[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 29 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

You claim that

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 3♣
3♠ 3NT
4♣

and

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 3♣
4♣

are respectively 'looking for best game' and 'slam bound'. I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all (in fact, I even disagree with them) and because of that you cannot assume pard will interpret things the way you want him to.

If nonetheless you do that, you're risking a disaster and that is failing on a responsibility you have to your teammates: to avoid disasters. That's why I say it's irresponsible.

huh.. was that clear?

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Playing 3S as non-forcing is aiming at too small a target.

Gotta be a bigger target than a hand that STILL can't decide whether it wants to be in game or not.

I think I have better uses for 3S than choice of games, but it doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities like invitational does. That was the point of my post, and sorry if I didn't do a good job of explaining that.

[Fluffy]

jtfanclub, on May 29 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

Fluffy, on May 29 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 29 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

????

You play 1♠-2♣-3♠ as signoff?

Oops, I though you meant 3♠ set suit and wanted to play 6, sorry.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on May 29 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all

I do, but we are lucky that if we ever play together we will be playing 2/1 .

[whereagles]

huh.. probably, yes

[jdonn]

whereagles, on May 29 2007, 04:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 29 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

You claim that

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 3♣
3♠ 3NT
4♣

and

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 3♣
4♣

are respectively 'looking for best game' and 'slam bound'. I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all (in fact, I even disagree with them) and because of that you cannot assume pard will interpret things the way you want him to.

If nonetheless you do that, you're risking a disaster and that is failing on a responsibility you have to your teammates: to avoid disasters. That's why I say it's irresponsible.

huh.. was that clear?

No matter how you interpret them partner might not be on the same page. So is just assuming the bids mean anything at all irresponsible? Ok if you pass and partner was trying for slam you are risking a disaster and therefore irresponsible, if you keep bidding and partner was trying to find the best game then likewise you are irresponsible. That's what you get for showing up to play bridge that day and assuming any of partner's bids mean anything. Very clear thanks!

[Impact]

I still note that no one else has commented on my note that 4D by Opener over 3NT is a better use for COG, which then allows 4C setting trumps and on-going (consider a hand with doubleton empty D which might has now found that responder has a D card allowing slam investigation etc).

Admittedly it also depends on your options over 3C (eg 4C sets C and asks for cues, 4D Kickback etc).