[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2012-May-14, 03:02, said:

-FNJs after, say, (1S)-2H-(2S). 3m should be natural.

Yes, but what about p-(1S)-2H-(2S); 3m?

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-06, 08:14, said:

zero=egg (like in goose egg)=L'oeff=love

Maybe. Or maybe it comes from the expression "to play for love". The origin of the expression is disputed.

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2012-May-14, 06:53, said:

Yes, but what about p-(1S)-2H-(2S); 3m?

This is what I play too. By a passed hand this is a FNJ, typically a x4{x5} shape 8 count, but by a non-passed hand it is natural and forcing.

[han]

Cohen and Berkowitz? They were not particularly aggressive preemptors I believe.

[nige1]

han, on 2012-May-14, 07:39, said:

Cohen and Berkowitz? They were not particularly aggressive preemptors I believe.

think I think meant Bergen I've read books by many Americans but have played few of them

[Mbodell]

gnasher, on 2012-May-14, 04:46, said:

It's interesting that people seem to dislike the second one more than the first. Personally I prefer the second: there's less risk that we can make game and more chance that the opponents can make game, and the vulnerability makes a big difference. Change the order of the suits to x Jxx xxxx QJ109x, and I might even do it.

Is that true? With 4=3=1=5 the major length might make game less likely than the 4=1=2=6 hand. I guess 4 HCP versus 9 HCP probably more than makes up for it, but a recent bridge winner thread referenced a tyson2k thread on preemption that talked about the danger of preempting with length in one minor and a stiff in the other as being much worse than you'd think thanks to the opponents game being much more rare.

[phil_20686]

gnasher said:

1336992418[/url]' post='638146']
If so, that's not particularly a problem: the big gains from preempting are when the opponents get to the wrong contract because you took away their space for exploring. Finding a sacrifice is much less useful, because the potential gain is smaller and there is rarely certainty that sacrificing is correct. There's a reason that we call them "preempts" rather than "sacrifice suggestions".

this is true in a minor, but no so true in a major, especially spades. I think it's important that all these examples are for minor prempts

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-14, 05:04, said:

[/b]"Game all"[/i] and "Love all" are UK (tennis) terms that permit two-letter abbreviations for all vuls (NS, EW, LA, and GA) . I prefer old-fashioned Traffic-light jargon;

• Green (They vul)
• White (None vul)
• Amber (Both vul) and
• Red (We vul)

I think that these descriptions are poor, since all but amber are also (and more commonly) used to describe the vulnerability of one pair. So there will always be ambiguity and the need to describe further.