[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Tim West-Meads]

Konrad wrote:
 
> Definitely mixing two types of invitational bids (game & slam tries)

I wouldn't describe it as mixing two types of bid. I'd say 3C was 
descriptive (ie showing something in C and a non-minimum hand).

> 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.

Playing like that would indeed be an inferior solution.  The whole point 
of "mixing the types" is that it preserves significant space for 
evaluating "fitting values.  One hand or the other later shows lack of 
slam interest by bidding Hearts.  It is also the standard mixed meaning 
(at least where I play)of a 3C "LSGT" when the bidding goes something 
like 1H-2H-3C-3D/H-3S (the 3S bid is now slam interest).

> xx              Kxx
> AKxxx           Jxxx
> x                AJx
> AKxxx             Q10x
> 
> 
> Especially at MPs a spade lead might prove costly.

Well, if North doesn't hold the SA for his double (unlikely) he will 
probably find the spade lead from his QJXx anyway.

> So the scientific bid of 3D is, in my mind, a losing proposition.

Ok, we'll agree to differ on that aspect - but do you think it 
sufficiently clearly a losing proposition to not rate as an LA (the UI 
suggests 4H over 3D I believe).

Tim