[gwnn]

this one?

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=30573

well it has very few replies (mind you, not a lot of agreement on the number of hearts). will look for another one.

[the hog]

hanp, on Sep 17 2010, 03:57 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

No, I will stick with the version of 2/1 which guarantees a 3-card fit for spades with the 2S rebid by responder.  What you say is applicable to SA.

Not just SA. Many 2/1 variants as well. There was a thread on this recently.

Do you mean the thread where almost everybody said it shows 3-card support? You have a selective memory, remembering that there was a thread but not remembering that almost nobody agreed with you.

I don't mean to say it has to show 3-card support. I think it is playable to agree that 2S may be honor doubleton. But in my view this is a non-standard agreement.

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

From one of the threads
2♥ is kind of a relay. It is usually three-card support but occasionally two or four - AWM
2H is a relay - You!
2H (step 1) = artificial relay, asking opener to describe his hand further - Frances
2H - not necessarily 3 card support - Marlowe

Further, no one actively disagreed with my post, so don't behave like a turkey as you usually do.

So it is obvious that not everyone plays it as 3, correct? So how can you assume it is 3?

[hanp]

Yeah I play that 2C is a gameforcing relay, and 1H - 2C - 2D - 2H shows 0+ hearts (also, 2D does not show diamonds). What does that have to do with it?

[jdonn]

I think it's pretty clear to bid 3NT. In the context of our shape we have a hand where that could easily be the best contract. I only play serious or non-serious 3NT here if opener bids 3♠, not over any lower bid.

Give partner Qxx AKJx xx QJxx or something...

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 07:54 AM, said:

So it is obvious that not everyone plays it as 3, correct? So how can you assume it is 3?

Not everyone plays stayman either, but I have yet to have a misunderstanding assuming it.

[hanp]

If you start a thread about it here, you will see that some people DO NOT PLAY STAYMAN!!!!

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

Sorry if only Han should have answered, but try Hardy orange, page 43, example 34A.

[bucky]

flytoox, on Sep 17 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Sep 17 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

2S showed 3 card support.
I'm tempted to just say 4S immediately over 2S.

I actually thought about this at the table. However, the club fit is too much to hide. We may belong to clubs after all.

I think 3♣ is fine. You are making a descriptive bid that shouldn't be taken as showing extra. But partner's failure to bid 3♠ in earlier round is also significant (the way I play, 3♠ instead of 2♠ shows slam oriented hand with good spade support). With your weak spades/clubs and lack of control in general, a 4♠ bid is now called for, or 3NT.

[bucky]

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

I think it's pretty clear to bid 3NT. In the context of our shape we have a hand where that could easily be the best contract. I only play serious or non-serious 3NT here if opener bids 3♠, not over any lower bid.

Give partner Qxx AKJx xx QJxx or something...

Not that there is anything wrong with 3NT bid from opener now, but in your example hand, why wouldn't partner bid 3NT instead of 3♥?

[jdonn]

bucky, on Sep 17 2010, 01:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

I think it's pretty clear to bid 3NT. In the context of our shape we have a hand where that could easily be the best contract. I only play serious or non-serious 3NT here if opener bids 3♠, not over any lower bid.

Give partner Qxx AKJx xx QJxx or something...

Not that there is anything wrong with 3NT bid from opener now, but in your example hand, why wouldn't partner bid 3NT instead of 3♥?

To describe his hand like we are doing and help us find the best contract. I admit 3NT would be a fair bid but change his hand to 3415 and I'm quite sure he should bid 3♥. Why bid 3NT and find us perhaps with Jxxx of diamonds? Even on my example I prefer 3♥. Not only might we want to rightside in diamonds, but if it becomes a slam auction we can both bid more accurately if we know where partner's values are.

[hanp]

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

Sorry if only Han should have answered, but try Hardy orange, page 43, example 34A.

In my opinion Hardy is not the definite book on anything. I don't think that there is a definitely book on bidding anyway.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, well his question was to you anyway, and you agree 3 spades have been shown. I should have let you answer.

[the hog]

hanp, on Sep 18 2010, 03:58 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

Sorry if only Han should have answered, but try Hardy orange, page 43, example 34A.

In my opinion Hardy is not the definite book on anything. I don't think that there is a definitely book on bidding anyway.

That was my point. There are so many flavours of 2/1 that you can't assume anything without prior discussion.

[flytoox]

jdonn, on Sep 17 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

I think it's pretty clear to bid 3NT. In the context of our shape we have a hand where that could easily be the best contract. I only play serious or non-serious 3NT here if opener bids 3♠, not over any lower bid.

Give partner Qxx AKJx xx QJxx or something...

One of my respected player also suggested 3N after 3H. Not that he thinks 3N is the right contract, but he thinks 3N describes the hand perfectly, 3C has already shown the 5143, now 3N has to shown singleton HQ or HK. This information will help pd to decide where to go.

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Sep 18 2010, 12:44 AM, said:

hanp, on Sep 18 2010, 03:58 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

Sorry if only Han should have answered, but try Hardy orange, page 43, example 34A.

In my opinion Hardy is not the definite book on anything. I don't think that there is a definitely book on bidding anyway.

That was my point. There are so many flavours of 2/1 that you can't assume anything without prior discussion.

Everything has exception. But please dont forget the default agreement. I also said in our partnership, 2S always promises 3 card support.

If you want to discuss the merits of 2 cards support after 2/1, that is fine. But I think it would be more appropriate to discuss it in a new thread.

[the hog]

"But please dont forget the default agreement."

According to whom? Can you please cite references which say this is the default agreement?

[flytoox]

The_Hog, on Sep 18 2010, 03:06 AM, said:

"But please dont forget the default agreement."

According to whom? Can you please cite references which say this is the default agreement?

You didnt see this:"I also said in our partnership, 2S always promises 3 card support."?

Enough for me.

[aguahombre]

enough here, too. a previous thread and one text of many are not enough. Lord knows what he considers worthy of acknowledging.

[peachy]

hanp, on Sep 17 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 17 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 17 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Ok Han. Show me the definitive book in which it is written that it is 3 card support. Pls quote the title and page number.

Sorry if only Han should have answered, but try Hardy orange, page 43, example 34A.

In my opinion Hardy is not the definite book on anything. I don't think that there is a definitely book on bidding anyway.

If we have to quote Hardy, forget the yellow book and use the green book instead. But on this question, both of them say 2S promises 3-card support.

Agree with hanp that there really is no need to find a book that says that. It is common bridge logic IMO.

[mike777]

flytoox, on Sep 16 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 with a reliable partner, sitting south you hold
S: A8765
H: Q
D: KQJ9
C: T76

Auction proceeds as follows(Opponents are silent):

N    S
-      1S
2C    2D
2S    3C
3H    ??

What do you bid now?

In particular, what is the difference between 3S and 4S? Does 3S encourage pd to make slam try and 4S shows a min. hand?

Furtheremore,  what is the difference between 3S (If that is a waiting bid) and a cuebid of, say 4D, minor?

Any thoughts on these follow-ups are welcome.

MUST I OPEN 1S



--------------


IF IS -CRAP AND I MUST OPEN OK

---------------

3S NOW EASY IF I CAN 4S.....IF WE PLAY THAT ...I HAVE CRAP