4♥ in the first auction shows 5+ hearts and a strong hand (non forcing).
4♥ in the second auction does not show or deny anything in particular, it is just a strong strong hand, game forcing.
3♥-x-p-4♣
p-4♠
shows 5+ spades and a strong hand (non forcing).
forcing?
#21
Posted 2010-September-07, 08:51
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#22
Posted 2010-September-07, 16:25
Heck, I had that muddled up, thanks.
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!” Anders Vistisen
“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!” Anders Vistisen
#23
Posted 2010-September-07, 18:04
jillybean, on Sep 6 2010, 02:42 PM, said:
So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;
(3♠) X (P) 4♣
(P) 4♥ ?
and
(3♥) X (P) (4♣)
(P) 4♥ must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?
I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC
at the 2 and 3 level?
(3♠) X (P) 4♣
(P) 4♥ ?
and
(3♥) X (P) (4♣)
(P) 4♥ must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?
I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC
at the 2 and 3 level?
3244 is not shapely enough to correct to diamonds. For example doubler could have 1633 in the first sequence (with rather weak hearts).
#24
Posted 2010-September-07, 18:43
bucky, on Sep 7 2010, 05:04 PM, said:
jillybean, on Sep 6 2010, 02:42 PM, said:
So is partner expected to correct to ♦'s holding 3244 after;
(3♠) X (P) 4♣
(P) 4♥ ?
and
(3♥) X (P) (4♣)
(P) 4♥ must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?
I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC
at the 2 and 3 level?
(3♠) X (P) 4♣
(P) 4♥ ?
and
(3♥) X (P) (4♣)
(P) 4♥ must be a cue in support of ♣, 4♠ would be a choice of ♠/♦ game?
I see the need to play ELC at this level, is it also expert standard to play ELC
at the 2 and 3 level?
3244 is not shapely enough to correct to diamonds. For example doubler could have 1633 in the first sequence (with rather weak hearts).
Why wouldn't you bid a direct 4♥ with weak 1633 ?
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!” Anders Vistisen
“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!” Anders Vistisen
#25
Posted 2010-September-07, 19:13
jillybean, on Sep 7 2010, 07:43 PM, said:
Why wouldn't you bid a direct 4♥ with weak 1633 ?
Because hearts may not be the right strain. Say I hold x, Axxxxx, AKJ, AQJ, why do I have to insist on hearts? If partner has stiff heart and 6-card minors, I want to be in 5m. More often though, the doubler will have 1543 or similar shape. The point is that, double-then-bid shows more flexibility in strain than direct suit bid.
#26
Posted 2010-September-07, 21:29
aguahombre, on Sep 7 2010, 01:45 AM, said:
mohitz, on Sep 6 2010, 12:26 PM, said:
Non forcing but shows extras.
this seems contradictory. Having forced partner to do something intelligent at at least the 3NT level, I don't understand a non-forcing bid showing extras. But, just an observation.
Not everyone plays equal level conversion. Not playing this, this bid would certainly show extras.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.