Methods over (2M) - X - (XX)
#1
Posted 2010-November-21, 10:28
#2
Posted 2010-November-21, 10:33
I don't want the meaning of my calls to depend on whether redouble shows/denies a fit, whether opponents psyched redouble, whether opponents have some weird redouble agreement (like rosencrantz or mccabe) that they're not telling me. In particular I'd like to still be able to defend 2MXX if that's the best spot.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#4
Posted 2010-November-21, 12:29
I have a hard time believing that lebensohl is as useful as scrambling in this situation, especially if the major is spades.
- hrothgar
#5
Posted 2010-November-21, 15:51
#6
Posted 2010-November-21, 17:02
han, on 2010-November-21, 12:29, said:
I have a hard time believing that lebensohl is as useful as scrambling in this situation, especially if the major is spades.
To me, 2NT % 100 scramble after 2♠ and rdbl, if pass is to play. If pass is not to play then pass can be used as scramble.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#7
Posted 2010-November-22, 11:10
FWIW, I agree with the consensus here that pass is to play and 2N is scrambling rather than Lebensohl. I had better check that my partner sees it the same way, though....
#8
Posted 2010-November-22, 11:26
WellSpyder, on 2010-November-22, 11:10, said:
yea, it was just a coincidence
#9
Posted 2010-November-22, 12:26
#10
Posted 2010-November-22, 19:37
43 44 43 24
#11
Posted 2010-November-22, 19:40
SA + they hit my side feature? Less since XX asks penalty?
I' m thinking eg.
2S <X> XX <3C>, X = SA + C-honor, P = not that??
even later business doubles must show something.
Sorry to hijack this discussion and turn it
back onto the opening side,
but this dhould be agreed in A @ E partnerships.
#12
Posted 2010-November-22, 23:48
I can't ever remember a responder making a natural xx in this auction. Doesn't that seem like a bad agreement?
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#13
Posted 2010-November-23, 04:22
dake50, on 2010-November-22, 19:40, said:
SA + they hit my side feature? Less since XX asks penalty?
I' m thinking eg.
2S <X> XX <3C>, X = SA + C-honor, P = not that??
even later business doubles must show something.
Good question! The weak 2 hand in the Tolle mentioned earlier was ♠KQJ1093 ♥J3 ♦10 ♣10985. Should this hand be doubling 3♣ at love all (imps)? (At my table, the opening bid was 3♠ and the auction proceeded as suggested but a level higher. I certainly think this hand can afford to double 4♣ (though I failed to do so at the time).
#14
Posted 2010-November-23, 04:50