You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was discussing this last night as it came up in the USBF.
Yes I do think it is better either to play this or some form of transfer advance. You shouldn't play stuff after a 1N overcall though. I.e
(1♣)-1♦-(1♥)-? You should play whatever you play over 1♦-(1♥) (1♣)-1♦-(1N)-? There is a big difference between this auction and 1♦-(1N). In one sequence you probably play double = T/O and the other = penalties.
The interesting sequence is: (1♦)-1♥-(X)-2♣ = Does this show diamonds? Even if 1♦ promises 4♦ or 5♦
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I clearly do not have any idea of global trends. All the circles I run in seem to play this as a FJ and would argue it as automatic. Having never bothered to properly learn or play FJ, I thought I was simply out of touch with the correct approach.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again I agree with MR's style and think it is worth adding that if you preference 3♣ with better diamonds this is also a case for bidding 2N with certain hands that do have slight preference for a minor. E.g 3-3-3-4.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with MR that rulings seem to have gone down a dark path. Instead of restoring equity we are now left with people using them to gain left, right and centre.
I do think that partner should not be allowed to ask that question. If they are allowed then they should always be asking in theory, a practice that virtually no-one adheres to.
Is this truly a worrying loophole in the rules? It is a somewhat abstract and cynical view. It brings to mind the Mollo hand where the Rabbit revokes and loses two tricks but gains 3. Modern rules obviously solve that issue as it was thought that an unethical player could do this feasibly. However, here we have a defensive player in a position where they have to guess whether their partners major penalty card is more costly then the revoke penalty. When you add in time constraints/morals, I think this situation is highly unfeasible and not worth worrying too much over.
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Yes I do think it is better either to play this or some form of transfer advance. You shouldn't play stuff after a 1N overcall though. I.e
(1♣)-1♦-(1♥)-? You should play whatever you play over 1♦-(1♥)
(1♣)-1♦-(1N)-? There is a big difference between this auction and 1♦-(1N). In one sequence you probably play double = T/O and the other = penalties.
The interesting sequence is:
(1♦)-1♥-(X)-2♣ = Does this show diamonds? Even if 1♦ promises 4♦ or 5♦
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
a) I have finally made an article with no gaps/mistakes in it or
b) I have finally made an article which has put everyone to sleep
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
a) not led a trump (especially one as pivotal as the T♣)
b) bid 2♦ rather than doubling
Will Roper
Will Roper
Will Roper
I do think that partner should not be allowed to ask that question. If they are allowed then they should always be asking in theory, a practice that virtually no-one adheres to.
Is this truly a worrying loophole in the rules? It is a somewhat abstract and cynical view. It brings to mind the Mollo hand where the Rabbit revokes and loses two tricks but gains 3. Modern rules obviously solve that issue as it was thought that an unethical player could do this feasibly. However, here we have a defensive player in a position where they have to guess whether their partners major penalty card is more costly then the revoke penalty. When you add in time constraints/morals, I think this situation is highly unfeasible and not worth worrying too much over.
But hey, to each their own.