You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an alternative way, When accepting 5 is Gerber, to allow either or both partners to upgrade in inviting and accepting. Granted, it makes more sense to do that in an auction like 1N - 4N where 5 level bids are needed to find a safer suit slam than 6NT. Here, the suits have been explored already, so the invitee answering A should not be a problem. However, it is simpler not to have to worry about what the entire auction was and just say in all 4N quantitative sequence, 5 is Gerber.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steven, the reason why 1 getting passed out is highly unlikely (OK, let's agree it is not exactly 0) is that there are 26 points out there, and at worst both opponents have 2 .
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not being able to open strong 1 with this hand is completely different from forcing 2. If you are playing limited opening, there is no way to force after opening 1 in many partnership, the hand therefore becomes unbiddable. That is not the case for forcing 2.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steven, why is 1 a distortion? The chance of getting passed out is basically 0. You have a forcing 3 rebid available. If opponents interfere, that creates some problem, but so will they over 2 (different kind of problem). When you open 1 and start bidding like crazy, partner knows you have super distributional hand rather than super “strong” hand.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, the whole point is whatever you play, if there is an agreement that it may be that hand, you need to disclose. I think to say a 5=2=3=3 hand is + higher without qualification is disingenuous and misleading. If i play that way, I would explain it as + higher but may be 3.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, you and I are in agreement.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I have commented elsewhere, I believe it falls in the same category as weak 1NT - 2M (natural and drop dead) where opener is never allowed to raise. Meckstroth talked about the problem of allowing such risk free psyches long ago.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with disclosure occurs not when 2 was pulled, but when 2 was bid.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, I have no probem with alerting and then explain as + higher or shenanigan. I do have a problem with saying shenanigan is just Bridge unless it is common in the circle of players. I did say in an earlier comment that if this is just Bridge in expert circle, i have no comment (as I don't play in expert circle).

Responding 2M to weak 1NT with psyche (you don't have that M) is risk free if opener is never supposed to raise you.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised N did not bid 2 over your X.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the well known example of this is playing Cappelletti 2 and doubling responder's bid to show values and support for whichever is overcall's suit. I have never heard it called Exclusion X.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, that was not what I intended or meant. E.g. referring the Rosenbergs as a wonderful Bridge family would be perfectly fine. My point was that when the personal relationship is relevant, there is nothing wrong to point to it. Otherwise, it is gratuitous.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oren, on this topic, Michael and Debbie commented here as individuals (thus far). When one makes a gratuitous reference to their husband and wife relationship, it has an implication that that influences their objectivity on the comment of the other. I am sure Marty did not mean to imply that, but it is what it is.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, what do you have against yourself?
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, when you are discussing in a public forum, it is best not to refer to people's personal relationship unless it is relevant to what you are saying.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please explain how it protects expert players.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is not close to the other hand (1 loser), but it still has more controls than losers. It is a double edged sword to open it 2. or even may be your best contract, and how difficult to find that would depend on their system.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neal, thanks, my point remains.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR, 5-1 is relevant because then 6 would be down. I agree running all the way was not declarer's intention, but he was lucky in his wording.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, declarer's intent was obviously to use to discard the 3 losers in dummy. Otherwise how would he know the suit was running at this point? So he was lucky his wording was run , not discard 2 and a on the good . Otherwise, it would be right to say that after 3 more , he would play the Q, and may play a to get to dummy. So if he had said what he meant, Michael Rosenberg would be right.
Dec. 4
.

Bottom Home Top