BBO Discussion Forums: Burns' Rule and Cappelletti - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Burns' Rule and Cappelletti

#1 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2014-June-12, 17:45


Sorry I don't have a real hand diagram, but this was a Video Bridge hand, and I exited before saving the hand. Spots are approximate.

The explanation of the 2♠ bid included "4+♠". Why would East make this bid?
0

#2 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,401
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Odense, Denmark
  • Interests:History, languages

Posted 2014-June-13, 09:02

It comes up all the time, GIB bidding its own 4-card suit as a contract improvement even when having tolerance for partner's suit.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#3 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,155
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2014-June-13, 13:34

IMO 2♥ should promise 5+ H, not 4 as GIB plays now. 2♠ should be 6+.

I don't see how Capp is really playable if 2♥ can be only 4. Often have hands like East, if you are in 5-2 heart fit it's not ideal but may be tolerable, do you try to get to partner's minor when it might be diamonds? 5-2 a level lower is better than 4-3 a level higher. Are there any sources advocating M allowing 4 cd M? I thought originally these bids showed 5-5, I think it evolved to 5M-4m, but I think allowing 4M-5m also is just really bad.
0
Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users