tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post67989171591480529..comments2024-02-07T00:26:17.605-08:00Comments on Cuebidding At Bridge: General PrinciplesKenneth Rexford, Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-31373211990870132952010-07-28T04:23:39.118-07:002010-07-28T04:23:39.118-07:00I pretty much agree with what Roy said.
For what ...I pretty much agree with what Roy said.<br /><br />For what it's worth : with my partner I have agreed that any bid that isn't explicitly agreed on as being "conventional" should be natural. In our case, this should therefore be a natural bid (we play ACOL). <br /><br />Opener is likely to have 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts and spade shortness. Also he should have 15/16 points at max for else he would have reversed. <br /><br />As for responder: he is unlikely to have a strong hand for he would have bod something else than 2spades (i.e., 3spades as an invite with a 6+ card suit). <br /><br />With both partners not being very strong, 3♥ is probably non-forcing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18006311231488200413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-78677929856420769872010-07-27T17:46:39.399-07:002010-07-27T17:46:39.399-07:00I suppose some of the assessment of impossibility ...I suppose some of the assessment of impossibility depends on stylistic concerns, as well, like how weak a reverse might actually be.<br /><br />That said, in discussing this hand later, I conceded that perhaps there might be a hand where 3H could be natural, but then I thought that utility kicked in. 3H as a descriptive game try makes a lot of sense when partner has a fit-dependent hand and already thinks that there is a misfit.<br /><br />Then again, maybe zooming makes sense on these hands, as well, without describing diddly.<br /><br />All of this, though, is why the "bid where you live" default seems to make a lot more sense to me. It is a nice hedge against a pass, especially at IMP scoring.Kenneth Rexford, Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03546227934953411090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115633791110477890.post-27665801635577331892010-07-27T15:14:32.000-07:002010-07-27T15:14:32.000-07:00Thank you for a very interesting post. I agree co...Thank you for a very interesting post. I agree completely that weird or "impossible" sequences are interesting and instructive. Backing up one bid for a moment, there is an old idea that 2S in this sequence should be moderately constructive, since 2D is playable if responder is weak. This is in contrast to 1D-1S;2C-2S, which is weaker, since 2C may not be playable. Back to 3H: I like bids to be natural unless that is completely impossible, and my threshold for "impossible" is very high, and 3H doesn't qualify. I would take it as a natural game try, just under a reverse, possibly 5-6 or 5-7. I certainly wouldn't bid an undiscussed 3H and expect partner to take it as spades -- I would just bid 3 or 4 spades.Roy Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15156454494053537999noreply@blogger.com