[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-April-27, 17:35, said:

Actually i didn't (at least i hope i didnt). I am rereading his post again and i still cant see anything he mentioned about the bidding of first hand

I didn't say anything about the bidding. Why on earth should I if I don't want to?

Quote

thats also what OP asked.

No he didn't. If you deconstruct the original question it is:
(a) Do we belong in game?
(b) If the answer to (a) is "Yes", I want you to tell me how to bid it. If the answer to (a) is "No", I don't want you to tell me how to bid it.

The answer to (a) was "No", so he didn't want me to tell him how to bid it, so I didn't.

Quote

He even expressed his surprise that this question was asked.

No, I expressed my surprise that (a) was asked.

Quote

If andy believes the bidding was made as it was supposed to be than i understand, but if he is saying there is nothing to be talk about since where we end up is a good spot, than isn't this a sort of resulting (even if in the actual deal it looks like antiresulting) ?

I wasn't saying either of those things. I was just answering the question that was asked.

Quote

In the original post, there was only 1 thing that attracted my attention and it was the choice between limit raise or a constructive raise in hand 1.

Yes, and you're welcome to comment on anything that interests you. I, however, am going to continue to restrict my comments to the things that interest me.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2012-April-27, 17:35, said:

Actually it was to you and MikeH Although you didnt call others "resulters" i was mainly disapointed that you and MikeH totally ignored the part which i wanted to hear most from you guys, just because where they ended was a good spot.

Well, my posts tend to be too long anyway so I am trying not to discuss every single point that arises on every post (plus I will miss some anyway).

Here, the OP was complaining about losing imps by 'missing' a game that happened to make, even tho it was a bad game..bad even for a vul game at imps.

Frankly, I would be happy to have missed this game, and the fact that it made wouldn't change my view of that...I think wanting to be in this game is resulting...since you only want to be there if it makes.

I did point out that I wouldn't have stopped in 2♥....that I would have treated the responding hand as a limit raise...so I hardly think that I am anti-resulting when I say that.

I didn't, in my first post, say anything about whether I would expect to reach game. later, I observed that there is a very real reason to stop in 3♥...the opening hand has a huge LTC. However, the vast majority of players are point counters and would accept the 3 card LR because they have 14 hcp. Given that the game is vulnerable, and given that my counterparts will almost always be in game, it would take a strong will to pass the invite.

Since I knew that game made (from the OP) and since I expressly said I wouldn't make the 2♥ raise, I am puzzled by why you and Cherdano think I was engaged in any form of resulting or anti-resulting. I said that this was a hand that shouldn't be posted and I stick by that. Had game failed, we'd never have seen this hand, except, maybe, as 'how to stay out of game?'

[FrancesHinden]

The range for a constructive raise must depend on your style of opening bids. If you treat responder's hand on the first deal as a limit raise, that means you are prepared to drive to the 3-level opposite a minimum opening bid*. Playing a style where you open all 5332 11s and some 5422 10s (which is consistent with a strong club approach and my partner and I do anyway) then I think this is a maximum 2H bid.


*possibly not if you are playing 1NT response as semi-forcing

[straube]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-29, 04:21, said:

The range for a constructive raise must depend on your style of opening bids. If you treat responder's hand on the first deal as a limit raise, that means you are prepared to drive to the 3-level opposite a minimum opening bid*. Playing a style where you open all 5332 11s and some 5422 10s (which is consistent with a strong club approach and my partner and I do anyway) then I think this is a maximum 2H bid.


*possibly not if you are playing 1NT response as semi-forcing

We actually play...

1H-1N semiforcing
1H-2D constructive raise or limit raise
1H-2H less than constructive raise

So our actual auction was 1H-2D, 2H-P which effectively showed 1) a hand that would decline opposite a constructive raise and 2) that responder had a constructive raise

[han]

Six of my favorite posters are arguing, but I'm not sure about what. This thread I agreed with everybody!

[MrAce]

han, on 2012-April-30, 13:31, said:

Six of my favorite posters are arguing, but I'm not sure about what. This thread I agreed with everybody!

Andy has a good point though, i admit i overlooked at the question OP asked.

Sorry Andy.