Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!plh
From: plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower)
Newsgroups: net.rec.bridge
Subject: Re: Conventions : Intermediate Two-bids
Message-ID: <1328@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 14:26:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.1328
Posted: Fri Mar 15 14:26:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 00:02:00 EST
References: <1146@ukma.UUCP>, <23170@lanl.ARPA>
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 14

I have been using intermediate 2's almost exactly as described by "ttw" , but
they still seem to have the following problem:  many cold slams are missed
despite the strong opening bid.  Post-mortems rarely reveal a good solution.
We use asking cue-bids and Roman Key-Card Blackwood, which help, but these
hands still seem to defy accurate bidding without resort to extreme science.

Let me note that such hands are certainly not any easier to bid when opened
with one of a suit.  They DO insure you don't get passed out when you have
game-in-hand, but then so does my mother's method: she opens such hands at
the four level!  I use I2B's because I prefer constructive methods to nuisance
bids such as weak twos, but I'm not sure just how helpful they are.

Paul Hightower
University of Kentucky