BBO Discussion Forums: Enough for 2/1? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Enough for 2/1?

#21 User is offline   bluecalm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,555
  • Joined: 2007-January-22

Posted 2010-September-10, 06:04

Quote

is weak (for me and I think most people).


Quote

Yes that's considered weak. After 1♥-1NT-2♥ I'd rebid 2NT. As I said before, the suit is way too crappy to treat it as an invite with a 6 card suit.


Ok, I like it.
0

#22 User is offline   petterb 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 2009-March-04

Posted 2010-September-10, 08:54

aguahombre, on Sep 3 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

This is routine.  2/1=GF; I don't have a GF.  Therefore, no 2/1.

You seem to interpret the question "Enough for 2/1?" as "Enough for 2/1 GF?". Why?
0

#23 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2010-September-10, 10:06

petterb, on Sep 10 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 3 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

This is routine.  2/1=GF; I don't have a GF.  Therefore, no 2/1.

You seem to interpret the question "Enough for 2/1?" as "Enough for 2/1 GF?". Why?

Because otherwise the Title has no meaning. 2D over 1H in a Standard context would not even be questioned, because there is no alternative forcing NT.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#24 User is offline   petterb 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 2009-March-04

Posted 2010-September-10, 10:21

The question asked in the OP only makes sense if you're playing a system where 2/1 is not GF.

Surely no one would consider bidding 2D with that hand if it was GF.
0

#25 User is offline   junyi_zhu 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 536
  • Joined: 2003-May-28
  • Location:Saltlake City

Posted 2010-September-10, 10:46

shyams, on Sep 4 2010, 12:46 AM, said:

IMPs favourable
In 4th seat, you hold: ♠Q84 ♥A ♦A96542 ♣J83

a. Partner opens 1♥. Would you respond 2♦, 1NT or somethng else with this hand?

b. If the bidding went: 1♥ - 2♦; 3♦ - ???. What now?

It is an 1NT bid. You don't have fit in H so usually you can make low HCP games only when partner has very long H or D fit, in those cases, your would usually find it. It's unlike a hand with some moderate H fit: x Ax AQJxxx xxxx, for this hand, it's probably ok to bid 2D, because you may only need 6 H or some D fit to make low HCP games.
0

#26 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2010-September-10, 11:18

petterb, on Sep 10 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

The question asked in the OP only makes sense if you're playing a system where 2/1 is not GF.

Surely no one would consider bidding 2D with that hand if it was GF.

Well what else can you bid on a normal 3163 11 count than 2♦ in SAYC? It shows like 4+ ♦ and 11+ hcp, why not use it?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#27 User is offline   shyams 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,820
  • Joined: 2009-August-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-September-10, 14:12

petterb, on Sep 10 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

The question asked in the OP only makes sense if you're playing a system where 2/1 is not GF.

Surely no one would consider bidding 2D with that hand if it was GF.

1. I meant it as most people interpreted. Good enough for 2/1 GF?
2. At the table, my partner actually chose 2♦ and meant it as GF. Although a clearly poor choice, the bid helped us discover a way to 5♦
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users