An annoying, petty thing that I just wanted to post
#21
Posted 2010-September-27, 14:46
#22
Posted 2010-September-27, 14:46
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 03:24 PM, said:
NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:
"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"
You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.
No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.
With 15, I really like 2/1 instead of 1NT even if I play a forcing 1NT.
#23
Posted 2010-September-27, 14:56
If 1nt can be a game force, you owe your opponents an alert before experimenting with it.
What is baby oil made of?
#24
Posted 2010-September-27, 16:42
"If you psych and your side gets a bad result, it's your fault, regardless of how moronic an action partner took later on." - I'd say passing forcing 1NT is a psych, and add "before" in "later on". But more specifically:
"Don't pass forcing bids. Your exquisite judgement may get these right more often then not, but there'll be payback on later hands when partner jumps fearing your passing his forcing bid."
One of mine:
"When you've made a decision, stick with it. Sure, upgrade or downgrade, but if you thought your hand was an opener when you started, keep bidding it as if it is." It's almost always wrong to say "yeah, well, really it's not" the second round, even if it *was* wrong the first round.
Of course, another of Jeff's rules is:
"If something strange is going on, double the Israeli."
so I wouldn't take anything *too* seriously.
#25
Posted 2010-September-27, 17:21
He made the first mistake. He made the more egregious mistake. He started whining first. He loses the ATB.
#26
Posted 2010-September-27, 19:05
manudude03, on Sep 27 2010, 06:50 PM, said:
I play this too but in the context of limited openings. I am not convinced the structure works so well for standard openings.
#27
Posted 2010-September-27, 20:00
#28
Posted 2010-September-27, 20:15
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 03:35 PM, said:
It reminds me of some of those 3-3 fits I've played in when each partner thinks that a 4-3 wouldn't be so bad.
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
#29
Posted 2010-September-28, 02:11
#30
Posted 2010-September-28, 02:17
However, it's important to make sure partner is understanding about this kind of stuff (I've had partners who are, and partners who aren't). One key to getting such a partnership to work out is being willing to accept blame any time you take such an off-center action and it doesn't work out (regardless of what else partner may have done "wrong" on the hand).
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#31
Posted 2010-September-28, 03:25
Phil, on Sep 27 2010, 04:24 PM, said:
NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:
"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"
You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.
No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.
The reason that I feel that it is wrong to pass is that
"3NT=13-15 2(443)"
covers a lot of hands and on some of these it will be wrong to play in 3NT and 4♠ will be better. Certainly a hand with all the points in the short suits may wish to investigate alternative contracts first and these can presumably start with 1NT in your methods.
So although 3NT shows 13-15 2(443) hands, not all 13-15 2(443) hands will bid it.
#32
Posted 2010-September-28, 06:41
ggwhiz, on Sep 27 2010, 03:56 PM, said:
With concentrated honors and T9 in the long suit, I open this 1♠ in my sleep.
I don't think responder is 100% blameless here. Yes, opener passed when he "can't", but responder also held a hand he "can't".
Still, as pointed out by bid em up, responder is often simply heading for a partscore in any suit other than spades. This is the real problem with the pass of 1NT IMO - not that it may miss game, but that it will frequently reach the wrong partscore.
-gwnn
#33
Posted 2010-September-28, 08:43
Passing the forcing notrump was probably not a good idea.
#34
Posted 2010-September-28, 12:58
cardsharp, on Sep 28 2010, 04:25 AM, said:
I play this 1M - 3N under duress. I don't think its playable with 2M (344) - and its barely playable with 2M - 3oM - 4♦ / 4♣.
This isn't a regular partnership, so there isn't much at stake either way.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#35
Posted 2010-September-28, 14:48
#36
Posted 2010-September-28, 15:24
barmar, on Sep 28 2010, 08:48 PM, said:
Fred published a series of articles describing a similar philosophy for 2/1 but using a different solution (2NT from memory but it has been a while). I think it is still available on BBO using the Windows client version. You might find it is just what you are looking for!
#37
Posted 2010-September-28, 15:52
barmar, on Sep 28 2010, 02:48 PM, said:
Not true. You can either play J2N and bid 3NT, or you can not play j2N and bid 2NT. You still can have your 5 card minors. But there are hands which, by agreement can start with a forcing NT and end in game+ opposite a minimum 1M opener. That isn't one of them.
#38
Posted 2010-September-28, 21:15
I found one when I picked up Qxxxxx, --, --, Qtxxxxx and pard opend 1♥
I bid 1♠ and pard bid 3♦, 100% game force.
Pard was on the laptop in the dining room and I opened the door to the upstairs office a crack and passed. 1.6 seconds later.... ARRRGH!
Pards moose was so good, she only went down 2 white and both black suit splits were horrific. Lucky for me but don't try this at home.
What is baby oil made of?
#39
Posted 2010-September-29, 15:14
ggwhiz, on Sep 28 2010, 10:15 PM, said:
But that's where you tried it! Perhaps, "...don't try this at the club!"
Call me Desdinova...Eternal Light
C. It's the nexus of the crisis and the origin of storms.
IV: ace 333: pot should be game, idk
e: "Maybe God remembered how cute you were as a carrot."
#40
Posted 2010-September-29, 19:28