.

Savvy opponents can even lead 5th highest playing 4ths when leading a major, so you end up with less information as well.

[lycier]

Quote

By the way, the 3NT bid at our table showed 3343 or 3334 distribution. If it was relevant, I could ask for the minor by bidding 4♣.

while with 3343 or 3334 distribution,it was not a resonable auction for the research for trump as a final contract.

[ArtK78]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-31, 05:19, said:

This a a pretty terrible convention - it just leaks the maximum amount of information for no reason whatsoever.

Savvy opponents can even lead 5th highest playing 4ths when leading a major, so you end up with less information as well.

Talk to Paul Soloway. He didn't seem to think it was that terrible.

It is part of a comprehensive response structure to the 2♦ game forcing Stayman response to 1NT (10-12). Sometimes responder has a very strong hand and opener's distribution is relevant for slam purposes. The system is geared to provide that responder will play the hand in virtually all suit contracts. However, after a 1NT opening, it is impossible for responder to play a notrump contract.

Actually, in the write up of the overall response structure to the 10-12 1NT opening, Soloway credited Mike Passell for the structure over the 2♦ game forcing Stayman response.

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-31, 06:08, said:

Talk to Paul Soloway. He didn't seem to think it was that terrible.

It is part of a comprehensive response structure to the 2♦ game forcing Stayman response to 1NT (10-12). Sometimes responder has a very strong hand and opener's distribution is relevant for slam purposes. The system is geared to provide that responder will play the hand in virtually all suit contracts. However, after a 1NT opening, it is impossible for responder to play a notrump contract.

Actually, in the write up of the overall response structure to the 10-12 1NT opening, Soloway credited Mike Passell for the structure over the 2♦ game forcing Stayman response.

He can credit Shakespeare with it and it would not make it right.

It's quite possible to create a comprehensive structure with simple initial responses, and follow-up clarification only when necessary. I'm sure you know that (just playing the Soloway card and ignoring both of the technical arguments is beneath you, and the reference to responder not playing in 3NT is just surreal). Seriously - this is a terrible structure for initial responses.

[ArtK78]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-31, 17:14, said:

He can credit Shakespeare with it and it would not make it right.

It's quite possible to create a comprehensive structure with simple initial responses, and follow-up clarification only when necessary. I'm sure you know that (just playing the Soloway card and ignoring both of the technical arguments is beneath you, and the reference to responder not playing in 3NT is just surreal). Seriously - this is a terrible structure for initial responses.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

And I find it hard to understand how you can make any judgment about the structure without reviewing it (unless you have consulted the other threads in which I posted the structure).

I find the structure both technically sound and tactically sound.