Help
pclayton, on Jan 22 2008, 12:25 AM, said:
Jlall, on Jan 21 2008, 03:41 PM, said:
pclayton, on Jan 21 2008, 06:23 PM, said:
gnasher, on Jan 21 2008, 03:20 PM, said:
Also interesting, I think, is the choice of invitation, assuming that the raise promises only three spades.
Presumably either 3C or 3S might lead to an uncomfortable 3S opposite a minimum 3=4=5=1, or indeed to an uncomfortable 4S opposite a better 3=4=5=1. Where I come from 2NT and 3D suggest only four spades, but they're not terribly descriptive.
I know this can be improved by playing 2NT as artificial, but from the sound of it most people would invite regardless of their methods. So, if you haven't already told us, which invitation would you make?
Presumably either 3C or 3S might lead to an uncomfortable 3S opposite a minimum 3=4=5=1, or indeed to an uncomfortable 4S opposite a better 3=4=5=1. Where I come from 2NT and 3D suggest only four spades, but they're not terribly descriptive.
I know this can be improved by playing 2NT as artificial, but from the sound of it most people would invite regardless of their methods. So, if you haven't already told us, which invitation would you make?
Well, I just passed. A disappointing ♠KQxx ♥Qxxxx ♦xx ♣AQ hit and I was =170. Lose 6. I thought it was pretty unlucky to see very little heart duplication and those club fillers. Maybe I should reconsider based on the responses.
I think if this hand chooses to invites, its 3♣. I don't think it promises 5♠ either.
strange 1D opener by pard!
Oh I just saw I made a typo. It was a 1♥ call.
Does that matter?
Lol, when I decided I imagined a superfit hand with ♠KQ and ♣AQ and saw that it had 4 top losers so didn't wanna invite
