IMPs. Reasonable partner, no discussion.
Convention With No Name, or Partner With No Clue?
#1
Posted 2012-November-11, 18:50
IMPs. Reasonable partner, no discussion.
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#2
Posted 2012-November-11, 18:56
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
#3
Posted 2012-November-11, 19:30
Edit: If, I thought for a minute that partner played 4C (and 4D) both as CWNN, with 4C slammish and 4D not, as we do ---then 5H denying 1st round control of the pointed suits but a whole bunch of extra hearts.
This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-November-11, 21:12
#5
Posted 2012-November-11, 20:13
What is baby oil made of?
#6
Posted 2012-November-12, 01:39
#7
Posted 2012-November-12, 02:28
the hog, on 2012-November-12, 01:39, said:
Yep, that is the half of the convention many people use ---another reason not to use names even for conventions with no names.
#9
Posted 2012-November-12, 07:00
aguahombre, on 2012-November-11, 19:30, said:
Edit: If, I thought for a minute that partner played 4C (and 4D) both as CWNN, with 4C slammish and 4D not, as we do ---then 5H denying 1st round control of the pointed suits but a whole bunch of extra hearts.
I didn't know of this version.... thx.
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall
" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh
K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
#10
Posted 2012-November-12, 08:13
the hog, on 2012-November-12, 01:39, said:
So what's your call?
Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
#11
Posted 2012-November-12, 09:10
A very disciplined 4♣ call would look like this:
x(x)
KQJx
x(x)
AKQJxx
Partner should be 2-4-1-6 or 1-4-2-6. In either case, we are off 2 or 3 tricks on top.
If partner is stronger, he can move again on his own. The only problem would be if he is 2-4-1-6 with the ♦A in addition to the rest (possibly with Kxxx of hearts), in which case he might not want to move forward with xx in spades. But I am not going to move beyond 4♥ in the hope that he has a diamond control.
#12
Posted 2012-November-12, 09:49
George Carlin
#14
Posted 2012-November-12, 10:42
fromageGB, on 2012-November-12, 10:16, said:
No. The way we use it, 4C=slammish and 4D=not slammish (no matter which minor is opened).
X
KJXX
XX
AKQJxx 4♦
X
KQXX
AX
AKQJXX 4♣
#15
Posted 2012-November-12, 11:55
#16
Posted 2012-November-12, 12:02
fromageGB, on 2012-November-12, 11:55, said:
Yes, and 4C is still the slammish one if we have long diamonds and open 1♦ instead of 1♣
#17
Posted 2012-November-12, 13:47
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2012-November-20, 12:10
#19
Posted 2012-November-21, 04:10
They both knew that 1C P 1H P 4C was 4-6 in hearts and clubs, but one of them thought this also applied after the 1S overcall, and the other one thought that 4C was now a pre-emptive type call with very long clubs.
Neither was 'right' as such, but it's not enough to think that you play this meaning for 4C without an overcall and THEREFORE you play it after the overcall as well.

Help
