You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently double is presumed to show spades, which is not obvious and was not stated (as I play, it denies spades and 1♠ shows four+). If double does not (virtually) guarantee spades, 3♥ should be Choice of Games.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner is supposed to act as if opposite a minimum three-suiter. The lesser balanced hands are 13/14–16. We can occasionally pass out a weak two with up to 12 opposite 12 balanced. We believe this is optimum, the latter term not to be confused with ‘perfect’.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2♣ as either a weak two in diamonds or something very strong, so partner usually responds 2♦. Other than that, I do not think control responses are a good idea even over an always strong 2♣, as they tend to cost valuable bidding space. The priority should be allowing opener to show their distribution.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3♠. At this level of bidding, double is or should be forcing to game. On the other hand, partner sometimes has no option than to double with less than four spades.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A practical advantage of original count is the following. Most experienced players know by heart the 39 ‘partitions’ of thirteen cards into four hands: 4432, 5332 et cetera. This allows you, once the original counts of three hands are known, to count the fourth hand without actually having to compute anything.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why Bergen is so often quoted on BW as some type of authority?”
Bergen is one of the few theorists and authors not shying away from addressing the really thorny questions. That he is one of the few authors to even mention the 3NT bid in question is a point in case.
Whether his proposed use for this 3NT is best is another matter.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty Bergen in ‘Better Bidding with Bergen, Volume I – Uncontested Auctions’, Max Hardy, 1985 (ISBN 0-939460-32-7) mentions it on page 129:
“3NT. This is a very rare bid, since you are preempting the 2♣ bidder and making it hard for partner to show the hand type. The 3NT bid suggests a balanced hand with lots of ‘soft’ cards like queens and jacks.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players who frequently raise on three will have a bid – usually 2NT – to inquire about trump length. And when they just bid game, they have five trumps. That way, any possible ethical problem disappears.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
http://www.imp-bridge.nl/nieuws-archief/mindere-dag-open-team
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Bergen is one of the few theorists and authors not shying away from addressing the really thorny questions. That he is one of the few authors to even mention the 3NT bid in question is a point in case.
Whether his proposed use for this 3NT is best is another matter.
Rosalind Hengeveld
“3NT. This is a very rare bid, since you are preempting the 2♣ bidder and making it hard for partner to show the hand type. The 3NT bid suggests a balanced hand with lots of ‘soft’ cards like queens and jacks.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld