A discussion on BBF underlined yet again a concept that I believe to make sense.
The origin to the idea was a combination of a discussion with Ken Eichenbaum in Philadelphia concerning a specific "exception" where one might suppress a 4-card spade suit after a 1H opening, coupled with a Bridge Bulletin hand with the same principle. The idea is that with a light hand, a practical response to a 1H opening with four spades and six clubs is occasionally 1NT, planning to bid clubs later. (For the skeptics, the hand in question in the expert forum was handled frequently with that approach). This suggested that a "impossible two spades" is no so impossible:
1H-P-1NT-P-
2D-P-2S = weak with four spades, six clubs?
This could be tweaked somewhat to include 3136 hands. This caters well to the hand where Opener (not playing Flannery) has 4531 shape and finds himself "forced" to rebid 2D, disliking this, of course.
The first question, then, is whether Responder or Opener should have the fourth spade (to bid "impossible 2S" or to pass the same). It seems that the hands where Responder bypasses a 4-card major are less frequent than the 3-card options for Responder, such that Opener should be 4-card to pass.
This, then, leads to the BBF problem. Opener has a trashy hand with 4630 and lousy (9-high) hearts.With the "not impossible two spades" approach, 2D comes to mind, as it seems to increase our chances of landing well (you could end up in 2S for a fine result, and 2D therefore is less frequently passed when that is bad). One concern was propelling the auction when Opener has 5-5 reds, but it still seems that you end up OK when and if Responder hits Opener with the "not impossible two spades" response.
4 comments:
It seems far more important to have an extra way to raise diamonds then to cater to these unusual shapes.
Danny
Perhaps, but this is intended to be part of a structure into which this would be intertwined, where with 5-5 in the reds and a 5-loser hand, Opener jumps to 3D immediately after 1NT. This limits the value hands with the reds somewhat, especially with a semi-forcing, artificial 2C option.
I'm clearly a simpleton here. I just bid suits I have when I get the chance. I can't imagine ever not bidding 1S with four nor rebidding diamonds with 3.
These concepts seem entirely unfamiliar. I would expect 1H 1NT 2D 2S to be a hand like
AJx
xx
KJxxx
xxx
a simple game try in diamonds.
There's nothing that strange about bidding a 3-card diamond suit. Playing forcing 1NT, what are you supposed to bid with a minimum 4531 hand?
There is also nothing that unusual about handling spades that way. Walsh theory calls for a tendency canape with non-GF hands (bid a 4-card major before a longer minor). Bidding a forcing 1NT with the expectation of later showing long clubs with ultra-weak hands was done by several world-class players in a panel question. Showing the spades that they would all bury along the way seems somewhat consistent wigh Walsh. Strangely consistent, in that it is entirely inconsistent at the first call, if you follow my meaning.
Post a Comment