gwnn, on 2012-October-05, 06:35, said:
What was the name of the treatment? I know it was kind of catchy.
Impossible Two Spades not so Impossible?
This was sort of funny at the table for me. I was dealt responder's hand. I immediately noticed the "Not So Impossible 2
♠" immediately, of course, but knew that my partner would never have read up on this idea. However, I then realized that he made me play Flannery. With Flannery, a 1
♠ response to 1
♥ promises 5, of course, so this meant that I did not have to pretend momentarily that I did not have spades. Then, because he takes everything as natural, 2
♠ as a 4-card suit would be obvious, and the long club suit just a matter of deduction.
The first problem, however, is that Flannery removes the chances of partner having the 4-5-3-1 hand, which makes my 2
♠ call have one fewer landing zone. But, 3-5-3-2 or 3-5-4-1 would be fine.
The second problem is what partner is supposed to do with his actual hand. Passing was as good as anything, as it turned out.
The auction occurred in the Instant Matchpoint game. The booklet auction was (expletives from the actual booklet):
1
♥-P-1
♠-P
2
♦-P-&%$#@!
I found this funny, because our auction was (expletives from me):
1
♥-P-1NT-P
2
♦-P-2
♠-P
&%$#@!
+110 was worth 84MP.
"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.
Help
1NT was forcing.