[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> Harald wrote:
> 
> > Please explain why you think this is scary.
> > I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case.
> > The TD and AC got this one right IMO.
> 
> Well it scares me.  If playing 2N as "limit raise or better" then 3C 
> should be either a LSGT *or* the beginning of a slam try sequence with 
> values and length in C.  West might hold Qx,AKTxx,x,AKxxx and 6H is 
> laydown (and given the X of 1H the SQ isn't really needed).  To me 3D is 
> a not only an LA to 3H but the blindingly obvious choice.
> 

3H? And then it goes pass, pass, pass... Partner holds

QJx              Kxx
KQ10xx           Jxxx
x                AJx
KJxx             Q10x


takes 10 tricks and asks politely after the hand: "you have 
a fourth trump, you have help in clubs and you say you couldn't
find any extras in your hand over 3C??"

Bidding negative 3H over natural and invitational 3C is not blindigly
obvious. It is blidingly idiotic. 



-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e