You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain.I agree with Bas that 3♥ is automatic if 2♥ shows 4 (and X does NOT promise 4) but that's not what I expect. If X always promises 4-4 in the unbid suits I can pass and opener will know what to do. I don't think that I have enough extras to double again, which would be my choice with more defense.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This method is known as “my bid shows anything I want it to show at this particular moment” I must admit that I am really surprised about some of the names I see voting for 5♥. From other comments I consider some of them to be better bridge players then I am, but still… I wonder.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responder rebids 2♦ with 3325/3334. Opener should correct to 3♣ with 4/5♣, somewhat protected by the law. I could imagine bidding 1♦-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥ with 4441 exchanging one Moysian for another in case responder is 3334.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Yu that the first 3 on her list are much more inmportant then changing their invite habits. #4 with a “but”: if the bidding tells you that it's a thin game, prefer a passive lead. I cannot really answer the original question because there are so many different invites. After 1N wehave no way to invite withour a 4crd M, which is statiscally good bridge if you take 2N-1 into account. It follows that if we invite via Stayman pard is probably distributionsl hoping to find a fit and opener will only accept with a full maximum. In other situations we have ways to see if the hsnds fit (LST, SST, mini-splinters etc.) helping to make a good decision. If we can exchange helpfull information, we invite. If not, we tend to pass or blast.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Paul: “However, I can imagine that after (1♣)-1♦-(Pass) everyone would pass with xx x VBTxxxx xxx.” No way, if those bids are really defined as forcing, but after carefull reading I'm not sure if there is no loophole. @Rosalind, I would ask (in writing) if the multi-bids are 100% forcing. Playing Multi-Landy or sometimes CRASH, I dont consider any of those bids as forcing.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd go for Randy's suggestion. 1) It's pretty simple and you don't want to memorize to much if you don't play regularly against Suction. 2) You have a way to make them pay for disturbing your bidding at least once in a while. For us X to show cards with a penalty option over an artificial bid is a meta-rule. Since their Suction-bids are forcing, I would add a trap-pass: a hand that can double either the one-suiter or both of the suits in a two-suiter and otherwise not fit to double.
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
I cannot really answer the original question because there are so many different invites. After 1N wehave no way to invite withour a 4crd M, which is statiscally good bridge if you take 2N-1 into account. It follows that if we invite via Stayman pard is probably distributionsl hoping to find a fit and opener will only accept with a full maximum. In other situations we have ways to see if the hsnds fit (LST, SST, mini-splinters etc.) helping to make a good decision. If we can exchange helpfull information, we invite. If not, we tend to pass or blast.
Ronald Kalf
@Rosalind, I would ask (in writing) if the multi-bids are 100% forcing. Playing Multi-Landy or sometimes CRASH, I dont consider any of those bids as forcing.
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf