[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> Konrad wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> 
> Your text seems to indicate that we agree (3H barely counts as an LA 
> absent the UI) 

Yes, I have indeed misread your post - I thought 3D was a typo
for which I apologize.

> but your tone indicates disagreement with my suggestion 
> that 3D is a clear (and unsuggested) LA to 4H.  If one bids 3D and pard 
> shows no further interest by bidding 3H one will still raise to 4 (pass 
> is still barely an LA) but if pard shows slam interest (e.g. by bidding 
> 4C) one should co-operate.
> 

Definitely mixing two types of invitational bids (game & slam tries)
in one bid is not the best solution. However once we have agreed to play
this inferior solution I firmly believe that responder shouldn't 
even consider the slammish hand unless proven otherwise. In the
vast majority of cases 3C will be a game try and it is thus
in our best interest to get to 4H quickly. Most of the time
partner will simply bid 3/4H himself over 3D and all that the 3D
will have achieved will be giving free information about both hands
to our opponents. For instance if partner bids 3H over 3D they 
will certainly appreciate knowing that he is minimum for his game try.
Plus I really want to avoid the spade lead - if partner has long
clubs then there is an option of pitching spades on clubs
(playing along dummy reversal lines) for instance:

xx              Kxx
AKxxx           Jxxx
x                AJx
AKxxx             Q10x


Especially at MPs a spade lead might prove costly.

So the scientific bid of 3D is, in my mind, a losing proposition.
By far. If partner has a slammish hand he might jump to 6H
over 4H directly and this contract will have a play.
The number of times when the 3D bid proves essential
to reach/avoid a slam will be very small coparing to the
number of times it will make defenders' life easier.




-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

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