[babalu1997]

SA opens short minors, but i never understand why people neglect minor contracts or to show their minor suits, even when they yield a slam or a strong minor partial in matchpoints.
People disown their minor children, i find myself voice less as responder.
Surely this cannot be correct under SA or 2/1.
ATB please

---

or this

---

[Zelandakh]

I cannot understand North's bidding on either hand.

[jjbrr]

Zelandakh, on 2011-July-28, 08:03, said:

I cannot understand North's bidding on either hand.

That's because North is clueless.

[Hanoi5]

I would say South was wrong on the first one, too, why play on a 7'card fit when a 9-card (at least) fit is available?

[manudude03]

Yeah, North to blame on both hands. The first one is pretty funny actually. RHO: Why didn't you give me my club ruffs!?!?!?! LHO: I didn't have any clubs to lead. Come to think of it, where's the EW bidding on the first? They look cold for 4H and 5D.

[gordontd]

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-28, 10:02, said:

I would say South was wrong on the first one, too,

And not the second one? Surely 3♦ is NF here after the negative double.

[cloa513]

♣

Hanoi5, on 2011-July-28, 10:02, said:

I would say South was wrong on the first one, too, why play on a 7'card fit when a 9-card (at least) fit is available?

On　1.
Its only a 8 card fit minimum short club is being played, 8 card major might work better as the minor suit gives discards. 1♠ is fine, north should come in 2♠ or 3♣ (decent but not strong) , South a forcing bid.

On 2. It looks like a confusion, North was trying to cue hearts but South didn't understand.

[Hanoi5]

gordontd, on 2011-July-28, 11:35, said:

And not the second one? Surely 3♦ is NF here after the negative double.

Well, 3♦>2♦ but 3♦<2♠/3NT, so I guess you're right. But North did worse.

cloa513, on 2011-July-28, 20:08, said:

♣
On　1.
Its only a 8 card fit minimum short club is being played, 8 card major might work better as the minor suit gives discards. 1♠ is fine, north should come in 2♠ or 3♣ (decent but not strong) , South a forcing bid.

After 1♣-Pa-1♠-2♦-PASS if you're playing support double there are at least 10 cards in clubs for N/S; if you're not playing support doubles there are at least 9.

[nige1]

babalu1997, on 2011-July-28, 07:59, said:

SA opens short minors, but i never understand why people neglect minor contracts or to show their minor suits, even when they yield a slam or a strong minor partial in matchpoints. People disown their minor children, i find myself voice less as responder. Surely this cannot be correct under SA or 2/1.
ATB please

IMO it's flawed system philosophy.

Agreeing that a minor suit raise may include a four card major follows the support with support principle and allows you to establish your fit immediately. You can still find your major fit. For example after
1♣ - 2♣ - (inverted)
??
- 2♦ (other minor) = Artificial stop ask (No four card major)
- 2♥/♠ (majors) = Natural forcing.
- 2N/3♣ = Natural minimum.
.... And so on

I also endorse Eric Crowhurst's ultra-modern "Minor Swiss" treatment (Precision Bidding in Acol 1974). When partner opens a minor, Eric suggests that a major-suit jump show game invitational values with at least four card support for the minor and at least five of the bid major.

[phil_20686]

(1) I have sympathy for both players here, esp if you play a short club, in which case south has probably shown some 5S-4C. If you think that is not what this shows, how would you show an invitational 5S-4C hand here? Say 5-2-3-4.

(2) North is just having a laugh. I am closer to unloading 7D on this board than I am to bidding 4H.

(3) I (for the first time !?!) agree with nigel that this is a flawed system philosophy, but my solution involves playing transfers over a short club. Now you can have 1D=5+, and over 1c opener responder effectively gets an extra bid to demonstrate his shape, so he could transfer into clubs and then bid spades. If he has a weak hand he can transfer into the major, and if there is no fit he can use a checkback sequence to get out in 3C. It all works very nicely.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 why does South pass 3S?
North already denied a 4 card spade suit, South knowes, the partnership
has no 8 card fit in spades, but a 8 card fit in clubs.
We can discuss the bids choosen by North, but what to do over 2D depends
a lot on the agreements, the partnership has or has not.
Passing 3S - and realizing, that the partnership has no 8 card fit is independ
from the agreements in place.

#2 The 4H bid by North is ..., South did never promise a 6th heart, so ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[JLOGIC]

I love redheads

[Lurpoa]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-04, 04:56, said:

I love redheads

Sexist and not to the point.

[Bbradley62]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-04, 03:39, said:

.. how would you show an invitational 5S-4C hand here? Say 5-2-3-4.

By calling the director

[JLOGIC]

Lurpoa, on 2011-August-04, 05:54, said:

Sexist and not to the point.

Redheads is a sexist term? As far as I know both males and females can be redheads. I understand your command on english is quite low, perhaps you should consider that before you post things like this.

[Lurpoa]

♥♥♥

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-04, 06:41, said:

Redheads is a sexist term? As far as I know both males and females can be redheads. I understand your command on english is quite low, perhaps you should consider that before you post things like this.

♥♥♥
May I suggest to use other media to discuss your ♥-questions.

♥♥♥

[nige1]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-04, 04:56, said:

I love redheads

Lurpoa, on 2011-August-04, 05:54, said:

Sexist and not to the point.

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-04, 06:41, said:

Redheads is a sexist term? As far as I know both males and females can be redheads. I understand your command on english is quite low, perhaps you should consider that before you post things like this.

Lurpoa, on 2011-August-04, 13:59, said:

♥♥♥ May I suggest to use other media to discuss your ♥-questions. ♥♥♥

Feldman and Chandler, in Logic and Love said:

Love and logic just don't go together
Try to force it, you'll be trying forever

[Flem72]

Lurpoa, on 2011-August-04, 05:54, said:

Sexist and not to the point.

Another English idiom gone woefully off course. Google "redheaded stepchild."

[Lurpoa]

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Flem72, on 2011-August-05, 07:41, said:

Another English idiom gone woefully off course. Google "redheaded stepchild."

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


OH !
We understand now.
Our apologies to Justin.
We did not understand his joke. I hope he understands - English is not our native language.
Maybe he could take that into account when making postings like he does.


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

♥ We L♥ve you all ♥


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

PS: and an upvote for Flem: that was a constructive contribution, not one full of vitriol.

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

[Free]

Lurpoa, on 2011-August-05, 08:08, said:

We understand now.
Our apologies to Justin.
We did not understand his joke. I ((edit addition) We hope he understands - English is not our native language.
Maybe he could take that into account when making postings like he does.

FYP