Help
♠xxxx ♥x ♦KQJx ♣Axxx
Team game.
P-P-1♦(you)-1♥
1♠(5+)-2♦-?(you)
First question:
Which of these bids either show support for spades or could include support for spades? And, explain:
Pass
Double
2♥
3♥
4♥
4♣
4♦
2♠
3♠
4♠
2NT
3♣
Other
Now, second question. In light of the above, what's your move? Does vulnerability, state-of-the-match, opposition strength/weakness, or any other factor provide options?
Page 1 of 1
Options
#1
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2010-January-11, 17:10
"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.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2010-January-11, 17:16
I'll just bid 2♠ thankyouverymuch 
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,625
- Joined: 2006-October-04
- Location:Denmark
Posted 2010-January-11, 18:24
In our usual strong club context I have these agreements with partner:
2♥= Good with 3 spades
2♠= Bad with 3 spades
3♥= Good with 4 spades
3♠= Bad with 4 spades
(X = take-out of hearts)
(2NT = 5-5 minors)
(3♣ = both minors, longer clubs)
So for us it's an easy 3♠.
2♥= Good with 3 spades
2♠= Bad with 3 spades
3♥= Good with 4 spades
3♠= Bad with 4 spades
(X = take-out of hearts)
(2NT = 5-5 minors)
(3♣ = both minors, longer clubs)
So for us it's an easy 3♠.
Michael Askgaard
#4
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Location:Göttingen, Germany
- Interests:bye
Posted 2010-January-11, 18:34
very interesting post MFA and logical. is this part of some simple meta rule or for more or less the same?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,625
- Joined: 2006-October-04
- Location:Denmark
Posted 2010-January-11, 18:47
gwnn, on Jan 12 2010, 02:34 AM, said:
very interesting post MFA and logical. is this part of some simple meta rule or for more or less the same?
This set of agreements is specifically for this sequence. It grew out of a discussion about support doubles after responder has shown five spades.
If 1♥ is raised to 2♥, opener's double would be the good three-card raise.
Michael Askgaard
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 835
- Joined: 2009-May-03
Posted 2010-January-11, 18:49
Pass = no support, minimun open
Double = Support DBL, 3 cards ♠
2♥ = genral strength cuebid, does not guarantee support
3♥ = splinter for Spades
4♥ = " " " , void
4♣ = if 3♣ were forcing, then 4♣ would be a splinter; but experts seem to be split over the meaning of 3♣
4♦ = strong invite
2♠ = 4 cards ♠ , minimum open
3♠ = " " , extras
4♠ = " " , extras, bidding what I think will make opposite minimum
2NT = good/bad "apples" , planning to signoff ( possibly 3♦ ) after forced 3♣ by partner
3♣ = see 4♣ or 2NT above; direct 3♣ is forward going if playing good/bad.
Other
Double = Support DBL, 3 cards ♠
2♥ = genral strength cuebid, does not guarantee support
3♥ = splinter for Spades
4♥ = " " " , void
4♣ = if 3♣ were forcing, then 4♣ would be a splinter; but experts seem to be split over the meaning of 3♣
4♦ = strong invite
2♠ = 4 cards ♠ , minimum open
3♠ = " " , extras
4♠ = " " , extras, bidding what I think will make opposite minimum
2NT = good/bad "apples" , planning to signoff ( possibly 3♦ ) after forced 3♣ by partner
3♣ = see 4♣ or 2NT above; direct 3♣ is forward going if playing good/bad.
Other
Don Stenmark ( TWOferBRIDGE )
#7
- Alchemist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,764
- Joined: 2004-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Beside a little lake in northwestern Montana
- Interests:Creator of the 'grbbridge' LaTeX typesetting package.
Posted 2010-January-11, 18:52
MFA's agreement re 2H and 3H looks like a great idea. Wish I had thought of it myself.
As things currently stand, with my regular partner, X = Qx/Kx/Ax in spades and a desire to compete; 2S min promising 3, 3S 16-18ish. 2H is strong but not necessarily with spade support (often Westernish). The double jumps are fit or splinter as appropriate. We have no agreement about the jump to 3H - I think I would take it as strong with support (but I am not sure what the difference between a jump to 3S/4S and a 3H bid is.)
As things currently stand, with my regular partner, X = Qx/Kx/Ax in spades and a desire to compete; 2S min promising 3, 3S 16-18ish. 2H is strong but not necessarily with spade support (often Westernish). The double jumps are fit or splinter as appropriate. We have no agreement about the jump to 3H - I think I would take it as strong with support (but I am not sure what the difference between a jump to 3S/4S and a 3H bid is.)
Page 1 of 1