Help
4NT is 100% quantitative to me. I really dislike the start here - how can we be lacking a GF raise?
4m would be natural and slammish, 4♥ a delayed 3-card raise. Partner might go on over that, but that's odds off.
The only real alternatives for me are 5♥ and 6♥. At the table I'm pretty sure I'd chose the latter.
ugh space wasted to show your strength
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2008-June-12, 13:11
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,937
- Joined: 2004-June-05
Posted 2008-June-12, 13:19
skaeran, on Jun 12 2008, 02:11 PM, said:
4NT is 100% quantitative to me. I really dislike the start here - how can we be lacking a GF raise?
Just seems backward to me. If I don't have a GF raise, of course 4NT should be BW and not quantitative.
These answers just feel like "Well, I don't play precision, so I'm going to answer like all the previous bids were Standard American".
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2008-June-12, 13:41
jtfanclub, on Jun 12 2008, 09:19 PM, said:
skaeran, on Jun 12 2008, 02:11 PM, said:
4NT is 100% quantitative to me. I really dislike the start here - how can we be lacking a GF raise?
Just seems backward to me. If I don't have a GF raise, of course 4NT should be BW and not quantitative.
These answers just feel like "Well, I don't play precision, so I'm going to answer like all the previous bids were Standard American".
????
4NT quantitative is still more useful than Blackwood or KC for hearts even if I lack a GF raise.
Even if not having a forcing raise is stone age, the rest of our methods shouldn't be stone age too.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,951
- Joined: 2008-April-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Sussex, England
Posted 2008-June-12, 13:41
jtfanclub, on Jun 12 2008, 07:19 PM, said:
Just seems backward to me. If I don't have a GF raise, of course 4NT should be BW and not quantitative.
These answers just feel like "Well, I don't play precision, so I'm going to answer like all the previous bids were Standard American".
These answers just feel like "Well, I don't play precision, so I'm going to answer like all the previous bids were Standard American".
Well, it is sometimes said that Americans suffer from the "not invented here syndrome" - possibly with some justification. However, that doesn't mean to say that us Brits/Acol players are immune. I play 2N as GF over 1M even though I put "Acol(ish)" on my card - I recommend other Acolites consider it too.
Nick
"Pass is your friend" - my brother in law - who likes to bid a lot.
#25
- - - A AKQJT9876543
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,625
- Joined: 2007-October-02
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-June-12, 17:18
I eventually bid 6♥ which seemed to surprise the opps.
Trumps broke 4-0 thankfully onside, so partner managed to scramble to 12 tricks.
Wayne Somerville
#26
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-June-13, 07:06
With the methods described, 4♥ over 3NT is forcing. I'd assume that without discussion (or, at least, I would have done in the days when I played this system).
Opener has promised only four hearts, but about 18+ if balanced. For responder to want to play 4♥ he must have four of them too. However, he can have four hearts only if he was planning to raise to game over a minimum rebid. Therefore we are known to have approximately the values for slam, so 4♥ is forcing.
Opener has promised only four hearts, but about 18+ if balanced. For responder to want to play 4♥ he must have four of them too. However, he can have four hearts only if he was planning to raise to game over a minimum rebid. Therefore we are known to have approximately the values for slam, so 4♥ is forcing.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#27
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-June-13, 07:08
pclayton, on Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM, said:
ACOL, right?
No, Acol. Acol is a name, not an acronym.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#28
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-June-13, 10:22
gnasher, on Jun 13 2008, 08:08 AM, said:
pclayton, on Jun 10 2008, 04:49 PM, said:
ACOL, right?
No, Acol. Acol is a name, not an acronym.
I'm sure there's a funny acronym translation available, though.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
1♥-(P)-2♦-2♠
3NT-(P)-6♥-AP