You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even so, he might hope that declarer has only 6 ♣-tricks and needs to develop a ♥-trick. S:Ax, H:KQx, D:KQ, C:AKQJxx. Of course pard must switch to ♠ if a solid 7 is carved in stone.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like Louis I would not splinter with a stiff A and bid 3♣ (not a minimum in my book!). Then 4♣ (4♦ would confirm ♥), 4♦-4N (D.I.); 5♦ (Extras, ♦A)-5♠ (looking for grand, good ♠); ? Either 6♣ lacking ♠ support or 7♣ with extra good ♥.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, everybody. I had KQxxx, JTxxx, xx, x. 4♣ certainly is an option, but I think 4♥ emphasizes on ♠ and ♥ and distribution rather then hcp. Pard passed and my 5♥ was passed out. In the post-mortem I suggested 5♦ and his opinion was that he had a minimum strong 1♣ with 5♥ as already shown and a doubtfull ♣Q. You have convinced me that X is the correct call. I'd pull the double of course and pard should be able to read me for a stiff ♣ and bid 6♥.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Germany and I admit that I'm not sure if I get away with it. But must people make silly assumptions about the system I play. If they know so much, why do they ask?
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, the law is irrelevant! Do you never bid 4M on a 5-3/4-4-fit? Yes, I would expect 4♣ and even 4♦ to be a splinter for ♥. As for the game force, it is our agreement. BTW we would bid 1♦ not 1♠ even with a bad 6 or even 7 like Kxxx, xxx, Kxx, Jxx, which in my count has the value of 6-.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, that is also my question! We do not have an explicit agreement for this exact situation. The general agreement is 3♥ stronger then 4♥ in an FG-situation. I intended to adress Steve with the previous comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously declarer must have answered for one of ♥ or ♠ and the answer should have been “RKCB for X, but we have no agreemment for this situation”. However, you asked the wrong question. Leave out your own interpretations, maybe it is not BW at all. Just ask for the meaning of 4N. We play D.I. In a lot of situations. Usually I explain 4N even if they ask the BW-question. If I really dislike opps I answer “the question is irrelevant”. I could probably even answer truthfully to the question asked and lead them on the wrong track.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can explain Scrabble rules in 5 minutes, then you can start to play. Chess rules need maybe 10 minutes plus another 20 on a simple opening and continuations, then you can start to play. I have given bridge lessons (40 years ago). 10 lessons à 2.5 hours (including practice). After that the students could start to play at our club. It may be possible to play with less then that, but who do you play with. As I wanted to learn bridge I had a 193x edition of Culbertson (from my father). After reading the book, I wanted to play, but nobody understood my babbling about quick tricks.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe not exactly what you are thinking of, but still a humorous statement on cheating: “Dishonoust Cheating” in Victor Mollo's “Murder in the Menagerie”.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, in your reality I am required to know exactly how opps bid, otherwise I cannot know what to alert and what not. If I know exactly how opps bid, they do not have to alert. Since I have the same rights as opps, they are required to know exactly how I bid. Why should I alert, if they already know exactly how I bid,.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So obvious to me, that I didn't even think that anything else is remotely possible. Also, there is no need to read the complete CC. First I look at signalling, because I cannot look at the CC before falsecarding. Next I look at the basic system and 1C/D opening bids, so I can with agree with pard if we treat those as natural or artificial. Last I look at the NT-opening, because knowing the strength is also important when they open 1m. The rest comes during bidding when necessary.
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf
Ronald Kalf