I agree with Han, I think. When you play 2♣ as flexible, you need a call to confirm true clubs in this sequence. 3♦ is that call. And, 3M does not promise clubs, but a club contract is still possible.
Where I am uncertain is whether Han will bid 3M with real clubs on occasion. I think you can, and I think he thinks you can.
And, as a commentary. Both Han and Rainer wonder if this end of the pool is Rexford deep. Having a call that shows real clubs seems rather obvious. Having a nuance about whether your heart doubleton is Hx or xx in a notrump probe situation, while the club suit still is a mystery, seems far more surreal to me. So, I like my end of the pool.
Help settle an argument, 2/1 auction
#41
Posted 2013-February-08, 10:20
"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.
#42
Posted 2013-February-08, 10:59
This thread seems like an opportunity, for pairs who have not already done so, to think about switching from J2N to j2♠/1H and J3♣/1S. It would take a burden off the 2♣ response ---which could then be balanced G.F. with 3cM support or 5+.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#43
Posted 2013-February-08, 21:22
I've played 1♥-2♠ and 1♠-2NT as the balanced GF bid, and my experience was that the big loss of space and the horrible auctions that resulted compared to the 2♣ response didn't begin to compensate for the gain in accuracy in some auctions. Others may have had different experiences...